Discussion:
Hikoi mo te Tiriti
Add Reply
Tony
2024-11-26 19:53:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm

And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"

The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Gordon
2024-11-27 01:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.

We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Tony
2024-11-27 01:31:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature
leaders.
Rich80105
2024-11-27 08:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
all, and those incapable of thinking.
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lack
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori
culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening?
Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courage
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
Post by Tony
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature
leaders.
You cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT
supporters present. But I agree that Luxon is being immature in
allowing ACT to drag this out - all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
Tony
2024-11-27 08:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti,
I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
all, and those incapable of thinking.
Rubbish.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in
parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lack
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
All lies. And in fact dangerous lies.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori
culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
That does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening?
Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
Once more, off topic, can you actually read?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courage
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you
deliberately do it to try to deceive.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature
leaders.
You cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT
supporters present.
Yes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the
House.
Post by Rich80105
Lie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying
again.
Rich80105
2024-11-27 09:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:26:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti,
I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
all, and those incapable of thinking.
Rubbish.
I agree, Tony - they are rubbish, but unfortunately Seymour appears to
have control of the coalition of chaos . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in
parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lack
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
All lies. And in fact dangerous lies.
Forcing the select committee to go on for six months is an enormous
waste of money - how can you condone that, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori
culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
That does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.
Most of us are listening to others, including those we do not agree
with, like Seymour. But you appear incapable of learning and growing
up, Tony, and unprepared to really think about the damage Seymour is
doing. Try listening yourself, Tony!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening?
Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
Once more, off topic, can you actually read?
That is the accusation you make when you are totally lost - get
someone to explain it to you, Tony . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courage
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you
deliberately do it to try to deceive.
All sides of the house and the people - who were you addressing?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature
leaders.
You cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT
supporters present.
Yes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the
House.
Very few from the Hikoi entered the house. Yes Seymour behaved
deplorably, and Luxon was not there . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Lie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying
again.
That is what he is aiming to do - it would deliver more profits to
corporate entities that support the Atlas Network, the NZ Taxpayers
Union and the NZ Initiative; and they are the source of political
inspiration and funding for the ACT Party . . . Did you not know
that, Tony?
Tony
2024-11-27 18:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:26:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:31:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti,
I
am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
Most people of course - except the nutters that think they know it
all, and those incapable of thinking.
Rubbish.
Rich's sarcasm gone for now, but it will return, just like rats always do.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in
parliament
to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Object to the blatant distortions of fact from the ACT party, the lack
of courage and leadership from National and NZ First who are allowing
the farce to go on for six months of select committee which is an
abhorrent waste of money and time, and applaud the united efforts of
Te Pati Maori, the Labour Party and the Green Party who have assisted
New Zealanders in understanding that the racism of the ACT party
cannot be tolerated, and the complicity of National and NZ First
deplored.
All lies. And in fact dangerous lies.
Forcing the select committee to go on for six months is an enormous
waste of money - how can you condone that, Tony?
It's called democracy you cretin.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Clearly you did not listen to the Hikoi - they demonstrated that Maori
culture is real, living and valued, and the most common chant (not
yelled) was "Kill the Bill!"
That does not abnswer the question, but you know that of course.
Abuse gone.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
Since a huge majority of our representatives in parliament are united
in opposition to the Bill, who are the idiots that are not listening?
Bigots from ACT, the timid and overwhelmed from National, and NZ First
who are happily getting money to their supporters while ignoring it
all.
Once more, off topic, can you actually read?
That is the accusation you make when you are totally lost
Indeed you do, why? Is it a sickness or stupidity?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Three parties are united in opposition - two do not have the courage
to stop it, and the ACT party revel in pushing ideas that are rejected
by a large majority of New Zealanders. In any vote the ACT proposals
will be defeated - let them get on with it!
How many different people are you addressing in this post? Or do you
deliberately do it to try to deceive.
All sides of the house and the people - who were you addressing?
Answer the question.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
All of which we caring folk would agree with. The disappointment for me is that
TMP and the Hikoi folk do not want to listen or discuss. They need mature
leaders.
You cannot really mean that - the Hikoi was attended by a large number
of people from most parties, although I doubt there were many ACT
supporters present.
Yes I mean it because it is true. That is why the behaved deplorably in the
House.
Satcvasm gone. again for jow.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Lie removed - stop twisting what people say - it is childish.
- all that is doing is giving ACT the
opportunity to get noticed while they plan further far-right policies
such as moving us closer to a USA hospital system - where the poor
cannot afford good health care . . .
Bullshit, they don;t want that and they are not far righjt - you are lying
again.
That is what he is aiming to do - it would deliver more profits to
corporate entities that support the Atlas Network, the NZ Taxpayers
Union and the NZ Initiative; and they are the source of political
inspiration and funding for the ACT Party . . . Did you not know
that, Tony?
That is a lie, you are beyond help.
Crash
2024-11-27 05:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Indeed. We need to listen to each other and understand each others point of
view, with a point of an agreement.
We need all sides of the House to get bi-partisan and lead the people
through this.
Gordon you are deluded if you think this was ever a possibility. Acts
Treaty Principles Bill was never intended to seek understanding - it
was purely intended to balance what ACT perceive to be a one-sided
slant on Treaty provisions by the Waitangi Tribunal and our Judiciary.
It was always intended to inflame and place ACT at the forefront of
rolling back Maori preferential treatment that started 50 years ago
(with noble intent) but morphed into a perpetuating grievance
industry.

