In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here >last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters >but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish >by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
This issue will live on, it has to.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 20:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters >>but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
This issue will live on, it has to.
Thank goodness we can put all that racist lying from the ACT party
behind us.
There is talk of them trying to put together enough
signatures for a citizen initiated referendum, but that would kill
forever the lie that the ACT Party and the "NZ Taxpayers Union" was in
any way serious about reducing government costs
- and that is the
"non-political" organisation that funds and organises far-right
"protests" to try and increase distractions from the government making
the wealthy much wealthier while most New Zealanders pay for it by
becoming poorer.
And Tony, the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it
and changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty
between the Crown and Maori. Still I suspect you would rather continue
to believe that you have not been fooled when the evidence is clear -
the far right needs you, Tony . . .
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
This issue will live on, it has to.
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters >> but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion >so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >"understandings".
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters >> but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion >so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >"understandings".
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made byThis issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 20:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member >>here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters >>but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no >>wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
This issue will live on, it has to.
And Tony, the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting itNo that is a lie, and you know it but children like you will lie and lie and lie and believe that lying has value - it doesn't.
and changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty
between the Crown and Maori.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nope, thaty is wrong. It was an agreement that Maori would become subjects of the Queen. It was that simple.
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member >>>here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>> Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >>case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion >>so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >>The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown that enabled a >government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent
with the provisions of the Treaty.
It is a bit like you agreeing aAbsolute nonsense.
contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change
the contract without getting the agreement of the other party. That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought
in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court
was set up.
Nopem, thaty is co-management. Such an agrreement has no place in government.Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>> https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no >>>wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to
come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups
of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty. There
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that
was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known
co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in
the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers
- they ensure that the different usersJust about all countries do that on a regular basis. And they call it replacing an out-of-date agreement. Simple really.
of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
different governments over the years. Some have been changed by
agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with
other countries may find itself in trouble eventually. The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business
with a country that broke agreements?
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>> Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >>case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion >>so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >>The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
that enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent
with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a
contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change
the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought
in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court
was set up.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>> https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to
come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups
of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
There
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that
was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known
co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in
the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users
of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
different governments over the years. Some have been changed by
agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with
other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business
with a country that broke agreements?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements
wrote:
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>>> Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >>>case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion >>>so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >>>The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some
Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all
Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori
population of the day.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived wellthat enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent
with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a
contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change
the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their
lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if
you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed
long ago.
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage theThat is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of
friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly
Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to
subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal
warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought
in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court
was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and
the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>>> https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to
come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups
of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new
form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was
needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use
throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020
election.
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that
was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known
co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in
the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users
of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so
few.
different governments over the years. Some have been changed by
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by
agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with
other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a
contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are
seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't
even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business
with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always
honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but
how many of our major export destinations would?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three >>>>> Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles. >>>>> No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >>>>case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >>>>The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>>>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>>>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some
Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all
Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori
population of the day.
have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for
more than just English settlers,
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived wellthat enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent
with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change
the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if
you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed
long ago.
after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their
positions.
Many international agreements have been signed by Prime
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage theThat is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of
friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to
subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.
Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought
in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court
was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and
the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>>>> https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>>>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to
come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups
of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new
form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was
needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use
throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020
election.
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that
was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known
co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users
of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so
few.
other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are
seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't
even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business
with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always
honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but
how many of our major export destinations would?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all >>>>>>>three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles. >>>>>>> No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>>>>>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>>>>>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all
Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for
more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the
reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was
somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of
this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing
status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South
Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the
Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived wellthat enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if
you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed
long ago.
after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their
positions.
Only with mutual consent.
organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected
to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts
is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once
the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is
clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu
survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on
the Crown while that position survives - and the government which
rules on that basis.
But it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only
Many international agreements have been signed by PrimeBecause it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear
free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving.
existed during the will of both parties
That is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive. >>>>So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of
Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is >>>>>>>no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>>>>>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>>>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new
form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020
election.
National Party . . .
