Kingi Taurua says Government not welcome to Waitangi if TPPA signed

Written By: - Date published: 7:45 am, January 19th, 2016 - 342 comments
Categories: Globalisation, national/act government, Politics, trade - Tags: , ,

The government’s insistence on ramming through the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is adversely affecting its relationship with Maori.  From Te Karere:

Ngāpuhi kaumātua and spokesperson for Te Tii Marae [Kingi Tairua] says the Government will not be welcome at Waitangi if a proposal to sign the TPPA goes ahead on the week of the nation’s celebrations next month. He says the lack of proper consultation with Māori means they have been left in the dark.

The Maori Party has already delivered a strong message of opposition to the TPPA.  And the Green Party’s Marama Davidson’s comments about the recent announcement of the venue for the signing coming from overseas sums things  up well:

“I’m not at all surprised, that we have to get updates from Chile.”

The Green Party is furious for what they describe as secretive behaviour when it comes to the TPPA.

The reason they are so up in arms comes from confirmation that the TPPA agreement would be signed on Feb 4 in New Zealand. But New Zealanders know this news came through from Chile.

“This is consistent with the secrecy surrounding the whole thing really,” says Davidson.

That secrecy has happened both inside the house and on the streets for anti-TPPA sentiment.  But even so, this shows that the deal is on the verge of being completed.

Yet Davidson is adamant that we shouldn’t give up.  “Keep fighting!  Keep fighting!  We need to keep fighting forever!” she says.  That cry extends out to Māori.

Davidson believes, “Our communities, our whānau, hapū, have the mana for the land.  Let us not give that right to big businesses.”

And there is the unresolved Waitangi Tribunal proceeding.  If the TPPA is not concluded and is delayed until after the 2016 United States presidential elections then the Tribunal has indicated it will again look at the issue.

The handling of the announcement has been very messy.  First of all the Government denied the signing was even going to happen and then days later it confirmed the report that the TPPA was going to be signed in New Zealand.

The statements are clearly inconsistent. In other words the Government was telling fibs when it initially denied the signing was going to occur in New Zealand on February 4.

I am struggling to understand why the treaty is being signed here. The TPPA is very contentious in many nations, so if I was to choose a country in which to sign it I would prefer Vietnam or Malaysia which do well out of the treaty and have lesser concerns about domestic upheaval.

If somehow it had to be signed in New Zealand I would choose Wellington or a smaller centre. Perhaps Queenstown where protest activity tends to be low.

I would steer clear of Auckland. There are too many lefties there and Auckland’s protests do tend to be bigger and noisier than anywhere else.

And there is no way that I would sign the treaty at Sky City. That place has too many negative connotations.  And the optics would be appalling.

Maybe the signing will not happen at Auckland at that venue. But the timing is bizarre.

Signing the treaty before Parliament even sits is bad enough especially given John Key’s assurances that the treaty would be given full Parliamentary scrutiny.  Signing it two days before Waitangi Day is asking for trouble.

342 comments on “Kingi Taurua says Government not welcome to Waitangi if TPPA signed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    19 January 2016 at 8:28 am

    I am struggling to understand why the treaty is being signed here.

    One reason jumps to mind.
    We have a totally compliant media, which either echoes the government and big corporates’ line………………………

    John Roughan: Big trade deal all over bar the shouting
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11574580

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11573339
    Editorial: TPP signing an honour, let’s respect it

    or dumbs down the population.

    Radio hosts Polly and Grant reveal new partners
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11575730

    How Kiwi survived Norton’s Red Chair
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11575927

  2. Lanthanide 2
    19 January 2016 at 8:56 am

    “I am struggling to understand why the treaty is being signed here.”

    That should be pretty obvious. Its because NZ is the country that started the TPPA in the beginning, and been overseeing it the whole time.

    • Matthew Hooton 2.1
      19 January 2016 at 9:05 am

      Yes, and continues to be the repository and is likely to host any secretariat.

      • Paul 2.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 9:09 am

        Here comes the spin.

