https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
On 2024-10-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-gutsCouple of points. Once again we have the left accusing the right what they >the left have done. Trying to shift the blame.
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While
Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Secondly. Willie agrees that Prebble has the experience and knowledge to >carry out the appointment to the Tribunial, this is not possible because >Prebble has ACT roots. The best person for the job and first and foremost >please do not shoot the messenger.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that
is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that
is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >filling the position?
On 26 Oct 2024 01:16:59 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:This last paragraph is outrageous bullshit. The last government was the one that showed contempt for the law, for parliament and for the good people of this country. They secretly introduced racist legislation and when we found out about it we fired them.
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that
is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >>filling the position?
I have no doubt that Prebble is capable of sitting on the Tribunal,
but whether it is appropriate is another matter. The Waitangi Tribunal
is not a Court, but in many respects it acts in a similar way, in
assisting claimants and government to the Tribunal to come to
agreement on complex matters; and by and large it has succeeded in
that task.
The age at which Judges must retire has changed in the past - from 72
to 68 and most recently to 70. Hansard is useful in setting out some
of the arguments for a fixed age of retirement for all judges of all
courts, Associate Judges of the High Court, coroners, and community >magistrates from 68 to 70 years. See: >https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20070220_00001193/judicial-retirement-age-bill-second-reading
A second issue is that of political appointments to the Tribunal. By
and large since the Tribunal was established there have not been
overtly political appointments to the Waitangi tribunal. The ACT party
are proposing controversial legislation to the legislation which forms
the basis for much of the work of the Tribunal; to place a past
politician from that party on the tribunal at this time is mixing
politics with the work of the tribunal in a way that is unlikely to be >helpful to considered discussions on current Treaty Claims currently
with the Tribunal or which may come before it - no other party has
made similar political appointments in the past.
As I understand it, the term of at least one Tribunal member has been
cut short to enable this political appointment, without consultation.
Such arbitrary action is not helpful to a Tribunal that relies on
Trust, good faith and in depth consideration of claims and history in
coming to conclusions.
The decision by Seymour shows contempt for the law, and contempt for
parties seeking agreement based on historical facts and agreed
principles behind current legislation. The ACT party has proposed
changes to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi; they should
wait until that has been through Parliament rather than pre-empt those >changes by seeking to disrupt on part of the current system without
the approval of Parliament.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Oct 2024 01:16:59 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:This last paragraph is outrageous bullshit. The last government was the one >that showed contempt for the law, for parliament and for the good people of >this country. They secretly introduced racist legislation and when we found out
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that
is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >>>filling the position?
I have no doubt that Prebble is capable of sitting on the Tribunal,
but whether it is appropriate is another matter. The Waitangi Tribunal
is not a Court, but in many respects it acts in a similar way, in
assisting claimants and government to the Tribunal to come to
agreement on complex matters; and by and large it has succeeded in
that task.
The age at which Judges must retire has changed in the past - from 72
to 68 and most recently to 70. Hansard is useful in setting out some
of the arguments for a fixed age of retirement for all judges of all >>courts, Associate Judges of the High Court, coroners, and community >>magistrates from 68 to 70 years. See: >>https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20070220_00001193/judicial-retirement-age-bill-second-reading
A second issue is that of political appointments to the Tribunal. By
and large since the Tribunal was established there have not been
overtly political appointments to the Waitangi tribunal. The ACT party
are proposing controversial legislation to the legislation which forms
the basis for much of the work of the Tribunal; to place a past
politician from that party on the tribunal at this time is mixing
politics with the work of the tribunal in a way that is unlikely to be >>helpful to considered discussions on current Treaty Claims currently
with the Tribunal or which may come before it - no other party has
made similar political appointments in the past.
As I understand it, the term of at least one Tribunal member has been
cut short to enable this political appointment, without consultation.
Such arbitrary action is not helpful to a Tribunal that relies on
Trust, good faith and in depth consideration of claims and history in >>coming to conclusions.
The decision by Seymour shows contempt for the law, and contempt for >>parties seeking agreement based on historical facts and agreed
principles behind current legislation. The ACT party has proposed
changes to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi; they should
wait until that has been through Parliament rather than pre-empt those >>changes by seeking to disrupt on part of the current system without
the approval of Parliament.
about it we fired them.