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason mostThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>few.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always
honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the
current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone
may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a
commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as
many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a
political party less popular.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles. >>>>>> No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their >>>>>case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind. >>>>>The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace >>>>>door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>>>>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all
Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori
population of the day.
have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for
more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but
subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the
reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For
nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was
somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of
this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first
Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing
status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South
Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the
Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived wellthat enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if
you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed
long ago.
after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their
positions.
Only with mutual consent.
Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they onlyMany international agreements have been signed by PrimeBecause it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear
free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are
getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving.
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by theThe reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage theThat is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of
friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to
subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.
Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought
in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and
the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh? >>>>>> https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>>>>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups
of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new
form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was
needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use
throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020
election.
As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>few.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't
even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always
honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but
how many of our major export destinations would?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>>member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all >>>>>>>>three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles. >>>>>>>> No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake their
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of >>>>>>>people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for
more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the
Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>positions.that enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>long ago.
Only with mutual consent.
organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected
to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts
is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once
the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is
clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu
survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on
the Crown while that position survives - and the government which
rules on that basis.
I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA withBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only
Many international agreements have been signed by PrimeBecause it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving.
existed during the will of both parties
not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, andThat is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive. No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and should
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There is >>>>>>>>no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows >>>>>>>co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>>>>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>election.
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>>few.
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>>>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the
current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone
may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as
many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>political party less popular.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe Treaty principles bill was not racist, regardless of your bias. It was defeated because the PM did not have the courage to support what was essentially a bill to deliver clarity on the Treaty - the bill was no more than that. The defeat was also assisted by greedy and racist minorities that carried the day - next time that will not work. Those that opposed the bill did not at any time have equal rights for all in their vision, quite the opposite. You cannot sugarcoat this issue and you will one day lose this argument.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two >>>organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>>>member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all >>>>>>>>>three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles. >>>>>>>>> No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake >>>>>>>>their
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close >>>>>>>>behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the >>>>>>>>co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of
people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for >>>>>more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the
Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>>positions.that enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>>long ago.
Only with mutual consent.
to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts
is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once >>>the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is >>>clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu
survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on
the Crown while that position survives - and the government which
rules on that basis.
Waitangi Tribunal was agreed by both Maori and the Crown as a way to
assist properly researched claims under the Treaty. That expert
historical research forced a change of view by many to the Treaty as
they understood the implications of it, and also gained an
understanding of how misunderstandings had developed - including the >incorrect interpretation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata due to the >inadequate knowledge held in those days. As our knowledge improved,
those involved gained an understanding not only of how badly Maori had
been treated in some cases, but the generosity of Maori in being
flexible in negotiations has enabled most settlements to be agreed
relatively quickly. The bill put forward by David Seymour did not
reflect the principles in the Treaty, and was widely regarded as being
racist and deliberately inflammatory - it was rightly soundly rejected
by Parliament.
Nope, that is incorrect, we had an agreement which "we" broke. It matters not whether it was in writing or verbal.I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA withBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.
Many international agreements have been signed by PrimeBecause it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear >>>>free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving. >>>Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only >>>existed during the will of both parties
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
our nuclear-free legislation - it was delaying with the possibility of >weapons that had been regarded as undesirable by the USA until they
changed their mind, but that decision by NZ was not welcomed and the
other countries decided to no longer regard New Zealand as part of
that agreement. I do not believe there was anything in the agreement
that prevented either the decision by New Zealand or the actions of
the USA and Australia to exclude NZ from the agreement at that time.
But you are correct about the right to change our minds, like with the treaty pribciples, the Paris agreement and any other no longer fit-for-purpose agreement. Simple.not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, andThat is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive. >No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and should
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>>the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, >>>>>>>>>eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There >>>>>>>>>is
no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows
co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several >>>>>>>>"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>>election.
have the right to change their mind. It is silly to suggest otherwise. Nonsense,. It is straw man.
The bill was not disgracceful and if you had an ounce of honesty you would agree.As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most >>>governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>>>few.
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>>>>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone
may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as >>>many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>>political party less popular.