        • Gosman 2.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 9:52 am

          How is this spin when it is an entirely accurate reflection of the reality of the situation?

        • Once was Tim 2.1.1.2
          19 January 2016 at 12:39 pm

          Indeed it does. Never was it envisaged that the TPP ‘started here’ would morph into something that wasn’t ekshully an FTA, and now bears no resemblance to what was originally intended (stupid as it was to begin with).
          But I’d bet the current junta can’t believe their luck that Ummerika and Brak Bumma has taken it all on board going forward, and are championing it as the best thing since sliced bread.
          I’ll make a bold prediction: It’ll all turn out to be a bigger fuckup than the European Union, and probably within a much shorter time span.
          We should actually remember the protagonists in favour – those ‘movers and shakers’, because rest assured they’ll be the ones squealing like little piglets the loudest when it all turns to shit – protesting their victimhood; how they were ‘ill-advised’ and ‘mis-sold’ and, and and.
          History and ‘learnings’ can’t have figured much in their “aptitudings” ‘going backwards’

      • dv 2.1.2
        19 January 2016 at 9:22 am

        Mathew you said a couple of days ago
        “There is a parliamentary process before ratification.

        Mathew what parliamentary process will be undertaken in the next 2 weeks?

        • Lanthanide 2.1.2.1
          19 January 2016 at 9:39 am

          Signing != ratification.

          • weka 2.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 11:12 am

            “Signing != ratification.”

            Does that mean “Signing does not equal ratification.”?

            • Lanthanide 2.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 3:05 pm

              Yes. It’s the common symbol for “not equal” in many programming languages.

          • dv 2.1.2.1.2
            19 January 2016 at 11:35 am

            Must try that with my bank.
            Sure I signed for the loan, but my wife didn’t ratify it, so I don’t owe you any thing.

            • Gosman 2.1.2.1.2.1
              19 January 2016 at 1:27 pm

              Are you and your wife a sovereign state?

              If you fail to go through with a mortgage what recourse dies the other party have?

              Do you know what happens under the TPPA if a party decides to pull out?

            • Lanthanide 2.1.2.1.2.2
              19 January 2016 at 3:11 pm

              Specious analogy is specious.

          • mickysavage 2.1.2.1.3
            19 January 2016 at 12:43 pm

            Signing != ratification.

            I am afraid it pretty well does. Here is a brief description from Jane Kelsey of the process:

            “The Cabinet manual spells out the powers and process for entering into international treaties. Paragraph 7.112 states that “In New Zealand, the power to take treaty action rests with the Executive.” In practice that means the Cabinet.

            Cabinet decides whether to enter into negotiations, the negotiating mandate and any revisions to it, and what trade-offs are made to conclude a deal.

            Cabinet then approves the signing of the agreed text by the Minister. This is a definitive step that binds the government to act in good faith towards its negotiating partners. The Cabinet manual makes it clear that by signing an agreement the executive indicates an intention for New Zealand to be bound to that text. This constitutes a good faith obligation under international law.

            Parliament does not get to see the completed text until that stage. According to the Cabinet Manual, a signed TPPA would then be presented to Parliament, accompanied by a National Interest Analysis. These analyses have been widely criticised during the standing orders reviews and submissions on the International Treaties Bill for their lack of independence and balance, because they are prepared by the same Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that negotiated the agreement.

            The treaty is then referred to the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee, which has the discretion whether or not to seek public submissions. But the select committee has no substantive power. The Cabinet Manual (para 7.119) makes it clear that the executive can move to ratify the TPPA while the select committee process is still underway.

            Specifically, the government cannot ratify the treaty until the select committee has reported or 15 sitting days have elapsed since it was presented to Parliament, whichever is sooner. In other words, the maximum period for the select committee to report on the bill is 15 days after it is tabled. Within these 15 days submitters need to (a) access the document, (b) analyse its technical detail across a reported 29 chapters, (c) write an accurate and detailed submission, and (d) appear at a hearing before the select committee, and for the committee to prepare a considered report.”

            http://itsourfuture.org.nz/explanation-of-nzs-treaty-making-process/

            If legislation is required to implement aspects of the treaty then Parliament has to pass it. But once signed the country has obligations under the treaty.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.2.1.3.1
              19 January 2016 at 3:08 pm

              That text itself makes it clear that signing is a separate event from ratification.