NZF tried to do this in 2006. Their Bill was treated in the same way
(there was a Select Committee report and it was voted down at the
second reading). A simple Google search will reveal all to those
prepared to wade through the results.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-11-27 03:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Absolutely right - and what we will do first is look for National to
do what they promised - to vote against the Bill. Most New Zealanders
will also look for that to be done as quickly as possible - Luxon
clearly made a mistake in agreeing to allow the Bill to be introduced
without it being agreed by the other coalition parties, but there is
nothing in the coalition agreement that says a six month period for a
select Committee is needed. Indeed the Coalition parties themselves
have agreed to a much shorter period for a select Committee for other
legislation. Luxon and Peters should agree with the leaders of the
opposition parties on a date for the select committee to report back
so that the Bill can be effectively killed early in the 2025
parliamentary year.
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Those attending the Hikoi were not yelling at anyone - they were
loudly calling for the Bill to be defeated - the most common chant was
"Kill the Bill" - very clear and concise, and of course in English so
that ACT and National politicians could understand it. Overall the
protest was much calmer and ordered than most protests, including
those manufactured by ACT and National politicians. Just because you
have problems getting anyone to listen to you does not mean that
others have the same problem, Tony - but perhaps you are upset that
ACT and National appear only to listen to those that donate money to
them . . .
Tony
2024-11-27 04:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Absolutely right - and what we will do first is look for National to
do what they promised - to vote against the Bill. Most New Zealanders
will also look for that to be done as quickly as possible - Luxon
clearly made a mistake in agreeing to allow the Bill to be introduced
without it being agreed by the other coalition parties, but there is
nothing in the coalition agreement that says a six month period for a
select Committee is needed. Indeed the Coalition parties themselves
have agreed to a much shorter period for a select Committee for other
legislation. Luxon and Peters should agree with the leaders of the
opposition parties on a date for the select committee to report back
so that the Bill can be effectively killed early in the 2025
parliamentary year.
The first thing that we need is for TPM and their followers to agree to talk
about the treaty.
There is no doubt National will do what they promised, they have been
unwavering.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Those attending the Hikoi were not yelling at anyone
Yes they were.
Post by Rich80105
- they were
loudly calling
Yes yelling.
Post by Rich80105
for the Bill to be defeated - the most common chant was
"Kill the Bill" - very clear and concise, and of course in English so
that ACT and National politicians could understand it. Overall the
protest was much calmer and ordered than most protests, including
those manufactured by ACT and National politicians.
ABuse removed.
The Hikoi refused to listen to any opposing views. Disgraceful but of course
you love that.
Crash
2024-11-27 06:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
Absolutely right - and what we will do first is look for National to
do what they promised - to vote against the Bill.
Correct - though not for the reasons you have said.
Post by Rich80105
Most New Zealanders
will also look for that to be done as quickly as possible - Luxon
clearly made a mistake in agreeing to allow the Bill to be introduced
without it being agreed by the other coalition parties,
Both coalition agreements were agreed to by all 3 parties. NZF
sponsored a similar bill in 2005-2006. Neither NZF nor ACT were
blindsided by the other coalition agreement.
Post by Rich80105
but there is
nothing in the coalition agreement that says a six month period for a
select Committee is needed. Indeed the Coalition parties themselves
have agreed to a much shorter period for a select Committee for other
legislation.
Wile that is correct, a shorter period is in effect with submissions
closing on January 7th. Can you cite another Bill that had such a
short submissions period over the Xmas-New Year recess?
Post by Rich80105
Luxon and Peters should agree with the leaders of the
opposition parties on a date for the select committee to report back
so that the Bill can be effectively killed early in the 2025
parliamentary year.
No need.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Those attending the Hikoi were not yelling at anyone - they were
loudly calling for the Bill to be defeated - the most common chant was
"Kill the Bill" - very clear and concise, and of course in English so
that ACT and National politicians could understand it.
The Hikoi was preaching to the converted. The behaviour of the Maori
Party during the first reading on the bill by performing a haka was
intimidation as intended. The All Blacks perform a haka before each
match, and the intent is notional intimidation. In the Autumn test
series just past it was clear that the French and Italian crowds
treated the haka as a tradition with respect. The English and Irish
crowds treated it as pure intimidation.
Post by Rich80105
Overall the
protest was much calmer and ordered than most protests,
I agree it was well-controlled.
Post by Rich80105
including
those manufactured by ACT and National politicians. Just because you
have problems getting anyone to listen to you does not mean that
others have the same problem, Tony - but perhaps you are upset that
ACT and National appear only to listen to those that donate money to
them . . .
--
Crash McBash
Mutley
2024-11-27 19:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
Rich80105
2024-11-28 09:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party. It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.

