On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature leaders.
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I >>am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >> issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament >>to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of >view, with a point of an agreement.
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to >represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time >we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I >>am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament >>to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Absolutely right - and what we will do first is look for National to
do what they promised - to vote against the Bill. Most New Zealanders
will also look for that to be done as quickly as possible - Luxon
clearly made a mistake in agreeing to allow the Bill to be introduced
without it being agreed by the other coalition parties, but there is
nothing in the coalition agreement that says a six month period for a
select Committee is needed. Indeed the Coalition parties themselves
have agreed to a much shorter period for a select Committee for other >legislation. Luxon and Peters should agree with the leaders of the
opposition parties on a date for the select committee to report back
so that the Bill can be effectively killed early in the 2025
parliamentary year.
Yes they were.
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time >>we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Those attending the Hikoi were not yelling at anyone
- they wereYes yelling.
loudly calling
for the Bill to be defeated - the most common chant wasABuse removed.
"Kill the Bill" - very clear and concise, and of course in English so
that ACT and National politicians could understand it. Overall the
protest was much calmer and ordered than most protests, including
those manufactured by ACT and National politicians.
On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >> issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of >view, with a point of an agreement.
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Absolutely right - and what we will do first is look for National to
do what they promised - to vote against the Bill.
Most New Zealanders
will also look for that to be done as quickly as possible - Luxon
clearly made a mistake in agreeing to allow the Bill to be introduced
without it being agreed by the other coalition parties,
but there is
nothing in the coalition agreement that says a six month period for a
select Committee is needed. Indeed the Coalition parties themselves
have agreed to a much shorter period for a select Committee for other >legislation.
Luxon and Peters should agree with the leaders of the
opposition parties on a date for the select committee to report back
so that the Bill can be effectively killed early in the 2025
parliamentary year.
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time >>we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Those attending the Hikoi were not yelling at anyone - they were
loudly calling for the Bill to be defeated - the most common chant was
"Kill the Bill" - very clear and concise, and of course in English so
that ACT and National politicians could understand it.
Overall the
protest was much calmer and ordered than most protests,
including
those manufactured by ACT and National politicians. Just because you
have problems getting anyone to listen to you does not mean that
others have the same problem, Tony - but perhaps you are upset that
ACT and National appear only to listen to those that donate money to
them . . .
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>> issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lackMore importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament >>>to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of >>view, with a point of an agreement.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courageWe need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people >>through this.
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is thatYou cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature >leaders.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, >>>>I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>> issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
all, and those incapable of thinking.
All lies. And in fact dangerous lies.Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lackMore importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in >>>>parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
That does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori >culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
Once more, off topic, can you actually read?Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of >>>view, with a point of an agreement.
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening?
Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you deliberately do it to try to deceive.Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courageWe need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people >>>through this.
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
Yes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the House.All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is >>thatYou cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature >>leaders.
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT
supporters present.
Lie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying again.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I agree, Tony - they are rubbish, but unfortunately Seymour appears to
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti,
I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
all, and those incapable of thinking.
Forcing the select committee to go on for six months is an enormousAll lies. And in fact dangerous lies.
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lackMore importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in >>>>>parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
Most of us are listening to others, including those we do not agreeThat does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori >>culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
That is the accusation you make when you are totally lost - getOnce more, off topic, can you actually read?
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of >>>>view, with a point of an agreement.
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening? >>Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
All sides of the house and the people - who were you addressing?How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you >deliberately do it to try to deceive.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courageWe need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people >>>>through this.
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
Very few from the Hikoi entered the house. Yes Seymour behavedYes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the >House.
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is >>>thatYou cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature >>>leaders.
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT >>supporters present.
That is what he is aiming to do - it would deliver more profits toLie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying >again.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:26:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich's sarcasm gone for now, but it will return, just like rats always do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRubbish.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
On 2024-11-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te >>>>>>Tiriti,
I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the >>>>>>key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
all, and those incapable of thinking.
It's called democracy you cretin.Forcing the select committee to go on for six months is an enormousAll lies. And in fact dangerous lies.
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lackMore importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in >>>>>>parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an >>>abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First >>>deplored.
waste of money - how can you condone that, Tony?
