For the benefit of the many ignorant of the contents of the Bible, here is the story:
Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled (a bit like the hikoi?), occupying one hill and the Israelis another.
What the Treaty Principles Bill simply states is undeniably true.
The government has the right to govern, as the first treaty principle says, everyone is equal before the law (principle 3), and the only rights that hapu and iwi have that may differ from the rights of everyone are those agreed to in a treaty settlement (principle 2)
That is a clear statement of the current reality that we live in, like it or not, and we all have the right to have our say on it and, if Luxon and Peters stop opposing it, vote it into law.
What do the people currently think about the bill?
A poll held last month by Curia Research shows that overall, 46 percent support the bill, 25 percent oppose it and 29 percent are undecided.
Our modern day Goliath has a number of mouths saying a number of different things but united in opposition to the bill on Thursday.
Like the Biblical David standing in front of the three-metre-tall Goliath, Seymour is staring down what looks like a widespread and deeply rooted orthodoxy on treaty policy and is challenging it.
What is this claimed consensus? I questioned this in a select committee hearing a number of years ago.
At that hearing, a long-gone MP with a Maori name told me somewhat dismissively that “every party has a treaty policy, and everyone gets a vote, therefore what Parliament decides shows there is a consensus”.
Seymour disagrees with the so-called consensus. He told Parliament on Thursday, amid loud, inane interjections and a stage-managed haka, that:
Here is some more data from the October Curia poll:
In addition, both the National and New Zealand First parties will haemorrhage support to ACT.
And the central question in treaty politics would have shifted from “why support the Treaty Principles Bill” to “why not support the Treaty Principles Bill”.
So why is the tino rangatiratanga brigade kicking up such a fuss? Waititi’s version of Article 1 of the treaty, shown above, says it all.
The Treaty Principles Bill removes the prospect of any “by-Maori for-Maori government”.
And such a separate “by-Maori for-Maori government” is the cherished dream of the people currently out on the streets waving Maori sovereignty flags.
You may read the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0094/9.0/whole.html
Sources
Treaty Principles Bill first reading, November 14, 2024. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40
New poll shows some unexpected support for Treaty Principles Bill from Greens and Te Pāti Māori voters, October 16, 2024. https://centrist.nz/new-poll-shows-some-unexpected-support-for-treaty-principles-bill-from-greens-and-te-pati-maori-voters/
David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17, The Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017&version=NIV
Of course, there are no physical weapons in our modern-day story, no one will lose his or her head, and “the Almighty” won’t be invoked. But our David has on his side truth, and truth is, by definition, that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
A three-metre-tall champion named Goliath came out of the Philistine camp and challenged the Israelis to send out a champion to fight (a bit like the Te Pati Maori haka?)
The Israelis were scared (Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters?)
Israeli King Saul offered great wealth to the fighter who could defeat Goliath (no great offer of wealth here).
A young man called David volunteered.
David shunned an offer of fine armour, taking instead his staff, five smooth stones, and a sling.
David approached Goliath. Goliath threatened to kill David.
David said to Goliath, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty”.
As Goliath moved closer to attack him, David ran to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face-down on the ground.
David grabbed the Philistine’s sword, killed him, and cut off his head.
What the Treaty Principles Bill simply states is undeniably true.
The government has the right to govern, as the first treaty principle says, everyone is equal before the law (principle 3), and the only rights that hapu and iwi have that may differ from the rights of everyone are those agreed to in a treaty settlement (principle 2)
That is a clear statement of the current reality that we live in, like it or not, and we all have the right to have our say on it and, if Luxon and Peters stop opposing it, vote it into law.
What do the people currently think about the bill?
A poll held last month by Curia Research shows that overall, 46 percent support the bill, 25 percent oppose it and 29 percent are undecided.
Our modern day Goliath has a number of mouths saying a number of different things but united in opposition to the bill on Thursday.
Christopher Luxon (National): “There isn’t anything I like about the Treaty Principles Bill”.Our David delivered the first reading under an intense, vitriolic attack, the like of which has not been seen in the New Zealand Parliament for 40 years, according to reporter Barry Soper, and which culminated in a menacing kapa haka show.
Casey Costello (NZ First): We reject that there are [treaty] principles. We've committed to, support this bill to the first reading.
Willie Jackson (Labour): Yesterday, I was on a hīkoi. I was so proud to be on that hīkoi with our political colleagues in the Maori Party, the Green Party—wonderful—and Asians, Māori, and Pasifika were all there. They gave me a clear message, and I agreed to give that message here, today. This is to you, David Seymour: you fuel hatred and misinformation in this country, you bring out the worst in New Zealanders, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you are a liar.
Chloe Swarbrick (Green Party): Capitalism, an economic system with the key priority being to turn profit at almost any cost, needs colonisation. This insatiable, unsustainable economic system needs to assimilate and acquire new frontiers to exploit. It needs to turn every citizen into a consumer and to commodify our natural world. And right now, in this country, the biggest thing standing in its way is the resilience and the fire in the enduring movement from mana motuhake.