So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats. The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed. that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.

This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .

So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Tony
2024-11-28 19:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party. It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats. The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed. that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Sheer nonsense from Rich driven by political greed.
Crash
2024-11-28 22:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.

ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.

The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.

Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-11-28 23:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
Tony
2024-11-29 01:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
TPM and you are racist. ACT are opposed to racism. That is a fact.
Crash
2024-11-29 03:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
reader). This agreement an be found here:

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
Party.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
Post by Rich80105
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Neither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-11-29 05:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select
Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months, so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary. National required a much shorter
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not
really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
Party.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
(and in particular:
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
define the principles of the treaty as:

The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.

The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.

All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and
duties.

The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in
statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)

While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of
Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the
deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.

ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te
Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private
property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)

Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we
conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the
evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds
jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their
lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably
ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)

‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.

My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.

In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is
inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the
proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate
historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill

https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Neither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so
restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that
mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a
reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through
determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words
themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
Crash
2024-11-29 20:04:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select
Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
I have seen news reports that the Select Committee process usually
takes 6 months. Select Committee deliberations are usually not
reported unless someone makes a newsworthy submission. I am sure that
there will be many submissions and this is the only formal opportunity
that is granted to supporters of the Bill outside Parliament.
Submissions close on January 7 so those submitting need to carve out
time from what is the busiest time of the social year and a popular
time to take accrued annual leave with summer travel.