And as ACT is learning now with the reaction to their disgraceful
Treaty Principles Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe Treaty principles bill was not racist, regardless of your bias. It was >defeated because the PM did not have the courage to support what was >essentially a bill to deliver clarity on the Treaty - the bill was no more than
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the >>Waitangi Tribunal was agreed by both Maori and the Crown as a way to
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two >>>>organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>>>>member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all >>>>>>>>>>three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh?
The real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake >>>>>>>>>their
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close >>>>>>>>>behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the >>>>>>>>>co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group of
people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant
The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for >>>>>>more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the >>>>>Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>>>positions.that enabled a
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party.
Yes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>>>long ago.
Only with mutual consent.
to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts
is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once >>>>the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is >>>>clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu >>>>survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on >>>>the Crown while that position survives - and the government which
rules on that basis.
assist properly researched claims under the Treaty. That expert
historical research forced a change of view by many to the Treaty as
they understood the implications of it, and also gained an
understanding of how misunderstandings had developed - including the >>incorrect interpretation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata due to the >>inadequate knowledge held in those days. As our knowledge improved,
those involved gained an understanding not only of how badly Maori had
been treated in some cases, but the generosity of Maori in being
flexible in negotiations has enabled most settlements to be agreed >>relatively quickly. The bill put forward by David Seymour did not
reflect the principles in the Treaty, and was widely regarded as being >>racist and deliberately inflammatory - it was rightly soundly rejected
by Parliament.
that. The defeat was also assisted by greedy and racist minorities that carried
the day - next time that will not work. Those that opposed the bill did not at >any time have equal rights for all in their vision, quite the opposite. You >cannot sugarcoat this issue and you will one day lose this argument.
Nope, that is incorrect, we had an agreement which "we" broke. It matters not >whether it was in writing or verbal.
I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA withBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.
Many international agreements have been signed by PrimeBecause it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear >>>>>free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving. >>>>Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only >>>>existed during the will of both parties
Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example.
our nuclear-free legislation - it was delaying with the possibility of >>weapons that had been regarded as undesirable by the USA until they
changed their mind, but that decision by NZ was not welcomed and the
other countries decided to no longer regard New Zealand as part of
that agreement. I do not believe there was anything in the agreement
that prevented either the decision by New Zealand or the actions of
the USA and Australia to exclude NZ from the agreement at that time.
Don't get too excited though, I was no opposed to the breaking of the agreement
But you are correct about the right to change our minds, like with the treaty >pribciples, the Paris agreement and any other no longer fit-for-purpose >agreement. Simple.
not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, andThat is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive. >>No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and should
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>>>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>>>the years after.
Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people believe, >>>>>>>>>>eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There >>>>>>>>>>is
no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it.
What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty gives/allows
co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow several
"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>>>election.
have the right to change their mind. It is silly to suggest otherwise. >Nonsense,. It is straw man.
The bill was not disgracceful and if you had an ounce of honesty you would >agree.
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most >>>>governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>>>>few.
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>>>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>>>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>>>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill. >>>>>>>>Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>>>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone >>>>may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>>>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as >>>>many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>>>political party less popular.
And as ACT is learning now with the reaction to their disgraceful
Treaty Principles Bill.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:25:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am correct, you are wrong and you have not, ever, actually demonstrated let alone proven your case. Not once. So another straw man argument, is all you have.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe Treaty principles bill was not racist, regardless of your bias. It was >>defeated because the PM did not have the courage to support what was >>essentially a bill to deliver clarity on the Treaty - the bill was no more >>than
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the >>>Waitangi Tribunal was agreed by both Maori and the Crown as a way to >>>assist properly researched claims under the Treaty. That expert >>>historical research forced a change of view by many to the Treaty as
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two >>>>>organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected >>>>>to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts >>>>>is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once >>>>>the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is >>>>>clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu >>>>>survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on >>>>>the Crown while that position survives - and the government which >>>>>rules on that basis.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>>>>>member hereThe real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake >>>>>>>>>>their
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all >>>>>>>>>>>three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the >>>>>>>>>>>principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh? >>>>>>>>>>
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close >>>>>>>>>>behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the >>>>>>>>>>co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group >>>>>>>>>>of
people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant >>>>>>>>>
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for >>>>>>>more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>>>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>>>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>>>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>>>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>>>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>>>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>>>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>>>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the >>>>>>Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>>>>positions.that enabled aYes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>>>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>>>>long ago.