Abuse gone.That does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori >>>culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not >>>yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>>>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed you do, why? Is it a sickness or stupidity?That is the accusation you make when you are totally lostOnce more, off topic, can you actually read?
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening? >>>Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First >>>who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
Answer the question.All sides of the house and the people - who were you addressing?How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you >>deliberately do it to try to deceive.Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courageWe need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people >>>>>through this.
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
Satcvasm gone. again for jow.Yes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the >>House.
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is >>>>thatYou cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature >>>>leaders.
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT >>>supporters present.
That is a lie, you are beyond help.That is what he is aiming to do - it would deliver more profits toLie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying >>again.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies >>>such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
corporate entities that support the Atlas Network, the NZ Taxpayers
Union and the NZ Initiative; and they are the source of political
inspiration and funding for the ACT Party . . . Did you not know
that, Tony?
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to >represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time >we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time >>we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I >>>am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament >>>to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposalSheer nonsense from Rich driven by political greed.
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party. It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats. The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed. that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >political alignment of those measuring . . .
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >political alignment of those measuring . . .
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers ofThe protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >stand-up comic.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Primethat is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while theThis recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submittedThere you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>political alignment of those measuring . . .
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >credibility, yet again.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the lastNo it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, >>>>>I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>>>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in >>>>>parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. >>>>>Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>stand-up comic.
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
TPM and you are racist. ACT are opposed to racism. That is a fact.You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
and a large group of senior legal experts.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while theThis recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submittedThere you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>credibility, yet again.
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>political alignment of those measuring . . .
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key >>>>>issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>stand-up comic.
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
and a large group of senior legal experts.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while theThis recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submittedThere you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>credibility, yet again.
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>political alignment of those measuring . . .
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:39:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his >>>>party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee >>>>as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for >>>>six months, which he did no have to do.
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
reader). This agreement an be found here:
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6 >>>>parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>>stand-up comic.
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be >>expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the >>second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
Party.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >>Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very >>>>orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the >>>principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
and a large group of senior legal experts.
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day ofThe petition was put together over a small period of time while theThis recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted >>>>a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZThere you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>>credibility, yet again.
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>>political alignment of those measuring . . .
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last >>>election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against theNeither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was >>agreed
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters . >>>>. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular >>>support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear >>>that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:19:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:39:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow >>>the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he >>>break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his >>>>>party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The >>>>Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>>>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee >>>>>as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for >>>>>six months, which he did no have to do.
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through >>>>to a second reading.
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
reader). This agreement an be found here:
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select
Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
National required a much shorter
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not
really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6 >>>>>parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the >>>>largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>>>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament, >>>>>and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>>>stand-up comic.
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te >>>Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be >>>expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of >>>that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the >>>second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
Party.
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >>>Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration >>>>>with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very >>>>>orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why. >>>>I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has >>>>ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the >>>>principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty >>>>signed so long ago.
and a large group of senior legal experts.
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
(and in particular:
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
define the principles of the treaty as:
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and
duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in
statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of >Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the >deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te
Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private
property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we >conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the >evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds
jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their
lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably
ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is >inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the
proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate >historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the >>>protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented wasThis recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted >>>>>a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ >>>>>First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>>>political alignment of those measuring . . .There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>>>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>>>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>>>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>>>credibility, yet again.
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand >>>higher.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last >>>>election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against theNeither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was >>>agreed
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so
restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some >>>>>commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National >>>>>if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati >>>>>Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is >>>>>saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters . >>>>>. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular >>>>support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to >>>>make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>>>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions >>>>is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear >>>>that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that
mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a >reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through
determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words
themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:36:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>This is the same argument used above in relation to ACT - the reality
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:19:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:39:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow >>>>the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he >>>>break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>>>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his >>>>>>party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The >>>>>Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the >>>>>party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number >>>>>of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ FirstAgain - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>>>>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now >>>>>want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through >>>>>to a second reading.
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee >>>>>>as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>>>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>>>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for >>>>>>six months, which he did no have to do.
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the >>>>coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming >>>>things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and >>>ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
reader). This agreement an be found here:
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select >>Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
I have seen news reports that the Select Committee process usually
takes 6 months. Select Committee deliberations are usually not
reported unless someone makes a newsworthy submission. I am sure that
there will be many submissions and this is the only formal opportunity
that is granted to supporters of the Bill outside Parliament.
