Aotearoa / New Zealand

1630 readers

3 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

For politics , please use [email protected]
Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in [email protected]
If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to [email protected]
NZ regional and special interest communities

Rules:

Don't be a dick

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Te Pāti Māori wants to establish its own parliament (www.stuff.co.nz)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Im quite surprised by this, isn't Parliament a crown/british concept? And Te Pati Maori are usually quite opposed to Crown concepts.

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (8 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (7 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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 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.

load more comments (5 replies)