Regardless, I think as much hate as ACT gets for this - it seems obvious that clarity on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is required so that every New Zealander knows where they stand (legally speaking) and we can move on as a country.

The different interpretations from different groups are distracting from the real issues because the solution gets muddied.

Should we establish group-specific organisations that all do the same thing, just for different segments of society - or should we pour our energy and resources into making organisations work for all New Zealanders?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Xcf456 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Look up the Māori King movement, it's the same idea.

Regardless, I think as much hate as ACT gets for this - it seems obvious that clarity on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is required so that every New Zealander knows where they stand (legally speaking) and we can move on as a country.

What does this even mean? You can't just 'move on as a country' if one side tries to unilaterally rewrite their obligations to an agreement. That is what ACT is trying to do, the so-called party of property rights.

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Well, we have one group of people saying "the treaty means this". And we have another group of people saying "no, the treaty means this".

Which group is right? Currently it's impossible to tell, because they've interpreted parts of the treaty in different ways. And there is some precedent in case law thanks to Waitangi tribunal rulings.

Clarifying the principles removes the ambiguity and makes it clear for everyone.

I understand the opposition though, Maori stand to lose a bunch of Maori-specific things they fought long and hard for if it's decided that actually all citizens of New Zealand have the same rights and duties under NZ law

[–] absGeekNZ 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is not really impossible, and there is clear international precedent for how to deal with these kinds of situations.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[2]

This is the legal equivalent of "you cut, I choose".

The fact there are two versions of the treaty, and they are not equivalent, and the crown provided the wording on both (since at the time there was no written Maori language), contract law would side with the Maori on any ambiguous points.

The challenge is determining what is ambiguous, what can be done with the discovered ambiguities. Obviously the two treaties are not wholly different and both languages have evolved since the treaties were drafted. Te Reo is a modern language, it is (from my understanding) an amalgam of various versions of the Maori languages (see Whanganui vs Wanganui) that were spoken by the separate tribes, they were all very similar but with regional differences.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is the legal equivalent of "you cut, I choose".

I love this summary of that latin :)

[–] absGeekNZ 1 points 5 months ago

This was my first thought when I originally read the doctrine.....maybe it is because I have a lot of siblings.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 4 points 5 months ago

Its really not that impossible to tell. There's loads of work done over years by historians and lawyers that have helped to bring understanding to the document.

Bear in mind a treaty is effectively a contract, and the Te Reo version was the one signed by the vast majority of Iwi. And even if they had signed both, my non-lawyer understanding is that international falls on the side of the one in the indigenous language in situations like this.

So, now its 2024, the agreement has to be interpreted to come across into English law language norms; and understanding of historical context and meanings of terms matters, that's why its a bit fuzzy but that's just the way it is. Act saying its not clear is more a sign that they reject the consensus that has emerged among experts than that there is no clarity.

The principles were clarified. Act just disagree with them so want to change the principles. Partly that's libertarian principle, but its also just race baiting electioneering. Changing the principles to what Act wants might remove ambiguity and make it clear but its done unilaterally and effectively reneges on the Crown's commitment to the treaty.

If you want to know why Maori might be angry about that, try telling your bank you have changed your understanding of your responsibilities on a loan document and won't be meeting their expectations anymore.

[–] Xcf456 4 points 5 months ago

Again though, how does one side unilaterally deciding how they are going to interpret it clarify anything. That's how we've ended up where we are today - decades of breaches by the Crown.

It's not impossible to tell but it can take time and effort to determine, that's the function of bodies like the Waitangi tribunal you mention.

What Maori specific things do you think would be lost?

[–] Rangelus 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But the ambiguity comes from the crown ignoring the original, Te Reo document, in favour of the translates English version, then ignoring that as well.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 5 months ago

A lot of folks don't understand that the recent more moderate approach by the Crown is still not following the Te Reo version of the treaty which means the approach still does not meet international legal standards for which version matters.