Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was
supported at first reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee
Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you and your like.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
consistently displayed by the coalition
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly fromYou really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? SHame on you.
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee
Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was
supported at first reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee
Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
On 2024-09-11, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
Once again it is Labour who are racist. The ACT bill is an attempt to obtain >the view of the Treat, what it means in real world terms 180 odd years
later, so NZ can move forward.
At present we have the academic and history side expressed by very little
was to what the treaty means to the average Kiwi.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly
allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
That as maybe, however it is a different topic.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:50:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not post what you are now replying too. Do be more careful and musch less foolish.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So have the NZTPU criticised the cost of the Treaty of Waitangi
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you >>and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so >>>>upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>>
consistently displayed by the coalition
your like.
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from >>>Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in vain for criticism >>>from the NZ TPU. Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing >>>much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
deletion bill, or the spendup and high salaries of the Ministry of >regulation? >https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350410072/red-tape-ministrys-410000-spend-consultants
All off topic. You are deliberately diverting the topic, no surprise there.You really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? SHame >>on you.
See then: >https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulatory%20Impact%20Assessment%20Treaty%20Principles%20Bill.pdf
and from that report:
"Although the proposal to introduce the Bill could have some value, we >consider the status quo is more beneficial. Under this option, the
courts and the Waitangi Tribunal would continue to articulate the
meaning of the Treaty principles in line with the existing legislation
and practice. This option would uphold Treaty obligations to the same
extent as they are now"
and
"The Waitangi Tribunal has released its interim report on the urgent
inquiry into the Treaty Principles Bill. In the report, Nga matapono
The Principles: The Interim Report of the Tomokia Nga Tatau o
Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the
Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies, it
found that the Treaty Principles Bill policy is unfair,
discriminatory, and inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty and >contrary to the article 2 guarantee of tino rangatiratanga. It also
found that it will be significantly prejudicial to Maori. The findings
have informed our analysis."
On 11 Sep 2024 23:58:22 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Just another person who wants to see our democracy abandoned. Nothing new there.
On 2024-09-11, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so >>>>upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>>
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
Once again it is Labour who are racist. The ACT bill is an attempt to obtain >>the view of the Treat, what it means in real world terms 180 odd years >>later, so NZ can move forward.
At present we have the academic and history side expressed by very little >>was to what the treaty means to the average Kiwi.
See: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly
allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
That as maybe, however it is a different topic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So have the NZTPU criticised the cost of the Treaty of Waitangi
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
consistently displayed by the coalition
your like.
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in vain for criticism >>from the NZ TPU. Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
You really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? SHame >on you.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the
current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading,
and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog
or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected
to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a
historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill
to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading.
National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first
reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:50:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not post what you are now replying too. Do be more careful and musch less
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So have the NZTPU criticised the cost of the Treaty of Waitangi
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you >>>and
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so >>>>>upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital.
I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes >>>>consistently displayed by the coalition
your like.
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>>>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from >>>>Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy >>>>of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in vain for criticism >>>>from the NZ TPU. Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing >>>>much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
deletion bill, or the spendup and high salaries of the Ministry of >>regulation? >>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350410072/red-tape-ministrys-410000-spend-consultants
foolish.
All off topic. You are deliberately diverting the topic, no surprise there.
You really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? SHame
on you.
See then: >>https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulatory%20Impact%20Assessment%20Treaty%20Principles%20Bill.pdf
and from that report:
"Although the proposal to introduce the Bill could have some value, we >>consider the status quo is more beneficial. Under this option, the
courts and the Waitangi Tribunal would continue to articulate the
meaning of the Treaty principles in line with the existing legislation
and practice. This option would uphold Treaty obligations to the same >>extent as they are now"
and
"The Waitangi Tribunal has released its interim report on the urgent >>inquiry into the Treaty Principles Bill. In the report, Nga matapono
The Principles: The Interim Report of the Tomokia Nga Tatau o
Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the
Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies, it
found that the Treaty Principles Bill policy is unfair,
discriminatory, and inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty and >>contrary to the article 2 guarantee of tino rangatiratanga. It also
found that it will be significantly prejudicial to Maori. The findings
have informed our analysis."
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:50:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So have the NZTPU criticised the cost of the Treaty of Waitangi
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you and
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>>
consistently displayed by the coalition
your like.
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from >>>Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in vain for criticism >>>from the NZ TPU. Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing >>>much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
deletion bill, or the spendup and high salaries of the Ministry of >regulation? >https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350410072/red-tape-ministrys-410000-spend-consultants
You really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? SHame >>on you.
See then: >https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulatory%20Impact%20Assessment%20Treaty%20Principles%20Bill.pdf
and from that report:
"Although the proposal to introduce the Bill could have some value, we >consider the status quo is more beneficial. Under this option, the
courts and the Waitangi Tribunal would continue to articulate the
meaning of the Treaty principles in line with the existing legislation
and practice. This option would uphold Treaty obligations to the same
extent as they are now"
and
"The Waitangi Tribunal has released its interim report on the urgent
inquiry into the Treaty Principles Bill. In the report, Nga matapono
The Principles: The Interim Report of the Tomokia Nga Tatau o
Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the
Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies, it
found that the Treaty Principles Bill policy is unfair,
discriminatory, and inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty and >contrary to the article 2 guarantee of tino rangatiratanga. It also
found that it will be significantly prejudicial to Maori. The findings
have informed our analysis."