Submissions close on January 7 so those submitting need to carve out
time from what is the busiest time of the social year and a popular
time to take accrued annual leave with summer travel.
This is a contentious, if dead, Bill. Only opponents like you wish to
have time restrictions put on this process.
National required a much shorterYou forgot to mention that the Fast Track Bill was National policy,
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not >>really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
and they were elected on the basis that this would be passed because
the voters had spoken on this.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori >>>Party.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>>>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6 >>>>>>parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First, >>>>>where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the >>>>>largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>>>>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of >>>>supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised >>>>by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te >>>>Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be >>>>expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of >>>>that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the >>>>second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>>>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament, >>>>>>and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>>>>stand-up comic.
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
There was a lot of irrational logic in the protest. The Bill is
already dead, but National are honouring a contractual agreement to
bring it before Parliament.
The reason for this is obvious as it is a singular obligation that
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify >>>exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >>>>Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration >>>>>>with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>>>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very >>>>>>orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why. >>>>>I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has >>>>>ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the >>>>>principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty >>>>>signed so long ago.
and a large group of senior legal experts.
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with >>>assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst >>>other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
(and in particular:
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
define the principles of the treaty as:
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and >>duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi. >>Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in >>statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of >>Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the >>deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te >>Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private >>property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we >>conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the >>evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds >>jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their >>lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably >>ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is >>inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the >>proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate >>historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the >>>>protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was >>>>higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand >>>>higher.This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted >>>>>>a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>>>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ >>>>>>First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>>>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>>>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>>>>political alignment of those measuring . . .There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>>>>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>>>>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>>>>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>>>>credibility, yet again.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last >>>>>election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee >>>with a far more credible signature count?
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against theNeither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT >>>>to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was >>>>agreed
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so >>restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
National and ACT have agreed on. The Government is carrying out that >obligation.
All parties have rules on how their caucus can behave. Those rules by
their nature are authoritarian and I would expect all candidates for >Parliament would be made aware of them on nomination.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some >>>>>>commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National >>>>>>if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>>>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati >>>>>>Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>>>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>>>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is >>>>>>saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>>>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters . >>>>>>. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular >>>>>support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to >>>>>make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>>>>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions >>>>>is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear >>>>>that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that >>>>>many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice >>>>being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that >>mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a >>reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through >>determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words >>themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
I don't see any of this in ACT's Bill. What I do see is that Treaty >principles enacted by an unelected authority (the Court of Appeal)
seeks to replace them with similar principles from an elected
Government.
This is not the first time this has been attempted (Google Principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 2006) which received exactly
the same treatment as the ACT Bill will. The only difference is who
the protagonists were - a Labour-led Government supporting a bill
introduced by NZ First.
The ACT Bill is no more significant now that the NZF bill was then -
so why so much protest this time around?
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 09:04:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:36:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:This is the same argument used above in relation to ACT - the reality
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:19:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:39:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:02:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:42:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow >>>>>the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he >>>>>break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to >>>>>have the select committee last six months - that is not in the >>>>>coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming >>>>>things up, Crash.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:59:12 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view. >>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced >>>>>>>>article of what it was all about considering their usual anti >>>>>>>>government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal >>>>>>>led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his >>>>>>>party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The >>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the >>>>>>party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number >>>>>>of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First >>>>>>>have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee >>>>>>>as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having >>>>>>>committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone >>>>>>>further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for >>>>>>>six months, which he did no have to do.Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for >>>>>>sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now >>>>>>want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through >>>>>>to a second reading.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and >>>>ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF >>>>reader). This agreement an be found here:
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select >>>Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and >>>reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
I have seen news reports that the Select Committee process usually
takes 6 months. Select Committee deliberations are usually not
reported unless someone makes a newsworthy submission. I am sure that >>there will be many submissions and this is the only formal opportunity
that is granted to supporters of the Bill outside Parliament.
Submissions close on January 7 so those submitting need to carve out
time from what is the busiest time of the social year and a popular
time to take accrued annual leave with summer travel.
This is a contentious, if dead, Bill. Only opponents like you wish to
have time restrictions put on this process.