Your poitical rhetoric is shameful and has no place in polite company - however
unlike you we are in favour of freedom of expression.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:52:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyWell my stupid little friend. Your memory is amazingly short.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Oct 2024 01:16:59 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:This last paragraph is outrageous bullshit. The last government was the one >>that showed contempt for the law, for parliament and for the good people of >>this country. They secretly introduced racist legislation and when we found >>out
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>>>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT.
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that >>>>> is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >>>>filling the position?
I have no doubt that Prebble is capable of sitting on the Tribunal,
but whether it is appropriate is another matter. The Waitangi Tribunal
is not a Court, but in many respects it acts in a similar way, in >>>assisting claimants and government to the Tribunal to come to
agreement on complex matters; and by and large it has succeeded in
that task.
The age at which Judges must retire has changed in the past - from 72
to 68 and most recently to 70. Hansard is useful in setting out some
of the arguments for a fixed age of retirement for all judges of all >>>courts, Associate Judges of the High Court, coroners, and community >>>magistrates from 68 to 70 years. See: >>>https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20070220_00001193/judicial-retirement-age-bill-second-reading
A second issue is that of political appointments to the Tribunal. By
and large since the Tribunal was established there have not been
overtly political appointments to the Waitangi tribunal. The ACT party >>>are proposing controversial legislation to the legislation which forms >>>the basis for much of the work of the Tribunal; to place a past >>>politician from that party on the tribunal at this time is mixing >>>politics with the work of the tribunal in a way that is unlikely to be >>>helpful to considered discussions on current Treaty Claims currently
with the Tribunal or which may come before it - no other party has
made similar political appointments in the past.
As I understand it, the term of at least one Tribunal member has been
cut short to enable this political appointment, without consultation. >>>Such arbitrary action is not helpful to a Tribunal that relies on
Trust, good faith and in depth consideration of claims and history in >>>coming to conclusions.
The decision by Seymour shows contempt for the law, and contempt for >>>parties seeking agreement based on historical facts and agreed
principles behind current legislation. The ACT party has proposed
changes to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi; they should
wait until that has been through Parliament rather than pre-empt those >>>changes by seeking to disrupt on part of the current system without
the approval of Parliament.
about it we fired them.
Your poitical rhetoric is shameful and has no place in polite company - >>however
unlike you we are in favour of freedom of expression.
What legislation are you referring to? Parliamentary Rules mean that
it is impossible to secretly introduce any legislation. What are you
talking about, Tony?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:52:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyWell my stupid little friend. Your memory is amazingly short.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Oct 2024 01:16:59 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:This last paragraph is outrageous bullshit. The last government was the one >>>that showed contempt for the law, for parliament and for the good people of >>>this country. They secretly introduced racist legislation and when we found >>>out
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that >>>>>> is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>>>>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT. >>>>>>
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >>>>>filling the position?
I have no doubt that Prebble is capable of sitting on the Tribunal,
but whether it is appropriate is another matter. The Waitangi Tribunal >>>>is not a Court, but in many respects it acts in a similar way, in >>>>assisting claimants and government to the Tribunal to come to
agreement on complex matters; and by and large it has succeeded in
that task.
The age at which Judges must retire has changed in the past - from 72 >>>>to 68 and most recently to 70. Hansard is useful in setting out some
of the arguments for a fixed age of retirement for all judges of all >>>>courts, Associate Judges of the High Court, coroners, and community >>>>magistrates from 68 to 70 years. See: >>>>https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20070220_00001193/judicial-retirement-age-bill-second-reading
A second issue is that of political appointments to the Tribunal. By >>>>and large since the Tribunal was established there have not been >>>>overtly political appointments to the Waitangi tribunal. The ACT party >>>>are proposing controversial legislation to the legislation which forms >>>>the basis for much of the work of the Tribunal; to place a past >>>>politician from that party on the tribunal at this time is mixing >>>>politics with the work of the tribunal in a way that is unlikely to be >>>>helpful to considered discussions on current Treaty Claims currently >>>>with the Tribunal or which may come before it - no other party has
made similar political appointments in the past.