This is a contentious, if dead, Bill. Only opponents like you wish to
have time restrictions put on this process.
Post by Rich80105
National required a much shorter
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not
really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
You forgot to mention that the Fast Track Bill was National policy,
and they were elected on the basis that this would be passed because
the voters had spoken on this.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
Party.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
There was a lot of irrational logic in the protest. The Bill is
already dead, but National are honouring a contractual agreement to
bring it before Parliament.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and
duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in
statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of
Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the
deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te
Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private
property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we
conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the
evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds
jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their
lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably
ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is
inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the
proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate
historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Neither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so
restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
The reason for this is obvious as it is a singular obligation that
National and ACT have agreed on. The Government is carrying out that
obligation.

All parties have rules on how their caucus can behave. Those rules by
their nature are authoritarian and I would expect all candidates for
Parliament would be made aware of them on nomination.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that
mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a
reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through
determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words
themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
I don't see any of this in ACT's Bill. What I do see is that Treaty
principles enacted by an unelected authority (the Court of Appeal)
seeks to replace them with similar principles from an elected
Government.

This is not the first time this has been attempted (Google Principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 2006) which received exactly
the same treatment as the ACT Bill will. The only difference is who
the protagonists were - a Labour-led Government supporting a bill
introduced by NZ First.

The ACT Bill is no more significant now that the NZF bill was then -
so why so much protest this time around?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2024-11-29 20:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select
Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
I have seen news reports that the Select Committee process usually
takes 6 months. Select Committee deliberations are usually not
reported unless someone makes a newsworthy submission. I am sure that
there will be many submissions and this is the only formal opportunity
that is granted to supporters of the Bill outside Parliament.
Submissions close on January 7 so those submitting need to carve out
time from what is the busiest time of the social year and a popular
time to take accrued annual leave with summer travel.
This is a contentious, if dead, Bill. Only opponents like you wish to
have time restrictions put on this process.
Post by Rich80105
National required a much shorter
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not
really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
You forgot to mention that the Fast Track Bill was National policy,
and they were elected on the basis that this would be passed because
the voters had spoken on this.
This is the same argument used above in relation to ACT - the reality
is that an election includes a lot of statements that are not
necessarily noticed in the heat of a campaign, or at least not always
recognised for the abandonment of due process that they are now seen
to be. That so many of those that are now on a list that was not given
until well after the election are of dubious value for money, favour
financial supporters of one or more of the coalition political
parties, and have dubious return on capital required may well not have
been noticed during the election campaign. So to the argument that
having something mentioned in an election campaign justifies it being
pushed through without cost/benefit analysis or ensuring that the
project does not conflict with other laws or international commitments
just to benefit a select group of political supporters, is just
bullshit.

