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?

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Dave 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Im quite surprised by this, isn’t Parliament a crown/british concept?

I wouldn't think of it like that. Virtually every modern government has a parliament of some sort.

According to the RNZ Aotearoa History Show, Māori chiefs thought this separation was how co-governance would work when the signed the Treaty. There would be a Queen figurehead above, then the British would have a Premier and Māori would have an equivalent at the same level (not necessarily a parliament at the time, but it makes sense in a modern context). I'm not sure how accurate that is, but this news doesn't surprise me.

But I also noticed the article covers nothing about how it might work in practice. It seems like a different form of protest rather than a serious bid.

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

It would just be a different representative body negotiating the relationship with the pakeha crown I guess. Its entirely their choice as to whether they want to represent as individual iwi or as a whole in that relationship.

I think about it like it seems pretty normal that at an official level the NZ Government talks to the Australian Federal Government, not to the Melbourne mayor :)

[–] Dave 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I guess my question is - are they just wanting a better negotiating body, or are they planning two sets of laws, where they set their own for Māori?

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 3 points 5 months ago

That I don't know, though my perspective is that's up to them to work out and as Pākehā i'll have to learn how to negotiate that relationship if/when it ever happens.

That's not a position i've always held, but over the years as i've read books like 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' and other stories about the dispossession of indigenous people i've come to a much more complicated understanding of the price that was paid for the privilege I enjoy. It's uncomfortable, but that's a minor inconvenience compared to the cost others paid.

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

two sets of laws, where they set their own for Māori?

No way will that ever be allowed to happen.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I wasn't asking what would happen, just what they want to happen 😆

To be fair, there are countries with two sets of laws. One thing that comes to mind is in Malaysia you can go to the pub for a beer, unless you're registered as Muslim and then you can go to prison for drinking alcohol (though a fine is more likely).

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 5 months ago

I very much doubt they will propose having less privileges than another group though, it will almost certainly be more privileges for us than them.

[–] 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.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 5 months ago

Just as a suggestion; because its interesting stuff. Maybe have a read of some of the work the Waitangi Tribunal has produced over the years.

What's been happening in recent years is Act, Don Brash and others approaching the issue with race baiting sound bites. Its mostly vibes and bad faith.

Compare it to the huge amount of research and historical context the Tribunal has put into their work.

https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-1-of-the-te-paparahi-o-te-raki-inquiry-released-2/ https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/WT-Part-1-Report-on-stage-1-of-the-Te-Paparahi-o-Te-Raki-inquiry.pdf

In any case, to understand where Maori are coming from, its important to remember this finding: "... rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown.

Ie, if sovereignty wasn't ceded back in 1840 why should any Maori give two hoots what Seymour thinks?