Rawiri Waititi (Te Pati Maori): Article 1 gave consent to Pakeha to govern over themselves. They've assumed governance over us. When will we begin to assume governance ourselves?
Like the Biblical David standing in front of the three-metre-tall Goliath, Seymour is staring down what looks like a widespread and deeply rooted orthodoxy on treaty policy and is challenging it.
What is this claimed consensus? I questioned this in a select committee hearing a number of years ago.
At that hearing, a long-gone MP with a Maori name told me somewhat dismissively that “every party has a treaty policy, and everyone gets a vote, therefore what Parliament decides shows there is a consensus”.
Seymour disagrees with the so-called consensus. He told Parliament on Thursday, amid loud, inane interjections and a stage-managed haka, that:
“The bill . . . democratises the principles of the Treaty. It gives everyone a say. The commencement clause says the principles of this bill only come into force if a majority vote for it to do so in a referendum. And, as I mentioned, the principles we know today have been created by a small number of New Zealanders, even though we all have to live within them. But, if democracy means anything, it means each and every person has a say in how the rules we all live under are made. It is that democratisation of the Treaty that is so important”.With six months of submissions ahead of us, with both sides campaigning for support, and with the bill requiring just a five percent shift to get it over the line, where do you think those 29 percent undecided votes will go?
Here is some more data from the October Curia poll:
National Party voters are 58 percent in support, 16 percent opposed, and 27 percent undecided.I suggest that polls in six months will show clear, if not substantial, majority support for the bill.
Labour Party voters are 33 percent in support, 38 percent opposed, and 28 percent undecided.
ACT Party voters are 54 percent in support, 24 percent opposed, and 23 percent undecided.
Green Party voters are 31 percent in support, 36 percent opposed, and 34 percent undecided.
NZ First voters are 65 percent in support, 14 percent opposed, and 21 percent undecided.
Te Pati Maori voters are 15 percent in support, 40 percent opposed, and 42 percent undecided.
In addition, both the National and New Zealand First parties will haemorrhage support to ACT.
And the central question in treaty politics would have shifted from “why support the Treaty Principles Bill” to “why not support the Treaty Principles Bill”.
So why is the tino rangatiratanga brigade kicking up such a fuss? Waititi’s version of Article 1 of the treaty, shown above, says it all.
The Treaty Principles Bill removes the prospect of any “by-Maori for-Maori government”.
And such a separate “by-Maori for-Maori government” is the cherished dream of the people currently out on the streets waving Maori sovereignty flags.
You may read the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill at https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0094/9.0/whole.html
Sources
Treaty Principles Bill first reading, November 14, 2024. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40
New poll shows some unexpected support for Treaty Principles Bill from Greens and Te Pāti Māori voters, October 16, 2024. https://centrist.nz/new-poll-shows-some-unexpected-support-for-treaty-principles-bill-from-greens-and-te-pati-maori-voters/
David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17, The Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017&version=NIV
20 comments:
There are no 'principles' in the Treaty.
They are all made up and need to be removed from legislation.
An excellent breakdown of the issue, for once in simple language even I, the recipient of a New Zealand education, can understand.
One point though:
"Israeli King Saul offered great wealth to the fighter who could defeat Goliath (no great offer of wealth here). "
There is indeed "great wealth", here and the prospect, should the bill not pass, of further great wealth. This is the sole motivation for the noisiest opposition to Mr Seymour's bill.
That opposition to the bill is being led by and is for the benefit of a small group of white people, most of whom have a rather tenuous connection to the cannibals that once polluted these islands (certainly they added no improvement to the islands while here prior to the World arriving to rescue them).
Should this group get their way they will gain the ability to tax (i.e. steal from other people) genuine earners while producing nothing themselves.
Great wealth indeed!
“The government has the right to govern, as the first treaty principle says, everyone is equal before the law (principle 3), and the only rights that hapu and iwi have that may differ from the rights of everyone are those agreed to in a treaty settlement (principle 2)”
Principle 2 is as written is a dog. As treaty settlements are currently a perpetual ongoing never-ending apartheid fraud, no mention should be made to them at all.
Principle 2 as written in the Maori language treaty is about property rights for ALL New Zealanders. No mention of “treaty settlements”.
Also, it should be a given, that when the treaty is being referred too, it is the Maori language treaty that is being referenced, and not a fraudulent English language version, or an “attempt at an English translation” of the Maori language treaty.
The final draft written on the 4th February 1840 by James Busby and Mr T E Young’s 1869 official back-translation of the Maori language treaty, mirror what was written in the Maori language treaty on the 6th February 1840.
Well said and interestingly put Mike.
The hikoi, carkoi (their word) and the ridiculous and disrespectful, choreographed pantomime performed by the Maori Party in parliament are very visual signs of a group of disaffected malingerers who fear the loss of privilege, largess and benefits because there are signs appearing that their gravy train might be derailed!
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
There is much truth in what Chloe states until the last sentence. But the current maori protest is not primarily opposition to economic development. If it has any relevance in that area, it is that maori strive to continue flexible interpretation of the Treaty to enable much development and associated economic gain to be preferentially for them on a favoured race basis.