It is somewhat ironic that David Seymour is pushing some of these
payback to donor projects at the same time as he is (correctly)
pushing for better cost / benefit analysis of projects before they get
approved.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
Party.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
There was a lot of irrational logic in the protest. The Bill is
already dead, but National are honouring a contractual agreement to
bring it before Parliament.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and
duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in
statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of
Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the
deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te
Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private
property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we
conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the
evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds
jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their
lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably
ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is
inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the
proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate
historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Neither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so
restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
The reason for this is obvious as it is a singular obligation that
National and ACT have agreed on. The Government is carrying out that
obligation.
All parties have rules on how their caucus can behave. Those rules by
their nature are authoritarian and I would expect all candidates for
Parliament would be made aware of them on nomination.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that
mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a
reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through
determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words
themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
I don't see any of this in ACT's Bill. What I do see is that Treaty
principles enacted by an unelected authority (the Court of Appeal)
seeks to replace them with similar principles from an elected
Government.
This is not the first time this has been attempted (Google Principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 2006) which received exactly
the same treatment as the ACT Bill will. The only difference is who
the protagonists were - a Labour-led Government supporting a bill
introduced by NZ First.
The ACT Bill is no more significant now that the NZF bill was then -
so why so much protest this time around?
Rich80105
2024-11-30 21:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutley
Post by Tony
Good to see Stuff occasionally provide a balanced view.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360499971/missed-opportunities-hikoi-and-missing-pm
And for me this is what matters.
"While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hikoi mo te Tiriti, I am
left with the question;
on the day after the hikoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key
issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to
represent us, going to do about it?"
The Hikoi didn't want to engage they just wanted to yell at the country. Time
we grew up. Time we listened to each other.
Yes I was rather surprized when Three Stuffed News gave a balanced
article of what it was all about considering their usual anti
government content every nite.
I don't know why you are surprised. This is a protest about a proposal
led by one MP - David Seymour, presumably with the support of his
party.
This is a prime example of your pedantic political rhetoric. The
Treaty Principles Bill was ACT policy, therefore supported by the
party at large and its MPs. While that is still a very small number
of people in NZ, you attempt to minimise ACT and Seymour.
Post by Rich80105
It is opposed by all other parties, but National and NZ First
have allowed it to be go through a first reading then select committee
as part of an agreement where Luxon is widely regarded as having
committed to too much - particularly in this case; but Luxon has gone
further in allowing the select committee to keep the issue alive for
six months, which he did no have to do.
Again - worthless anti-Government political rhetoric. You rail for
sanctity of contract in respect of meeting TOW commitments but now
want National to break its agreement with ACT to see the Bill through
to a second reading.
I acknowledge that Luxon made a stupid commitment in agreeing to allow
the bill to go to select Committee, and I have not suggested that he
break that commitment, but there does not appear to be any need to
have the select committee last six months - that is not in the
coalition agreement. Try reading what I write rather than dreaming
things up, Crash.
No Rich - you try reading the coalition agreement between National and
ACT: I quote "Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing
ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee
as soon as practicable." (Bottom of page 9 according to my PDF
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/co-24-2-national-act-and-new-zealand-first-coalition-government-consultation-and-operating-arrangements#introduction
From the words you quote, the agreement is to support it to select
Committee. There is no commitment to allow the Select Committee to
drag on for six months so ACT can keep their racist assertions and
reckons in front of the public, fomenting disagreements and division,
for much longer than is necessary.
I have seen news reports that the Select Committee process usually
takes 6 months. Select Committee deliberations are usually not
reported unless someone makes a newsworthy submission. I am sure that