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:17:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyI suspect it is more about Maori receiving preferential treatment from
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset, >>>unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from
Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
the previous government and therefore objecting to everything the
current government does that seeks to restore the situation to the
status quo at the 2020 general election.
The ACT bill may be different to the NZF bill but the intent is the
same. Why
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism
from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
Yet again you cannot stay on topic. This thread is about the ACT and
NZF Bills and associated reactions and debate.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:01:19 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:17:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyI suspect it is more about Maori receiving preferential treatment from
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political capital. >>>
consistently displayed by the coalition, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from >>>Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy
of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
the previous government and therefore objecting to everything the
current government does that seeks to restore the situation to the
status quo at the 2020 general election.
The ACT bill may be different to the NZF bill but the intent is the
same. Why
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in van for criticism >>>from the NZ TP! Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing
much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far
with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
Yet again you cannot stay on topic. This thread is about the ACT and
NZF Bills and associated reactions and debate.
The honesty and integrity of ACT are well illustrated by their
dishonesty over the Ministry of Regulation; and an indication of the >increased cost that ACT plan on imposing on New Zealand in relation to >proposed changes to interpretation of Te Tiriti.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:46:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't assume you know what I think of the report, that is just more of your offensive behaviour.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:50:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did not post what you are now replying too. Do be more careful and musch >>less
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So have the NZTPU criticised the cost of the Treaty of Waitangi
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:54:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No of course it is not racisst. It is a response to racist attitudes by you >>>>and
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Thanks to Kiwiblog I have had a brief look at this. This Bill was >>>>>>>supported at first reading:Once more an excellent question Crash. I have no idea why they are so >>>>>>upset,
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20060726_00001143/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill-first
but not supported in the second reading:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansS_20071107_00001179/vote-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-deletion-bill
Now I cannot find an actual copy of the Bill or the Select Committee >>>>>>>Report but it seems remarkable when compared to the huha from the >>>>>>>current bill proposed by Act.
Most interesting to see who supported the bill at its first reading, >>>>>>>and who is opposed to the ACT bill today.
Finally, let me make it clear that this is not a thread about Kiwiblog >>>>>>>or its author. It is also not a thread about ACT or anyone connected >>>>>>>to ACT. It is a thread about a proposed Bill (from ACT) and a >>>>>>>historical bill (from NZ First). Labour supported the historical bill >>>>>>>to its first reading and voted against it at its second reading. >>>>>>>National is promising only to support the ACT bill to its first >>>>>>>reading.
Why is everyone getting to so worked up about the ACT bill?
unless it is seen as an opportunity to make some sort of political >>>>>>capital.
I suspect it is more about the essentially racist attitudes >>>>>consistently displayed by the coalition
your like.
, but in particular from ACT.
NZ First know there is nothing in it from them. National are stupidly >>>>>allowing 6 months of consultation.
The discussion on that earlier bill is interesting, particularly from >>>>>Chris Finlayson (I only read a few pages so there may be others worthy >>>>>of note). He at least was not racist about the Treaty.
Now we face huge expense or no benefit - but look in vain for criticism >>>>>from the NZ TPU. Already Seymour's ministry of regulation is costing >>>>>much more than the productivity commission it replaced, and so far >>>>>with nothing of benefit to New Zealand to show for it.
deletion bill, or the spendup and high salaries of the Ministry of >>>regulation? >>>https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350410072/red-tape-ministrys-410000-spend-consultants
foolish.
All off topic. You are deliberately diverting the topic, no surprise there.
You really do have to divert Crash's post to your own agenda don't you? >>>>SHame
on you.
See then: >>>https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulatory%20Impact%20Assessment%20Treaty%20Principles%20Bill.pdf
and from that report:
"Although the proposal to introduce the Bill could have some value, we >>>consider the status quo is more beneficial. Under this option, the
courts and the Waitangi Tribunal would continue to articulate the
meaning of the Treaty principles in line with the existing legislation >>>and practice. This option would uphold Treaty obligations to the same >>>extent as they are now"
and
"The Waitangi Tribunal has released its interim report on the urgent >>>inquiry into the Treaty Principles Bill. In the report, Nga matapono
The Principles: The Interim Report of the Tomokia Nga Tatau o
Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the
Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies, it >>>found that the Treaty Principles Bill policy is unfair,
discriminatory, and inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty and >>>contrary to the article 2 guarantee of tino rangatiratanga. It also
found that it will be significantly prejudicial to Maori. The findings >>>have informed our analysis."
How can that report be off-topic? It is the Regulatory Impact Report >required from the Ministry of Justice on a bill that is proposed to be >introduced by the Associate Minister of Justice. It is required to be >politically impartial. You may not like the conclusions of that
report, Tony,
but it is directly addressing a Bill that is beingNothing to do with this topic, you introduced the divesrion, now go back to the topic or don't bother to post.
forward now that clearly has similarities to the Principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.
The relevance to current events is clear. Te Tiriti has not changed, ;See above, off topic.
it was a binding agreement which committed all parties to certain
benefits and actions on both sides - in effect it is akin to a formal >contract. Just as the earlier Bill from NZ First was seen as trying to
renege on a contract, so too could it now be seen that the Government
is putting forward proposals to renege on that same contract - this
time by ACT.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:38:06 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,570 |