As I understand it, the term of at least one Tribunal member has been >>>>cut short to enable this political appointment, without consultation. >>>>Such arbitrary action is not helpful to a Tribunal that relies on >>>>Trust, good faith and in depth consideration of claims and history in >>>>coming to conclusions.
The decision by Seymour shows contempt for the law, and contempt for >>>>parties seeking agreement based on historical facts and agreed >>>>principles behind current legislation. The ACT party has proposed >>>>changes to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi; they should >>>>wait until that has been through Parliament rather than pre-empt those >>>>changes by seeking to disrupt on part of the current system without
the approval of Parliament.
about it we fired them.
Your poitical rhetoric is shameful and has no place in polite company - >>>however
unlike you we are in favour of freedom of expression.
What legislation are you referring to? Parliamentary Rules mean that
it is impossible to secretly introduce any legislation. What are you >>talking about, Tony?
Let's start with 3 waters. But that is not all.
You can live with the others.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:27:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyI just told you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:52:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyWell my stupid little friend. Your memory is amazingly short.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Oct 2024 01:16:59 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:This last paragraph is outrageous bullshit. The last government was the one >>>>that showed contempt for the law, for parliament and for the good people of >>>>this country. They secretly introduced racist legislation and when we found >>>>out
On 2024-10-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:15:17 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Prebble is now 76 - too old to be given such an appointment; but that >>>>>>> is probably the point; he is there to do what ACT want.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360464828/willie-jackson-says-prebble-waitangi-tribunal-appointment-unbelievable-kick-guts
Willie is taking some time to adjust to not being in Government. While >>>>>>>>Prebble is a bit of a larrikin, he is ex-Labour as well as ex-ACT. >>>>>>>
Are you able to explain why a person at 76 years old in not capable of >>>>>>filling the position?
I have no doubt that Prebble is capable of sitting on the Tribunal, >>>>>but whether it is appropriate is another matter. The Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>is not a Court, but in many respects it acts in a similar way, in >>>>>assisting claimants and government to the Tribunal to come to >>>>>agreement on complex matters; and by and large it has succeeded in >>>>>that task.
The age at which Judges must retire has changed in the past - from 72 >>>>>to 68 and most recently to 70. Hansard is useful in setting out some >>>>>of the arguments for a fixed age of retirement for all judges of all >>>>>courts, Associate Judges of the High Court, coroners, and community >>>>>magistrates from 68 to 70 years. See: >>>>>https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/48HansD_20070220_00001193/judicial-retirement-age-bill-second-reading
A second issue is that of political appointments to the Tribunal. By >>>>>and large since the Tribunal was established there have not been >>>>>overtly political appointments to the Waitangi tribunal. The ACT party >>>>>are proposing controversial legislation to the legislation which forms >>>>>the basis for much of the work of the Tribunal; to place a past >>>>>politician from that party on the tribunal at this time is mixing >>>>>politics with the work of the tribunal in a way that is unlikely to be >>>>>helpful to considered discussions on current Treaty Claims currently >>>>>with the Tribunal or which may come before it - no other party has >>>>>made similar political appointments in the past.
As I understand it, the term of at least one Tribunal member has been >>>>>cut short to enable this political appointment, without consultation. >>>>>Such arbitrary action is not helpful to a Tribunal that relies on >>>>>Trust, good faith and in depth consideration of claims and history in >>>>>coming to conclusions.
The decision by Seymour shows contempt for the law, and contempt for >>>>>parties seeking agreement based on historical facts and agreed >>>>>principles behind current legislation. The ACT party has proposed >>>>>changes to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi; they should >>>>>wait until that has been through Parliament rather than pre-empt those >>>>>changes by seeking to disrupt on part of the current system without >>>>>the approval of Parliament.
about it we fired them.
Your poitical rhetoric is shameful and has no place in polite company - >>>>however
unlike you we are in favour of freedom of expression.
What legislation are you referring to? Parliamentary Rules mean that
it is impossible to secretly introduce any legislation. What are you >>>talking about, Tony?
Let's start with 3 waters. But that is not all.
You can live with the others.
So, specifically, what legislation are you referring to?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:00:11 |
| Calls: | 9,832 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,619 |