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party. >>>>>>>>
Only with mutual consent.
they understood the implications of it, and also gained an
understanding of how misunderstandings had developed - including the >>>incorrect interpretation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata due to the >>>inadequate knowledge held in those days. As our knowledge improved,
those involved gained an understanding not only of how badly Maori had >>>been treated in some cases, but the generosity of Maori in being
flexible in negotiations has enabled most settlements to be agreed >>>relatively quickly. The bill put forward by David Seymour did not >>>reflect the principles in the Treaty, and was widely regarded as being >>>racist and deliberately inflammatory - it was rightly soundly rejected
by Parliament.
that. The defeat was also assisted by greedy and racist minorities that >>carried
the day - next time that will not work. Those that opposed the bill did not >>at
any time have equal rights for all in their vision, quite the opposite. You >>cannot sugarcoat this issue and you will one day lose this argument.
you are wrong, but I cannot be bothered going over it all again.
Nope, that is incorrect, we had an agreement which "we" broke. It matters not >>whether it was in writing or verbal.
I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA withBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.
Many international agreements have been signed by Prime >>>>>>>Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example. >>>>>>>Because it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>>>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear >>>>>>free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>>>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving. >>>>>Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only >>>>>existed during the will of both parties
our nuclear-free legislation - it was delaying with the possibility of >>>weapons that had been regarded as undesirable by the USA until they >>>changed their mind, but that decision by NZ was not welcomed and the >>>other countries decided to no longer regard New Zealand as part of
that agreement. I do not believe there was anything in the agreement
that prevented either the decision by New Zealand or the actions of
the USA and Australia to exclude NZ from the agreement at that time.
Don't get too excited though, I was no opposed to the breaking of the >>agreement
But you are correct about the right to change our minds, like with the treaty >>pribciples, the Paris agreement and any other no longer fit-for-purpose >>agreement. Simple.
No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and shouldThat is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive.
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>>>>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>>>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars.That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>>>>the years after.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people >>>>>>>>>>>believe,What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty >>>>>>>>>>gives/allows
eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There >>>>>>>>>>>is
no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>
co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow >>>>>>>>>>several
"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty. >>>>>>>>
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>>>>election.
not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, and
have the right to change their mind. It is silly to suggest otherwise. >>Nonsense,. It is straw man.
The bill was not disgracceful and if you had an ounce of honesty you would >>agree.
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most >>>>>governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the >>>>>current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone >>>>>may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>>>>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as >>>>>many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>>>>political party less popular.
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>>>>>few.
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in >>>>>>>>>the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users >>>>>>>>>of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions. >>>>>>>>>Do you have a problem with those agreements?
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that >>>>>>>>>no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
And as ACT is learning now with the reaction to their disgraceful
Treaty Principles Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:25:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am correct, you are wrong and you have not, ever, actually demonstrated >let alone proven your case. Not once. So another straw man argument, is all you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The Treaty principles bill was not racist, regardless of your bias. It was >>>defeated because the PM did not have the courage to support what was >>>essentially a bill to deliver clarity on the Treaty - the bill was no more >>>than
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the >>>>Waitangi Tribunal was agreed by both Maori and the Crown as a way to >>>>assist properly researched claims under the Treaty. That expert >>>>historical research forced a change of view by many to the Treaty as >>>>they understood the implications of it, and also gained an >>>>understanding of how misunderstandings had developed - including the >>>>incorrect interpretation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata due to the >>>>inadequate knowledge held in those days. As our knowledge improved, >>>>those involved gained an understanding not only of how badly Maori had >>>>been treated in some cases, but the generosity of Maori in being >>>>flexible in negotiations has enabled most settlements to be agreed >>>>relatively quickly. The bill put forward by David Seymour did not >>>>reflect the principles in the Treaty, and was widely regarded as being >>>>racist and deliberately inflammatory - it was rightly soundly rejected >>>>by Parliament.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two >>>>>>organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected >>>>>>to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts >>>>>>is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once >>>>>>the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is >>>>>>clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu >>>>>>survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on >>>>>>the Crown while that position survives - and the government which >>>>>>rules on that basis.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>>>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by one >>>>>>>>>>>>member hereThe real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to stake >>>>>>>>>>>their
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support all
three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh? >>>>>>>>>>>
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close >>>>>>>>>>>behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the >>>>>>>>>>>co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one group
of
people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant >>>>>>>>>>
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for >>>>>>>>more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>>>>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>>>>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>>>>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>>>>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>>>>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>>>>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>>>>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>>>>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the >>>>>>>Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>>>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>>>>>positions.that enabled aYes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract >>>>>>>>>endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>>>>>long ago.