              Also she claims that the select committee has a maximum of 15 days to report back, but actually it just means that the government *can* ratify after 15 days. It doesn’t mean that it will.

            • acrophobic 2.1.2.1.3.2
              19 January 2016 at 11:21 pm

              “Within these 15 days submitters need to (a) access the document, (b) analyse its technical detail across a reported 29 chapters, (c) write an accurate and detailed submission, and (d) appear at a hearing before the select committee, and for the committee to prepare a considered report.””

              That’s clearly not correct. The text of the TPP was released on 5th November 2015. Items (a), (b), (c) could all have been in progress already for over 2 months, with more time to run before the SC begins to hear submissions.

              “The Cabinet manual makes it clear that by signing an agreement the executive indicates an intention for New Zealand to be bound to that text. This constitutes a good faith obligation under international law. Parliament does not get to see the completed text until that stage.”

              This also appears to be incorrect. The negotiations were concluded on 5th October. The agreement cannot be signed for 90 days after that (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11523913). The text was released on 5th November. So, by the date of signing (5th February?) Parliament (or at least those individuals who make up parliament) will have had access to the text for around 90 days.

              I notice the Kelsey piece you quote from is dated 4 December 2012. This is 3 years ago, and is indicative of how the actual course and content of the TPP has changed from what Ms Kelsey has represented.

              • Michael who failed Civics …
                20 January 2016 at 6:03 pm

                I understand Parliament’s Defence and Foreign Affairs committee will spend most of 2016 examining TPPA before reporting to the House on matters arising. That suggests Parliament (its committee) intends to do a thorough job, and not merely rubber stamp TPPA. It seems, too, there will be plenty of opportunity for people to make their views about TPPA known to their political representatives (they get another chance, too, in the 2017 elections, but that seems to be a blunt instrument, although perhaps useful). What I’m not sure about is whether the text of TPPA can be amended if the committee recommends to the House that it should. Can anyone enlighten me?

                • acrophobic …
                  20 January 2016 at 7:36 pm

                  The TPP text can be amended, by agreement.

                  ” The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) can be amended with the agreement of all parties involved. The final text of the agreement released yesterday said amendments can be made after each party completes its applicable legal procedures and notifies, in writing, a depositary which is responsible for receiving and disseminating documents.”

                  http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1604719

        • Paul 2.1.2.2
          19 January 2016 at 9:41 am

          He won’t answer.
          Matthew is just a more refined troll.

          • Gosman 2.1.2.2.1
            19 January 2016 at 9:54 am

            Lanthanide answered for him. He has also commented on this on the Daily Blog on one of Frank Macskasy threads.

      • fisiani 2.1.3
        19 January 2016 at 12:59 pm

        A National government would NEVER be welcome by people who hold a banner saying Socialist Aotearoa.
        Face it. The TPPA is obviously good for New Zealand and the dire consequences predicted by the oh so wrong Kelsey et al are not in the document. How dare some Iwi leader demand to be consulted? Do they think they have more rights than others?

    • James 2.2
      19 January 2016 at 9:07 am

      A lot of people keep forgetting that. And that it was started under a Labour Government.

    • mickysavage 2.3
      19 January 2016 at 9:08 am

      The original agreement was signed by four countries, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. Chile or Singapore could also be places to sign according to your suggestion and would not have the same local opposition. There is no hard and fast rule that it has to be signed in New Zealand. And why two days before Waitangi day in Auckland?

      • Lanthanide 2.3.1
        19 January 2016 at 9:38 am

        “The original agreement was signed by four countries”

        And the agreement was STARTED by New Zealand.