there will be many submissions and this is the only formal opportunity
that is granted to supporters of the Bill outside Parliament.
Submissions close on January 7 so those submitting need to carve out
time from what is the busiest time of the social year and a popular
time to take accrued annual leave with summer travel.
This is a contentious, if dead, Bill. Only opponents like you wish to
have time restrictions put on this process.
Post by Rich80105
National required a much shorter
select committee term for their "Fast Track" bill, where they did not
really want views from the public, but with this they are allowing
dissent to build through a longer period of keeping racist views in
the news.
You forgot to mention that the Fast Track Bill was National policy,
and they were elected on the basis that this would be passed because
the voters had spoken on this.
This is the same argument used above in relation to ACT - the reality
is that an election includes a lot of statements that are not
necessarily noticed in the heat of a campaign, or at least not always
recognised for the abandonment of due process that they are now seen
to be. That so many of those that are now on a list that was not given
until well after the election are of dubious value for money, favour
financial supporters of one or more of the coalition political
parties, and have dubious return on capital required may well not have
been noticed during the election campaign. So to the argument that
having something mentioned in an election campaign justifies it being
pushed through without cost/benefit analysis or ensuring that the
project does not conflict with other laws or international commitments
just to benefit a select group of political supporters, is just
bullshit.
It is somewhat ironic that David Seymour is pushing some of these
payback to donor projects at the same time as he is (correctly)
pushing for better cost / benefit analysis of projects before they get
approved.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So the proposal is really only supported by 1 out of 6 parties in
parliament - a party that got around 9% of the votes for those6
parties, and around 9% of the seats.
There have been a number of occasions, mostly involving NZ First,
where the small party in a coalition has won concessions from the
largest party on their party policy. This is just another one, unique
though that it will not be passed.
I have not suggested otherwise.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The protest group were adamant
that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated quickly - their parties
represent about 90% of both political parties, seats in parliament,
and supporters, that want the Bill to be Killed.
That's almost Trumpian logic. Its so irrational it could be used by a
stand-up comic.
Did you not realise that the protest included large numbers of
supporters of all Opposition parties? While it may have been organised
by Te Pati Maori, there were many supporters of Labour, Greens, and Te
Pati Maori. I have been told there were some protestors who would be
expected to support National, but I have not seen any confirmation of
that, but it is clear that National and NZ First will vote against the
second reading - or at least say they will at this time.
The only evidence of support I saw from protesters was for the Maori
Party.
There were certainly banners identifying supporters of Te Pati Maori,
but that does not mean there were not protestors from other parties -
there were a lot of people in the final group in Wellington for
example that said that they were supporters of Labour or the Green
Party; many Labour supporters would have voted in the Maori
electorates, but many marched who would have voted in other
electorates. They were however united in calling for the Coalition to
"Kill the Bill"
There was a lot of irrational logic in the protest. The Bill is
already dead, but National are honouring a contractual agreement to
bring it before Parliament.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
that is not
anti-government, that is anti-ACT Party, but with some frustration
with National and NZ First thrown in - they were not yelling at the
country, just the stupid 9% who support the bill. They were very
orderly and non-disruptive, but made their point clearly.
They may their point clearly that they opposed the Bill - but not why.
I have seen no rational reasons why the Bill is opposed. Nobody has
ever explained to me directly why they oppose the wording of the
principles in the Bill, or how it is in conflict with the a Treaty
signed so long ago.
You must have wilfully avoided such arguments then - from past Prime
Ministers, past Treaty Settlement Ministers, the Waitangi tribunal,
and a large group of senior legal experts.
None of which have actually quoted the text of the Bill to specify
exactly what text they object to. If you can find any reference to
this I would be interested in reading it, but don't bother with
assertions that fail to mention any text from the Bill. All I have
seen is assertions that the Bill seeks to rewrite the treaty, amongst
other general assertions.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
"So how are we to judge ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill? The
bill is not yet before Parliament, but ACT’s manifesto said it would
The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority
over their land and other property.
All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and
duties.
The proposal looks like an attempt to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Evolving the interpretation of past events is organic; putting one in
statute is not; it fossilises it. At a deeper level, it is not unusual
for an authoritarian state to reinterpret history to suit itself.
(Witness Putin about the history of the Ukraine.)
While its principles 1 and 3 are consistent with those of the Court of