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change >>>>>>>>>>the contract without getting the agreement of the other party. >>>>>>>>>
Only with mutual consent.
that. The defeat was also assisted by greedy and racist minorities that >>>carried
the day - next time that will not work. Those that opposed the bill did not >>>at
any time have equal rights for all in their vision, quite the opposite. You >>>cannot sugarcoat this issue and you will one day lose this argument.
you are wrong, but I cannot be bothered going over it all again.
have.
So run away little child and sulk.
whether it was in writing or verbal.
I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA withBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.
Many international agreements have been signed by Prime >>>>>>>>Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example. >>>>>>>>Because it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>>>>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear >>>>>>>free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>>>>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving. >>>>>>Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only >>>>>>existed during the will of both parties
our nuclear-free legislation - it was delaying with the possibility of >>>>weapons that had been regarded as undesirable by the USA until they >>>>changed their mind, but that decision by NZ was not welcomed and the >>>>other countries decided to no longer regard New Zealand as part of
that agreement. I do not believe there was anything in the agreement >>>>that prevented either the decision by New Zealand or the actions of
the USA and Australia to exclude NZ from the agreement at that time. >>>Nope, that is incorrect, we had an agreement which "we" broke. It matters not
Don't get too excited though, I was no opposed to the breaking of the >>>agreement
But you are correct about the right to change our minds, like with the treaty
No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and should >>>>not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, and >>>>have the right to change their mind. It is silly to suggest otherwise. >>>Nonsense,. It is straw man.That is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and deceptive.
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>>>>>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly >>>>>>>>>Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars. >>>>>>>>That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>>>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . .
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court >>>>>>>>>>was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>>>>>the years after.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people >>>>>>>>>>>>believe,What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty >>>>>>>>>>>gives/allows
eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. There
is
no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>
co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow >>>>>>>>>>>several
"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty. >>>>>>>>>
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>>>>>election.
pribciples, the Paris agreement and any other no longer fit-for-purpose >>>agreement. Simple.
The bill was not disgracceful and if you had an ounce of honesty you would >>>agree.
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most >>>>>>governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the >>>>>>current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone >>>>>>may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>>>>>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as >>>>>>many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>>>>>political party less popular.
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so >>>>>>>>>few.
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water in
the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different users
of that river are taken into account in various water usage decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to kill.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
And as ACT is learning now with the reaction to their disgraceful >>>>Treaty Principles Bill.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 03:47:18 -0000 (UTC), TonySo sorry that you have regressed so much. You provide heaps of abuse, rare logical progression (just distraction) and low intellect. You need help.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:25:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am correct, you are wrong and you have not, ever, actually demonstrated >>let alone proven your case. Not once. So another straw man argument, is all >>you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The Treaty principles bill was not racist, regardless of your bias. It was >>>>defeated because the PM did not have the courage to support what was >>>>essentially a bill to deliver clarity on the Treaty - the bill was no more >>>>than
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am glad that you said that, Tony. The legislation that set up the >>>>>Waitangi Tribunal was agreed by both Maori and the Crown as a way to >>>>>assist properly researched claims under the Treaty. That expert >>>>>historical research forced a change of view by many to the Treaty as >>>>>they understood the implications of it, and also gained an >>>>>understanding of how misunderstandings had developed - including the >>>>>incorrect interpretation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata due to the >>>>>inadequate knowledge held in those days. As our knowledge improved, >>>>>those involved gained an understanding not only of how badly Maori had >>>>>been treated in some cases, but the generosity of Maori in being >>>>>flexible in negotiations has enabled most settlements to be agreed >>>>>relatively quickly. The bill put forward by David Seymour did not >>>>>reflect the principles in the Treaty, and was widely regarded as being >>>>>racist and deliberately inflammatory - it was rightly soundly rejected >>>>>by Parliament.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:51:02 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:The Treaty may be binding but the so-called principles are not.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:29:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Which is the case more often than not. A contract between two >>>>>>>organisations may be signed by a Chief Executive, but it is expected >>>>>>>to continue should that person die. One of the most common contracts >>>>>>>is a will - it is there specifically to deal with certain matters once >>>>>>>the signatory has died. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is >>>>>>>clear that the contract was to continue while that iwi or hapu >>>>>>>survives. On the other side, the Treaty was intended to be binding on >>>>>>>the Crown while that position survives - and the government which >>>>>>>rules on that basis.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:21:10 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:53:00 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:It was signed by most Maori leaders - and negotiations and agreements >>>>>>>>>have since been made with the tribes that did not sign.