        Sure, it could have been signed anywhere. But you (effectively) asked the reason why it is being signed in New Zealand. That *IS* the reason.

        Now, you may think it is a stupid reason (I personally do), but it answers your question.

        • Paul 2.3.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 9:42 am

          And Key has put a lot of his own personal reputation on it.
          All those rounds of golf in Hawaii and trips to film studios in L.A.

      • Gosman 2.3.2
        19 January 2016 at 9:58 am

        Quite obviously all the relevant parties to the agreement are doing this purely to annoy lefties like you MS 😉

      • Matthew Whitehead 2.3.3
        19 January 2016 at 6:40 pm

        As to why Auckland: probably because they expect it will make protests less likely.

  3. Sabine 3
    19 January 2016 at 9:05 am

    good on them.

  4. Korero Pono 4
    19 January 2016 at 9:10 am

    I applaud Ngapuhi’s stance on this issue (hopefully other iwi will follow suit). The TPP is a direct assault on Tino rangatiratanga. Maori have been disregarded when it comes to the TPP, which in my view is just another indication that the processes of colonisation in Aotearoa are alive and kicking!

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.1
      19 January 2016 at 11:19 am

      Tautoko.

    • weka 4.2
      19 January 2016 at 11:19 am

      I don’t know if this is Ngāpuhi’s stance. The way I took the video was that one kaumātua was expressing his opinion that they shouldn’t allow the govt to Te Tii Marae and is encouraging other Ngāpuhi to do the same. That’s not quite the same thing as iwi making a collective decision. I don’t know how decisions are made abot Waitangi Day or who comes onto the Marae though.

      • ropata 4.2.1
        19 January 2016 at 2:48 pm

        Hone Harawira (influentuial with Ngapuhi) will definitely want to make NatCorp™ unwelcome at the marae. But others want Waitangi to a be a non political day of celebration.

        • weka 4.2.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 2:57 pm

          I thought that might be the case. It would be hugely radical for the govt to be told to stay away.

          • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 4:31 pm

            Maybe the govt would not be welcomed on to Te Tī Marae prior to the Waitangi celebrations on the Waitangi grounds.

        • Lara 4.2.1.2
          19 January 2016 at 5:51 pm

          “others want Waitangi to a be a non political day of celebration”

          Huh?

          Waitangi Day is by definition political. A day to mark the signing of the Treaty between the British Crown and Maori…. is the very nature of political.

          How can it be made non political?

          That makes no sense. My brain hurts trying to figure out the gyrations in that one.

          • ropata 4.2.1.2.1
            21 January 2016 at 2:58 am

            It’s the day we celebrate the founding of New Zealand as we know it, some people see that as a positive thing and a chance to celebrate our shared culture: waka and churches, kapa haka and hymns. There is usually a carnival atmosphere up at Waitangi.

            Since mud was thrown at Helen Clark that time, Ngapuhi have tried to change the atmosphere from one of acrimony to something more positive. There are always going to be noisy protestors but I think Ngapuhi realised it needs to be a safe place for families to visit and enjoy the day. And I think they have succeeded.

      • Korero Pono 4.2.2
        19 January 2016 at 5:17 pm

        Regardless of whether or not it is a Ngaapuhi stance, it is heartening to see kaumaatua speaking up about this, hopefully it will encourage others to do the same. I appreciate what you say anyway but I imagine it won’t take long to work out who is working in whose interests come Waitangi day!

        • weka 4.2.2.1
          19 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

          I found it heartening too, and thought Taurua came across as thoughtful and sincere. I hope he is listened too.

          “I appreciate what you say anyway but I imagine it won’t take long to work out who is working in whose interests come Waitangi day!”

          Lol, nah, much of Waitangi Day and what happens and why remains a mystery to me. If you mean can I see Key’s (or any other PM’s) interests, of course, but one of the great things about Waitangi Day is that it exposes Pāhekā NZ to Te Ao Māori in ways that are usually ignored the rest of the year. So much still to learn (I’m Pākehā btw, and include myself in that).