Appeal, the ACT proposal omits other key treaty principles. One is
uneasy that we should pass a law which seems to repeal so casually the
deliberations of the courts on such weighty matters, especially as
those that underpin a liberal democracy.
ACT’s Principle 2 is narrower than the principles set out by the Court
of Appeal. It is a limited interpretation of the second article of Te
Tiriti, reflecting the neoliberal view that it is only about private
property rights. Maori had few of those in 1840; property rights were
held by the community, much to the frustration of Europeans who wanted
to acquire land. Neoliberals object to community ownership. (Elinor
Ostrom was made a Nobel Laureate in 2009 for her work explaining how
such collective ownership can work very effectively.)
Moreover, the second article of Te Tiriti covers far more that what we
conventionally think of as private property. We can see that from the
evolution of the drafts of the treaty. Up to what is called the
‘English version’ there was a list – ‘Lands and Estates Forests
Fisheries and other properties’. The text signed on the treaty grounds
jumps to ‘ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa’– ‘their
lands, their villages and all their treasured things’. (Because
translators would not make that jump, I am of the view there was a
revised English draft from which Te Tiriti was translated; it probably
ended up in Colenso’s – now lost – papers.)
‘Taonga katoa’ is a very strong term – much more encompassing than
ACT’s ‘other property’. For instance, the courts have ruled that ‘te
reo’ is one of those taonga. Had this been raised with Maori on 6
February 1840 – unlikely because people didn’t think that way then –
the Maori response would probably have been ‘he aha to tikanga?’ –
‘what do you mean?’ Ask it today, the response is a very positive ‘ae,
ae’.
My thinking is greatly influenced by Edmund Burke and, indeed,
Friedrich Hayek when he is not a neoliberal. They saw organic
development at the core of social progress. Sometimes the government
has to accelerate or enable it. It should avoid retarding it or
fossilising it. That is what the ACT proposal does.
In arguing that the ACT proposal retards organic development and
undermines democratic principles, I am not arguing that the party is
inherently reactionary or authoritarian. Rather, I don’t think the
proponents of the bill have thought these issues through. We shall see
how they respond when such issues are drawn to their attention. One
hopes they will reaffirm the Court of Appeal’s principles of the
treaty which underpin a liberal democracy and adopt a more accurate
historical account of the drafting of Te Tiriti and the subsequent
organic evolution of its interpretation."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533674/senior-lawyers-call-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-abandoned
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533705/treaty-principles-bill-bill-of-rights-act-advice-quite-damning-academic
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533817/treaty-principles-bill-will-greatly-damage-national-s-relationship-with-maori-former-minister
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533944/treaty-principles-bill-inviting-civil-war-jenny-shipley-says
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/property-rights-and-the-treaty-principles-bill
https://thestandard.org.nz/if-seymour-succeeds-what-happens-to-ngapuhis-treaty-claim/
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
This recent protest made its point clearly and politely, and submitted
a petition signed by over 200,000 New Zealanders. It was calm and
peaceful, totally unlike the unruly mob that ACT, National and NZ
First encouraged at the previous protest at parliament - with funding
assistance from the Atlas Network groups. This protest was also much
larger - estimates range from about 32.000 to 52,000, depending on the
political alignment of those measuring . . .
There you go again. The petition has value but should be seen in the
context of how many voters there are. It is approx. 8% of registered
voters. Your allegations against National, ACT and NZF are just as
baseless now as when you first made them. Repetition diminishes your
credibility, yet again.
The petition was put together over a small period of time while the
protest was underway - the number at the time it was presented was
higher than stated when it was presented was already a few thousand
higher.
Post by Crash
ACT, on the other hand, garnered 246,000 party votes in the last
election. It puts the petition signatures count into perspective.
No it doesn't - the petition was collected over only a few days.
So why not continue, and present the petition to the Select Committee
with a far more credible signature count?
There was probably news value in making a presentation on the day of
the Hikoi being in Wellington - the larger number of people may well
be reflected in a further presentation
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Importantly, a large majority of parliamentarians are against the
bill, but for unknown reasons are allowing it to drag on enabling ACT
to peddle divisive shallow and wrong ideas for a longer time than was
agreed
Neither you nor me know exactly how many MPs support ACT's Bill. All
we know is how many will vote for or against it at the Second Reading
but that is because of the coalition agreement, not each MP's
viewpoint.
Both National and ACT have very authoritarian rules on caucus that
will be preventing any current MPs from those parties except the
leaders from commenting - and for National Luxon is trying to keep
comments to a minimum other than confirming that National will not
support the Bill beyond allowing it to go to Select Committee, and for
ACT David Seymour is the virtually only MP that is speaking on the
Bill. For National, previous MPS and previous Leaders are not so