On 15 Apr 2025 00:16:07 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 2025-04-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The Treaty was an agreement between Maori and the Crown
In the hope that we will not have a repeat of the lies used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>oneThe real problem is that none of the politicans are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>>stake
member here
last time, I post this because it matters.
Democracy matters, fighting racism matters.
I quote
"The majority of supporters of all major parties including Labour >>>>>>>>>>>>>supporters
but
excluding the greens (no chance of integrity from them) support >>>>>>>>>>>>>all
three
Treaty Principles. But even the greens support one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>principles.
No real surprise but maybe the politicians will listen eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>
their
case to either mast. National want it kicked down the road over the >>>>>>>>>>>>horizion
so that will not have to deal with it. The other parties are close >>>>>>>>>>>>behind.
The reasoning is different for the Maori party see is as the >>>>>>>>>>>>co-governace
door is still open.
The Treaty Principles Bill was more about saying we are all one >>>>>>>>>>>>group
of
people under the law, rather than what the Treaty said/meant >>>>>>>>>>>
Inaccurate from the start. The Treaty was an agreement between some >>>>>>>>>>Maori, and the Crown, first signed on February 6th 1840. Not all >>>>>>>>>>Maori signed as there was no entity that represented the Maori >>>>>>>>>>population of the day.
It was seen as the basis for the establishment of a government for >>>>>>>>>more than just English settlers,
That may have been the intent of Hobson and the missionaries, but >>>>>>>>subsequent wanton violations of the Treaty ever since (and still the >>>>>>>>reason why the Waitangi Tribunal survives) give the lie to this. For >>>>>>>>nearly 100 years actual treatment of Maori by the Government was >>>>>>>>somewhere between fair and shameful. The victims and perpetrators of >>>>>>>>this are long gone but a grievance industry endures.
and for separating the command line
to New Zealand from that to Australia.
The Treaty was incidental to this and not a part of it. Our first >>>>>>>>Government was formed in 1854 after we were granted self-governing >>>>>>>>status, having been governed from the UK as an extension of New South >>>>>>>>Wales prior to that.
The Treaty was signed in 1840, so is not connected to how the >>>>>>>>Europeans governed the country.
That is not true - there are many contracts that have survived well >>>>>>>>>after those that signed it have dies or are no longer in their >>>>>>>>>positions.that enabled aYes - but only if they are signatories to the contract during their >>>>>>>>>>lifetime or sooner if the contract specifies an end-date. No contract
government to be formed, on the basis that laws would be consistent >>>>>>>>>>>with the provisions of the Treaty. It is a bit like you agreeing a >>>>>>>>>>>contract with a company and then saying later that you want to change
the contract without getting the agreement of the other party. >>>>>>>>>>
endures beyond the lifetimes of those that signed it, therefore if >>>>>>>>>>you consider the Treaty of Waitangi to be a contract it has lapsed >>>>>>>>>>long ago.
Only with mutual consent.
that. The defeat was also assisted by greedy and racist minorities that >>>>carried
the day - next time that will not work. Those that opposed the bill did not >>>>at
any time have equal rights for all in their vision, quite the opposite. You >>>>cannot sugarcoat this issue and you will one day lose this argument.
you are wrong, but I cannot be bothered going over it all again.
have.