          • Korero Pono 4.2.2.1.1
            20 January 2016 at 7:50 am

            What I hope happens Waitangi day is that the Government are given the same respect that they have shown Maaori over the TPP negotiations. I hope the Government are given a clear message about what ‘partnership’ actually means and how that is applied in a Tiriti context (so far they are failing abysmally).

            I think it is interesting when we talk about te ao Maaori, I am not sure that pakeha even understand what it means (not just the words but everything behind the words) and that exposure for one day is just another sign of tokenism. So if the conversation about the TPP is from a te ao Maaori perspective (speaking for myself and probably my family too), then in regard to kaitiakitanga we all have a place in protecting the environment/land/resources for future generations, from my understanding, the TPP has potential to undermine that (think ISDS – Phillip Morris suing Australia, TransCanda and Doe Run Mining suing Peru for enacting environmental protections).

            Already self-appointed NgaPuhi Kaumatua, David Rankin has come out with his red-neck views http://itsourfuture.org.nz/ngapuhi-crying-wolf-over-marae-ban/ – the article speaks volumes of the mentally of the man (total lack of mana) – I think that Waitangi day will be interesting, hopefully a catalyst for Maaori to think beyond supposed economic gains and think about the impacts on Maaori as a whole.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1.1.1
              20 January 2016 at 8:59 am

              I am not sure that pākehā even understand what it means

              As a pākehā I certainly identify a lot more with your views than Mr. Rankin’s, but how well do his views resonate with Māori?

              • Korero Pono …
                20 January 2016 at 12:32 pm

                OAB, I think my views are more about not being an arsehole to other human beings than anything specific to Maori (although I think Maori take a ‘we’ view rather than an ‘I’ view of the world). I am both Ngati Pakeha and Ngai Tahu and do not profess to talk for other Ngai Tahu or pakeha for that matter. David Rankin is a puppet/token Maori spouting red neck values, I doubt he represents the majority of those identifying as Maori (but I could be wrong).

            • weka 4.2.2.1.1.2
              20 January 2016 at 11:14 am

              I think it is interesting when we talk about te ao Maaori, I am not sure that pakeha even understand what it means (not just the words but everything behind the words) and that exposure for one day is just another sign of tokenism.

              I agree. What I meant was that I think Waitangi Day makes some Pākehā go ‘wait, what??!’ because it forces them to realise that not everything is said and done through their own cultural lens. I reckon that’s changed things over my lifetime, but it’s still to NZ’s shame that that is needed and happens only in such a small way.

              As for kaitiakitanga, my hope is that NZ will come to its senses, but at the moment Pākehā NZ wants the goodies without taking actual responsibility for them. That’s why our rivers are in such a bad state and the rhetoric now is about people realising their childhood swimming holes are poisoned, rather than understanding that the life blood of the land has been poisoned by our people on our watch. I think Pākehā have the capacity to shift from being tourists in our own land, and to develop real relationship with the land, but I don’t know what that will take.

              Rankin, crikey that guy is painful to read.

      • OneTrack 4.2.3
        19 January 2016 at 7:45 pm

        Key should respect the Kaumatua’s mana, show he respects maori and stay away. And all government MPs should stay away as well.

        • weka 4.2.3.1
          19 January 2016 at 8:06 pm

          If Key were capable of that or inclined to that degree of respect he wouldn’t be signing the TPPA against the wishes of so many people 😉

  5. cogito 5
    19 January 2016 at 9:21 am

    ” Signing it two days before Waitangi Day is asking for trouble.”

    The more trouble, the better…..

    • Paul 5.1
      19 January 2016 at 9:45 am

      Are you aware of the Treaty of Waitangi’s preeminent position in New Zealand?

      • alwyn 5.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 10:17 am

        You seem to know a lot about the treaty Paul.
        Can you please tell me where I can find a clear explanation of Geoff Palmer’s famed “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”?
        I would love to be able to find a definition of them.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 10:23 am

          I doubt you’ve even looked. If you had, you’d be able to say something about them. Or are you aiming at vacuity?

          • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 11:52 am

            But I have dear chap.
            I can find what the treaty says but that is all.
            You think I should be able to find a definition of the principles.
            Please tell me where you have found them. Obviously you must know where the definition exists or you wouldn’t be so confident.
            Pretty please?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 11:59 am

              So a search for “principles of the treaty of waitangi” hasn’t occurred to you?

              You have my deepest sympathies.

              • alwyn …
                19 January 2016 at 2:02 pm

                Yes. Roughly summed up as.
                Nothing actually says what the treaty means so we, the judges and members of the Waitangi Tribunal will just say it is anything we like.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 January 2016 at 2:16 pm

                  That’s certainly what racists like to pretend. What a good thing the National Party’s core values aren’t very popular.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  19 January 2016 at 6:46 pm

                  You do realise that telling people what laws mean is precisely the job of a judge, right?

                  LOL

                  • alwyn …
                    19 January 2016 at 8:50 pm

                    Indeed yes, so it is.
                    However when the statements about the treaty are as vague as they are how do you expect them to do anything but choose their own opinion about what should happen?

                    “Even Sir Geoffrey said he had been surprised at the judgment. He told the Herald this week that the clause had had “unexpected consequences”.
                    “It did come as somewhat of a surprise to me that the Court of Appeal read that phrase up rather than read it down,” he said, explaining that the court had given the clause “a very wide and generous interpretation”.
                    These days Sir Geoffrey is advocating that Parliament be as precise as it can be over such references.”

                    Geoff stuffed it up didn’t he? He put in a woolly clause and the Judges went mad. Of course nowadays he tries to pretend every thing is just fine. The idiot is trying to rewrite history to keep his act of being a great constitutional scholar intact.

                    This came about after a case on the SOE act.

                    “And the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 says: “Nothing in this Act permits the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
                    That particular clause in that particular law had a huge impact on the legal interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and the definition of its principles.
                    Act leader and former Labour Minister Richard Prebble calls it “a piece of accidental law-making of the worst sort”.

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3550478

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 7:58 am

                      That’s an interesting insight into your opinions. Meanwhile, on Earth:

                      …the law works under a fiction. That fiction is that the law always has one true meaning, with the courts just “discovering” or “uncovering” this. So, when the Supreme Court says “computer files are property (at least in relation to s.249(1) of the Crimes Act)”, then this means that they ALWAYS were property (in relation to that section, at least). It doesn’t matter that the Court of Appeal said different. And it doesn’t matter if anyone relied on what the Court of Appeal said. Once the Supreme Court speaks, then that’s what the law both is and was.

                      (Note how ridiculous this fiction is – the Supreme Court clearly is creating a meaning for the legislation in question … meaning that if you (or anyone else) want to know what the Crimes Act permits/prohibits at any point in time, you need to guess what it’s going to decide on the matter irrespective of what lower courts have said.)

                      Prof Andrew Geddis.

                      Judges doing what judges always do doesn’t suit you when it comes to issues affecting Māori, eh. You want Parliament to be in charge of that.

                      Disgusting.

                    • alwyn …
                      20 January 2016 at 10:08 am

                      @OAB.
                      The quote from Professor Geddis does seem to support my views doesn’t it?
                      He says “…the law works under a fiction” and then
                      “Note how ridiculous this fiction is – the Supreme Court clearly is creating a meaning for the legislation in question”
                      The whole thing is ridiculous. You ask whether I want Parliament to be in charge, implying that is an alternative to Judges.
                      Yes I do. Alternatively I suppose we could elect our judges, and we would have a chance to get rid of the more useless ones at election time.
                      Some judges seem to accept that making the law really ought to be done by Parliament and not by an activist judge.
                      Look at the sad case of the terminally ill Lecretia Seales. The Judge ruled that what she wanted was something that must be decided by Parliament and it was not for him to set the rules based on his own views.
                      It was very sad, and I think she should have been able to do what she wanted but it is up to Parliament to get off their butts and change the law in New Zealand. It shouldn’t be up to Judges to continue with the rubbish they are getting away with now.