National required a much shorterYou forgot to mention that the Fast Track Bill was National policy,
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not >>>really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing >>>dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
and they were elected on the basis that this would be passed because
the voters had spoken on this.
is that an election includes a lot of statements that are not
necessarily noticed in the heat of a campaign, or at least not always >recognised for the abandonment of due process that they are now seen
to be. That so many of those that are now on a list that was not given
until well after the election are of dubious value for money, favour >financial supporters of one or more of the coalition political
parties, and have dubious return on capital required may well not have
been noticed during the election campaign. So to the argument that
having something mentioned in an election campaign justifies it being
pushed through without cost/benefit analysis or ensuring that the
project does not conflict with other laws or international commitments
just to benefit a select group of political supporters, is just
bullshit.
It is somewhat ironic that David Seymour is pushing some of these
payback to donor projects at the same time as he is (correctly)
pushing for better cost / benefit analysis of projects before they get >approved.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori >>>>Party.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in >>>>>>>parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6 >>>>>>>parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First, >>>>>>where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the >>>>>>largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique >>>>>>though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of >>>>>supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised >>>>>by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te >>>>>Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be >>>>>expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of >>>>>that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the >>>>>second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties >>>>>>>represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament, >>>>>>>and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a >>>>>>stand-up comic.
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties - >>>there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to >>>"Kill the Bill"
There was a lot of irrational logic in the protest. The Bill is
already dead, but National are honouring a contractual agreement to
bring it before Parliament.
The reason for this is obvious as it is a singular obligation that
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify >>>>exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to >>>>this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with >>>>assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have >>>>seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst >>>>other general assertions.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime >>>>>Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal, >>>>>and a large group of senior legal experts.
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration >>>>>>>with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the >>>>>>>country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very >>>>>>>orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why. >>>>>>I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has >>>>>>ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the >>>>>>principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty >>>>>>signed so long ago.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
(and in particular:
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would >>>define the principles of the treaty as:
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority >>>over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and >>>duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi. >>>Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in >>>statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual >>>for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself. >>>(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of >>>Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the >>>deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te >>>Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private >>>property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were >>>held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor >>>Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we >>>conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the >>>evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds >>>jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their >>>lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because >>>translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a >>>revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably >>>ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6 >>>February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae, >>>ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or >>>fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and >>>undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is >>>inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the >>>proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see >>>how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate >>>historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent >>>organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the >>>>>protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was >>>>>higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand >>>>>higher.This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted >>>>>>>a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and >>>>>>>peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ >>>>>>>First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding >>>>>>>assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much >>>>>>>larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the >>>>>>>political alignment of those measuring . . .There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the >>>>>>context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered >>>>>>voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as >>>>>>baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your >>>>>>credibility, yet again.
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last >>>>>>election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective. >>>>>No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee >>>>with a far more credible signature count?
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the >>>>>bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT >>>>>to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was >>>>>agreedNeither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All >>>>we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading >>>>but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's >>>>viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep >>>comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not >>>support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for >>>ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so >>>restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill >>>should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even >>>implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
National and ACT have agreed on. The Government is carrying out that >>obligation.
All parties have rules on how their caucus can behave. Those rules by >>their nature are authoritarian and I would expect all candidates for >>Parliament would be made aware of them on nomination.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current >>>words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement. >>>Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some >>>>>>>commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National >>>>>>>if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it >>>>>>>quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati >>>>>>>Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are >>>>>>>listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside >>>>>>>with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is >>>>>>>saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the >>>>>>>distraction to push through more money to their political supporters . >>>>>>>. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular >>>>>>support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to >>>>>>make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of >>>>>>measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions >>>>>>is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear >>>>>>that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that >>>>>>many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice >>>>>being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel >>>>free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that >>>mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a >>>reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through >>>determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words >>>themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full >>>meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
I don't see any of this in ACT's Bill. What I do see is that Treaty >>principles enacted by an unelected authority (the Court of Appeal)
seeks to replace them with similar principles from an elected
Government.
This is not the first time this has been attempted (Google Principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 2006) which received exactly
the same treatment as the ACT Bill will. The only difference is who
the protagonists were - a Labour-led Government supporting a bill >>introduced by NZ First.
The ACT Bill is no more significant now that the NZF bill was then -
so why so much protest this time around?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:10:08 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,161 |