So run away little child and sulk.
Tony, you almost never provide any documentary credible support for
your argument, and have not in this case. You appear to believe any
opinion from the ACT party is credible and proven evidence, and ignore >arguments from anyone else. You are contemptible for accusing others
of faults that you always display . . .
whether it was in writing or verbal.
I don't think we broke an agreement with Australia and the USA with >>>>>our nuclear-free legislation - it was delaying with the possibility of >>>>>weapons that had been regarded as undesirable by the USA until they >>>>>changed their mind, but that decision by NZ was not welcomed and the >>>>>other countries decided to no longer regard New Zealand as part of >>>>>that agreement. I do not believe there was anything in the agreement >>>>>that prevented either the decision by New Zealand or the actions of >>>>>the USA and Australia to exclude NZ from the agreement at that time. >>>>Nope, that is incorrect, we had an agreement which "we" broke. It matters >>>>notBut it was not in any of those cases. That is the point.
Many international agreements have been signed by Prime >>>>>>>>>Ministers that are honoured by subsequent governments for example. >>>>>>>>>Because it suits them. We had a defense agreement with Australia, and >>>>>>>>the USA after WWII which we broke with the imposition of our nuclear >>>>>>>>free policy. Take a look at how signatories to the Paris Accord are >>>>>>>>getting on. Take a look at how signatories to the WTO are behaving. >>>>>>>Then it must have been implicit in those agreements that they only >>>>>>>existed during the will of both parties
Don't get too excited though, I was no opposed to the breaking of the >>>>agreement
But you are correct about the right to change our minds, like with the >>>>treaty
No, it is pertinent to the issue that governments do not (and should >>>>>not) always stick to policies mentioned in an election campaign, and >>>>>have the right to change their mind. It is silly to suggest otherwise. >>>>Nonsense,. It is straw man.That is a perfect example of a straw many argument. Pointless and >>>>>>deceptive.
So? - the cancellation of the ferry orders was not mentioned by the >>>>>>>National Party . . .
The reality is that the Treaty was an attempt to leverage the >>>>>>>>>>friendship between the missionaries in the Bay of Islands and friendly
Maori hosts, who used what they learned from the colonisers to >>>>>>>>>>subjugate other Maori tribes in the traditional way of inter-tribal >>>>>>>>>>warfare. Hence what is now referred to as the musket wars. >>>>>>>>>That is a bit of an oversimplification - the Maori in the Bay of >>>>>>>>>Islands were not necessarily those most involved in war . . . >>>>>>>>>
That
leads to Court cases - and there were sufficient cases being brought >>>>>>>>>>>in relation to Breaches of the Treaty that a special specialist court
was set up.
You have over-simplified and misrepresented what happened in 1840 and >>>>>>>>>>the years after.
After 183 years, there can be no justification for inventing a new >>>>>>>>>>form of government on a nationwide scale and saying that this was >>>>>>>>>>needed as a Treaty commitment.Even less likely, maybe the MSM will report what the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>believe,What has got us into the swamp is this idea that the treaty >>>>>>>>>>>>gives/allows
eh?
https://thefacts.nz/treaty-principles-poll-3/"
The majority of New Zealanders want the debate, nothing more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>There
is
no wish
by anybody to change the treaty, merely to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
co-governace and the several Treaty copies, each of which allow >>>>>>>>>>>>several
"understandings".
Co-governance is a concept that was developed relatively recently to >>>>>>>>>>>come to an agreement about certain things between one or more groups >>>>>>>>>>>of Maori and the Crown that met the requirements of the Treaty. >>>>>>>>>>
The Labour Government initiative of co-governance of water use >>>>>>>>>>throughout NZ was never mentioned by Labour prior to the 2020 >>>>>>>>>>election.
pribciples, the Paris agreement and any other no longer fit-for-purpose >>>>agreement. Simple.