I believe "The Pubic" should ignore the NZ PM Luxon corporate style side step of the Treaty Principals Bill because it is gutless, unhelpful and adds nothing to the required debate and Select Committee process . The PM has shown to NOT be a leader but a figurehead.
Of some inportance is the upcoming NZ First Coalition agreement discussion as the to the future of the Waitangi Tribunal and its ongoing engagement within NZ political future notwithstanding the ACT Treaty Principles Bill Select Committee process still evolves and
the forthcoming NZ First coalition agreement could invoke the same sidestep by National.
It is NOT unreasonable to democratically require the Treaty Principles Bill referendum and it is NOT National's preordained or prerogative position to refuse .
National should reconsider their position because the public still have the right to Instigate a Citizens Initiated Referendum on the Treaty Principle Bill. NZFirst will introduce their coalition agreement Waitangi Tribunal dialogue and the public have an upcoming election vote to reject National.
I fully supported the first wording of the bill. It was easy to understand. But the latest version needs a lawyer to understand. And that opens up a whole can of worms. So if I had to vote on it now I’m not sure if I would support it or not.
Well put, Mike.
Anon@9.40 I agree, there are no principles in the Treaty, but given past meddlesome politicians (Palmer, Findlayson, et al) and our judiciary, they are far too well entrenched and taking that stance is as naive and infantile as our PM's comment - for NZFirst will never succeed at this time to have them all removed from legislation. So we are stuck with them and they simply must be addressed, once and for all if we are to progress as a united nation.
Tinman nails it and calls the lie to Swarbrick's word salad (as too Robert), for we all know the real motivation of Maori and their mythical kaitikitanga of the environment - history doesn't lie.
Anon@10.04 takes the words from my mouth, as does the subsequent quote @10.07 of Thomas Sowell's.
So, bring on the discussion, and all credit (and power) to our David!
Why so many undisided voters across all parties, its a no brainer I would have thought.
I suggest, fear of consequences if holding a perceived unpopular opinion.
I am shocked and disgusted by the cartoon in today's press with the severed head of david seymour.
David is such a courageous and intelligent person with support from many people.
The
The treaty of waitangi is simple
The maori chiefs representing separate tribes begged the British for a treaty
The TMP demo is not solely about the T.P Bill ....The demo is just a smoke screen to get the rowdies on side....
TMP want to eventually create a separate Maori State controlling NZ.... Tribal rule....
Seymour's bill will mean that can't happen.... Hopefully....
Anon at 5.56pm. That is correct:
sovereignty with tribal rule
control of land and all resources
permanent equity measures to ensure Maori privilege in all areas
........and all funded by the tax payers.
A delusional agenda.
What do Hobson's instructions from the UK government say. Surely this is a useful/interesting framework for the 'treaty'. Would Hobson have done his best to follow them or would he have ignored them in whole or part? Did the translator/s have integrity or would they have fiddled their instructions? Where is the instruction to the translators and how much does it reflect the instructions given to Hobson?
Who proofed the translation? Who explained it to the chiefs?
A delusional agenda, or a corporate state apartheid agenda?
Those 3 treaty principles are like the 5 small stones ...the giant is king luxon
Under the current treaty is was amended in 1975 changing a very significant definition, when the original signing was done, the Maori definition of Maori was someone with over 50% pure Maori blood, anyone else had no claim to be considered Maori, if that amendment was revoked back to the original definition, there are no Maori in NZ according to the original Maori definition
One person one vote, all to be treated equally by the government without prejudice. Anything else involves discrimination.
I think Luxon is letting us down in his stance to Seymour's Bill. I'll think seriously about where my votes (local and Party) go in 2026.
Laurence
As I have said in all the other posts, welcome to the DC swamp, the waitangi tribunal, the question is do we have a leader or party who are prepared to drain it?
Toni Rangatira is a Guarantee of Property Rights II
ARTICLE III reads:
“In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”
In signing Te Tiriti, all Maori – including the chiefs – became not ‘partners’ but EQUAL SUBJECTS of the Crown in a nation state the white settlers would henceforth create where none had existed before.
EQUAL SUBJECTS means INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP – nothing more and nothing less.
Te Tirit cannot possibly be construed as a guarantee of perpetual group rights to brown supremacist part-Maori (with an ever-declining Maori blood quantum).
It is ludicrous and intellectually incoherent to propose that the cession of sovereignty in Article I, restated in Article III, would be countermanded by a reservation of chiefly authority in Article II.
Nobody in their right mind could believe that the governor would offer hundreds of small bands of murderous, subhuman cannibal savages full citizenship and protection, yet allow their leaders and those whom they represented to remain completely outside British rule of law.
The Treaty does not describe a partnership. This is just people making things up.
“Sovereignty” means “the supreme power or authority.”
It is thus Constitutionally impossible for a sovereign to be in ‘partnership’ with a subject or group of subjects.
On 6 February 1840, one party [the Crown] absorbed and digested the parties of the other side [the chiefs and those whom they represented].
This rendered Te Tiriti from the moment it was signed analogous to a used table napkin after a meal, and other than as a historical artefact, about as relevant.
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
ENDS
Post a Comment