                      You also make out that my views are racist with your insulting dig that “doesn’t suit you when it comes to issues affecting Māori, eh”.
                      It doesn’t suit me that Judges “discover” what a law means. That is the case in all circumstances, not those that affect Maori. They should stick to what the damn thing says and if it isn’t clear they should say so and put it back to Parliament to clear it up..

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      It doesn’t suit me…

                      So what? Your plan ignorant knee-jerk response is to merge two branches of the state into one, when they are meant to provide checks and balances upon one another. This, in pursuit of some witless notion that justice must follow populist trends.

                      I’ve got a better idea: ignore your reckons completely.

        • Paul 5.1.1.2
          19 January 2016 at 10:25 am

          As oab has said, the government – however many people vote for it – is bound by te tiriti, according to domestic and international law.

      • cogito 5.1.2
        19 January 2016 at 11:28 am

        @Paul

        You misunderstood. The more trouble for the govt and its supporters and puppets the better.

      • Michael who failed Civics 5.1.3
        20 January 2016 at 6:08 pm

        Has anyone read Article 29.6.1 of TPPA and, if so, why is it that people can seriously allege that TPPA overrides the Treaty of Waitangi when it, expressly, provides the opposite?

        • Korero Pono 5.1.3.1
          20 January 2016 at 6:25 pm

          There are overt and covert impacts.

        • weka 5.1.3.2
          20 January 2016 at 7:12 pm

          Article 29.6: Treaty of Waitangi

          1. Provided that such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction on trade in goods, trade in services and investment, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

          2. The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement. Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) shall otherwise apply to this Article. A panel established under Article 28.7 (Establishment of a Panel) may be requested to determine only whether any measure referred to in paragraph 1 is inconsistent with a Party’s rights under this Agreement.

          http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/29.%20Exceptions%20Chapter.pdf

          http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/28.%20Dispute%20Settlement%20Chapter.pdf

          Perhaps you could explain that, especially who decides what arbitrary or unjustified discrimination is? Because I just tried to find my way through the legalese maze in that second link and I couldn’t find the answer to that. Clause 2 above appears to be saying that the dispute settlement both applies to and doesn’t apply to that Article (on the Treaty).

          • Michael who failed Civics 5.1.3.2.1
            21 January 2016 at 8:08 am

            Jane Kelsey and others are publishing papers that get into the official version of TPPA in some depth. One of them concerns the Treaty of Waitangi issue (Art. 29.6.1). According to the authors, TPPA does not effectively protect the Crown’s obligations to iwi under the Treaty of Waitangi, The authors refer to a number of other provisions of TPPA (eg Intellectual Property) where, they say, Art 29.6.1 is ineffective. I don’t know how to post links here – maybe someone else could?

        • Macro 5.1.3.3
          20 January 2016 at 7:35 pm

          Then as we have seen just recently Rio Tinto managed to snaffle sacred Apache land from under their noses quite deceitfully.

          Here on the Coromandel Mining Companies are approaching local iwi for prospecting rights on their land. All well and good, except……….

        • Macro 5.1.3.4
          20 January 2016 at 7:44 pm

          Furthermore the ISDS tribunals are little more than Kangaroo courts with no appeal. The people selected to ajudicate are corporate lawyers one day “judges” the next and then back to corporate practice possibly filing the next claim! What if they make a decision clearly in breach of the Agreement. No Appeal. That’s it! It is a travesty.

  6. Sarah 6
    19 January 2016 at 9:34 am

    TPP is a direct assault on everyone in NZ, not just Maori and no one from this national government is welcome at my place either. I stand with Ngāpuhi and anyone else with the balls to call this corrupt government out.

    • Puckish Rogue 6.1
      19 January 2016 at 9:38 am

      ” Signing it two days before Waitangi Day is asking for trouble.”