The bill was not disgracceful and if you had an ounce of honesty you >>>>would
As Labout learned at the last election.As far as our government is concerned, that is the reason most >>>>>>>governments try to limit promises prior to an election, but the >>>>>>>current government cancelled a contract for two ferries - that alone >>>>>>>may well affect their support at the next election. Sure it was a >>>>>>>commercial contract that may well have had terms for cancellation, as >>>>>>>many contracts do, but both dishonesty and stupidity tend to make a >>>>>>>political party less popular.
ThereI don't - because the boundaries of co-managed resources that you >>>>>>>>>>refer to are microscopically small and those affected are therefore so
may have been other ways agreement could have been reached, but that >>>>>>>>>>>was what was used in a few cases. among the most well known >>>>>>>>>>>co-governance arrangements are those set up for management of water >>>>>>>>>>>in
the Waikato and Wanganui Rivers - they ensure that the different >>>>>>>>>>>users
of that river are taken into account in various water usage >>>>>>>>>>>decisions.
Do you have a problem with those agreements?
few.
Just as we live with many other agreements that have been made by >>>>>>>>>>>different governments over the years. Some have been changed by >>>>>>>>>>>agreement, but a government that does not stick to agreements with >>>>>>>>>>>other countries may find itself in trouble eventually.
This issue will live on, it has to.
"... it has to", it will live on as it will be extremely hard to >>>>>>>>>>>>kill.
Incorrect. No government can ever commit a future government to a >>>>>>>>>>contract, whether that is New Zealand or any other country. We are >>>>>>>>>>seeing this today particularly with the USA. Many governments don't >>>>>>>>>>even do what they committed to do.
The National
Party has previously talked about the "sanctity of contract" - is >>>>>>>>>>>that
no longer something that they value? Would you want to do business >>>>>>>>>>>with a country that broke agreements?
Perhaps you could compile a list of countries that have always >>>>>>>>>>honoured government agreements. Yes we would probably be on it, but >>>>>>>>>>how many of our major export destinations would?
And as ACT is learning now with the reaction to their disgraceful >>>>>Treaty Principles Bill.
agree.
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between
the Crown and Maori.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:05:09 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between
the Crown and Maori.
You still havent explained, though, which version of the Treaty you
were talking about. Since by your own admission, different parties signed >different versions. So there was never a universal version signed by all >parties.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:05:09 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between
the Crown and Maori.
You still havent explained, though, which version of the Treaty you
were talking about. Since by your own admission, different parties signed >different versions. So there was never a universal version signed by all >parties.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 23:56:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:So you don't know the answer. Why post then?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:05:09 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between >>> the Crown and Maori.
You still havent explained, though, which version of the Treaty you
were talking about. Since by your own admission, different parties signed >>different versions. So there was never a universal version signed by all >>parties.
There are a number of references - see for example: >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
That was during the term of John Key as Prime Minister, but I think it
was supported by other court determinations both before and after that
date.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 23:56:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:So you don't know the answer. Why post then?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:05:09 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between >>>> the Crown and Maori.
You still havent explained, though, which version of the Treaty you >>>were talking about. Since by your own admission, different parties signed >>>different versions. So there was never a universal version signed by all >>>parties.
There are a number of references - see for example: >>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
That was during the term of John Key as Prime Minister, but I think it
was supported by other court determinations both before and after that >>date.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 03:59:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey most certainly did. That lie if yours is at the centre of this nonsense. >; but then I expect you did not bother reading the link
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 23:56:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:So you don't know the answer. Why post then?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:05:09 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
... the attempt was to bypass the Treaty by misinterpreting it and
changing laws so that they break the terms of that solemn Treaty between >>>>> the Crown and Maori.
You still havent explained, though, which version of the Treaty you >>>>were talking about. Since by your own admission, different parties signed >>>>different versions. So there was never a universal version signed by all >>>>parties.
There are a number of references - see for example: >>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
That was during the term of John Key as Prime Minister, but I think it >>>was supported by other court determinations both before and after that >>>date.
One of the major claims by Seymour was that Maori had ceded
sovereignty when they signed the Maori version of the Treaty. They did
not
- it mustAh, so being on "holiday" did not fix your abusive nature, not that we expected it would.
be hard to stay as ignorant as you appear to be, Tony - or is it all a >pretence on your part?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 24:18:39 |
| Calls: | 9,790 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,050 |