https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They
simply oppose it without reason. I cannot see what is wrong with
enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by >Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the >submission that matters.
On 2025-01-06, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
It appears to me that engaging in the Bill would allow (civilised) discussion >on how we got here and what we need to do to to get agreement and set it in >stone. A pretty big task. However there is hope that some movement can be >made.
In short things are in a mess and we keep making attempts to put it to bed >and build from it. As the treaty applies to all of NZ it would be good if >everyone could be heard.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They
simply oppose it without reason.
The Bill will not give them (the opposers) what they want. Also it is
"them", those far, extreme and totally Right folks who are driving this so
it has to totally horrible and not fit for purpose.
The people voted voted the Maori aspects of three waters off the table owing >in part to the racial aspects. Those opposed can hardly say we want the
Three waters back.
What the opposers want is to stall the Principles of The Treaty Bill until >the Labour Government is back in power when they will be able to get the 3 >waters structure set up.
I cannot see what is wrong with
enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by
Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
N
or can they as long as your views are the same as theirs. First of all
we have to agree on the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi. This
has been the subject of some debate in this ng.
I agree doing a tidy up would be very worthwhile.
Let us hope so.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the
submission that matters.
https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They
simply oppose it without reason. I cannot see what is wrong with
enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by >Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the >submission that matters.
https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They
simply oppose it without reason.
I cannot see what is wrong with
enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the submission that matters.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 09:46:28 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>All of which is irrelevant. Why would anyone want to stop discussion on such an important matter, unless it is for nefarious reasons? That is why you are opposed and that is why TPM are opposed - ulterior motives the lot of you.
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They >>simply oppose it without reason. I cannot see what is wrong with >>enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by >>Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the >>submission that matters.
Looking at the submission from Ruth Richardson, it does appear that
she has a very inaccurate understanding of the essence the articles.
Article 1 did not cede sovereignty to the Crown
Article 2 secured much more than what are referred to as property
rights for Maori - there was a substantial element of self-governance,
and the rights also bind the Crown not to take actions that adversely
affect Maori - in European terms language, water and pollution are
items that have been raised more recently.
Article 3 retained the right of chieftanship by Maori over Maori
lands, not just property rights
The courts have not introduced the notion of the Treaty as a
partnership - law passed by parliament, with the agreement of Maori,
set up the law that governs both the Waitangi Tribunal and courts more >generally. If you do not like the word partnership, it may be easier
to understand the treaty as creating a permanent coalition agreement -
does that help?
Richardson does not identify any examples where the Tribunal has
pronounced on matters beyond its brief - and I have not heard anyone
identify such a breach of law - if it happened then there would have
been appeals to the High and Supreme Courts.
The identification of some principles in legislation deliberately did
not define them - they are effectively policy guidelines for dealing
with issues relating to the Treaty. In a case where there is not
agreement between Maori and the Crown the words used can assist in
making sure that all aspects of an issue are discussed and agreement
reached. Yes agreements may involve compromise on either one or both
parties; that is understood, but for matters relating to the treaty to
be arbitrarily determined only by the Crown would be a breach of the
Treaty.
Ruth Richardson has been out of Parliament for many years, and as far
as I am aware has not been involved in Treaty settlement processes. I
was not able to find a submission from the Hon Chris Finlayson, but
below is a link to a submission from Sir Geoffrey Palmer:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/09/24/the-dubious-politics-of-the-treaty-principles-bill/
(That is apparently only the first part of his submission - I could
not quickly see a reference to the second part)
Requiring submissions to be made by today was a deliberate decision to
limit discussion at Select Committee
On 7 Jan 2025 00:26:13 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Two lies there, and not a shred of evidence.
On 2025-01-06, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/4ww23byk
In general I was previously disinterested in this Bill because it will
not be enacted, however in odd snippets of debate I have read there is
much insight into our current society structures and how we got there.
I am therefore more engaged than previously.
It appears to me that engaging in the Bill would allow (civilised) discussion >>on how we got here and what we need to do to to get agreement and set it in >>stone. A pretty big task. However there is hope that some movement can be >>made.
In short things are in a mess and we keep making attempts to put it to bed >>and build from it. As the treaty applies to all of NZ it would be good if >>everyone could be heard.
I am interested that the opponents of the Bill never specify exactly
what they find objectionable about what is written in the bill. They
simply oppose it without reason.
The Bill will not give them (the opposers) what they want. Also it is >>"them", those far, extreme and totally Right folks who are driving this so >>it has to totally horrible and not fit for purpose.
The people voted voted the Maori aspects of three waters off the table owing >>in part to the racial aspects. Those opposed can hardly say we want the >>Three waters back.
What the opposers want is to stall the Principles of The Treaty Bill until >>the Labour Government is back in power when they will be able to get the 3 >>waters structure set up.
I cannot see what is wrong with
enshrining the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi in law by
Parliament, removing the piecemeal development of principles by un
elected bodies such as the Judiciary and the Waitangi Tribunal.
N
or can they as long as your views are the same as theirs. First of all
we have to agree on the intent and effect of the Treaty of Waitangi. This >>has been the subject of some debate in this ng.
I agree doing a tidy up would be very worthwhile.
Let us hope so.
I am quite aware that at least some posters to this newsgroup will
dismiss the submission because of the political affiliations of the
writer. Those affiliations are irrelevant, it is the content of the
submission that matters.
The Bill itself preserves the Treaty intact - in the event of a
conflict between the Bill and the Treaty, the Treaty will be followed.
This bill is more about pretending that the left are trying to give
the Maori more than they are entitled to - and trying to create racist >conflict before the election.
The link below is to an article written by Janet Wilson - who was atIrrelevant.
one time Press Secretary for Judith Collins. Judith is now Attorney
General and in that role must report on the Bill before it is put to
the house - the public service have already said that it does not meet
the aims ACT have said it seeks to achieve.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350414124/price-everyone-will-pay-luxons-naive-deal-making
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:39:40 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,051 |