restricted, and they are making it clear that in their view the Bill
should not proceed. Can you identify any National MP that has even
implied that they may support the Bill at the second Reading?
The reason for this is obvious as it is a singular obligation that
National and ACT have agreed on. The Government is carrying out that
obligation.
All parties have rules on how their caucus can behave. Those rules by
their nature are authoritarian and I would expect all candidates for
Parliament would be made aware of them on nomination.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
So when you ask what people are going to do about it, some
commentators are suggesting that it will reduce support for National
if they do not demonstrate that they mean what they say, and kill it
quickly, but it will boost support for Labour, Greens and Te Pati
Paori at the next election. Those parties and their supporters are
listening - they know that Seymour is not listening - he gets offside
with every reporter he speaks to, and they know that National is
saying one thing but doing nothing, and NZ First are using the
distraction to push through more money to their political supporters .
. .
Pure wishful thinking Rich. You have no idea what level of popular
support ACT's Bill has generally, because this cannot be measured.
The Bill is already dead. I have seen calls from Hobson's Pledge to
make submissions in support of the Bill so that there is some point of
measuring popular support, but in any other respect making submissions
is pointless.
Rich, do Labour and the Greens (the Maori Party does not matter) fear
that the Select Committee hearings on ACT's Bill might reveal that
many want it passed?
No, but they loath the incitement of racism and divisive prejudice
being put forward by ACT
I have read the Bill. There is nothing in it that you claim. Feel
free to give me your opinion of exactly what text in the Bill speaks
of racism and division.
See the links given above - but it is the effect of removing current
words and replacing them with others that creates that incitement.
Consider a bill to remove requirements relating to ownership of
firearms - the removal of the words themselves would not indicate that
mo0re lives may well be lost through firearm use, but it could be a
reasonable conclusion from general considerations. In the case of
Treaty Claims, at least one current case that is going through
determination of settlement would be negated by the words, although
that may no be an obvious result from a consideration of the words
themselves by a person that does not thoroughly understand the full
meaning of the Treaty and precedents.
I don't see any of this in ACT's Bill. What I do see is that Treaty
principles enacted by an unelected authority (the Court of Appeal)
seeks to replace them with similar principles from an elected
Government.
The current Treaty Principles were put together to as far as possible
set them out in modern English, through discussion and eventual
agreement with both Maori and the Crown, and finalised with the
assistance of the Court, and enshrined in legislation with the
agreement of both Maori and the Crown. What Seymour is trying to do is
change those agreed principles, and legislation, without consultation
with Maori - and to do that placed at least the ACT Party as acting
contrary to the Treaty in itself. The action of National in allowing
the Bill to be put through its first reading is similarly contrary to
the Treaty, and there all three Government Parties are in breach of
the Treaty
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
This is not the first time this has been attempted (Google Principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 2006) which received exactly
the same treatment as the ACT Bill will. The only difference is who
the protagonists were - a Labour-led Government supporting a bill
introduced by NZ First.
The ACT Bill is no more significant now that the NZF bill was then -
so why so much protest this time around?
You would think that the main parties would have learned, wouldn't
you? But clearly that is not the case - National has now shown that
they too are happy to breach the provisions of the Treaty - see:
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/news-2/all-articles/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-disestablishment-of-te-aka-whai-ora?

which shows that the actions of this government (including National
and NZ First) are in sharp contrast to the cooperative actions of the
previous government in assisting the tribunal to reach a settlement in
a breach of the Treaty by the Crown - the actions of this government
are in themselves a breach of the Treaty, and confirm the concern that
the National and NZ First parties share the same "relaxed" attitude
towards sanctity of contract as does the ACT Party. See further
commentary here:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/11/another-day-another-breach-of-te-tiriti.html

So we come to the issue of why National and NZ First is going along
with ACT in supporting a much longer select committee sitting than is
necessary. The answer may well be complex - they, like ACT, need
someone to blame for the increases to poverty, to housing problems,
while seeing the wealthy being visibly better off - and they have
chosen to vilify Maori. They are looking for a distraction from their
economic policies, and want someone to blame - ACT need that dissent
to attract people to their Trumpian policies that enrich large
political donors at the expense of the rest of New Zealand - and
Winston knows his blue rinse audience - they do not want to blame the
elderly for living too long either. So don't be surprised when Luxon
is 'persuaded' by the arguments from ACT as the select committee
continues to receive submissions from the well-funded Atlas Network
organisations . . .

Loading...