      – Good, Its getting really tiring that a small majority keeps trying to circumvent what the majority have voted for

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 9:49 am

        Even if your weasel drivel were true, and ~30% of the electorate wants to ignore te tiriti, they aren’t a majority. So go boil your head.

        • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 10:00 am

          No. We have elections to vote people in to represent us and National are the party we’ve chosen (yes yes MMP and all that)

          If you don’t want National representing us then organise enough votes that another government is formed

          • Paul 6.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 10:03 am

            52% pr, 52%

          • You_Fool 6.1.1.1.2
            19 January 2016 at 10:13 am

            PR: What are people to do if they support all of a parties policies except one and no other party is even close to their desire? But that one policy is determined to be the most important by the party they normally support (bar this one issue)

            Could they not vote for this hypothetical party and then voice their disapproval of that one issue through protest, letters to the editors/blog posts and through polls? Would not a true democratic government then take said disapproval and realise that they were wrong on that one issue and change their stance? IS that not a better way for things to happen other than having paid for advertisements walking around telling these people that they are wrong and should have voted different?

            Or should there be a “same as national but no TPP or asset sales” party set up?

            • Paul 6.1.1.1.2.1
              19 January 2016 at 10:24 am

              He knows all of that.
              He’s just shilling for his corporate masters.

              • You_Fool …
                19 January 2016 at 11:12 am

                Oh I know that too… I mean it is not like he doesn’t post the same dribble day in day out with hardly a change in the wording. It helps his post count (and thus $$$ in hand) when he can just copy and paste old posts

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1.3
            19 January 2016 at 10:15 am

            The government – however many people vote for it – is bound by te tiriti, according to domestic and international law. I like the rule of law, no matter how inconvenient it always is to Tories.

            In fact I like it in large part because it’s inconvenient to Tories. Do you have a pot big enough?

            • Enough is Enough 6.1.1.1.3.1
              19 January 2016 at 10:32 am

              Just out of interest what domestic law are you referring to which binds the government to the treaty?

              And could not any government simply repeal that domestic law that you are referring to?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                19 January 2016 at 11:17 am

                For example, the BoRA, the HRA.

                Theoretically, the National Party (what other party would sink so low?) might decide to abandon international legal principles and start another civil war here. In practice, they haven’t got the guts.

                • Enough is Enough …
                  19 January 2016 at 11:25 am

                  I don’t want to get into a pissing contest but neither of those laws are entrenched are they?

                  Any government could repeal either of them.

                  We can look at Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act as a recent example of a government just deciding how the treaty applies. Maori protested and created a party out of it but from a legal position they couldn’t do anything.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    19 January 2016 at 11:32 am

                    In theory sure. They’d be breaking international treaties by doing so, and setting themselves against the judiciary. And if international law no longer applies, the TPP won’t survive any more than the National Party will.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      19 January 2016 at 11:40 am

                      What international law?

                      Maori couldn’t rely on International Law when Clark removed their treaty rights.

                      If a government repealed the Treaty of Waitangi Act through a parliamentary vote, what international repercussions would there be against new Zealand and who would enforce it?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 12:09 pm

                      In theory, sure. Need I repeat myself? The National Party would lose.

                    • weka …
                      19 January 2016 at 12:10 pm

                      That’s how I see it too EiE. But on the other hand, why can a govt not just ignore the ISDS?

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:33 pm

                      The National party would lose what?

                      OAB – I am just asking about this international law and what repercussions there would be for the new Zealand government under international law for legislating away the treaty.

                      It was you who said we were bound by international law.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:50 pm

                      I think you need to consider what would have to happen beforehand: the National Party already has to lie about its values to get elected at all.

                      Key’s popularity relies on humping the centre, not the raw racist meat.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      19 January 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      I am not disagreeing with you on National’s racist politics.

                      I am asking a question about how international law applies as you have stated.

                      “The government – however many people vote for it – is bound by te tiriti, according to domestic and international law”

                      Specifically if National do it, what would be the international legal consequences?

                    • weka …
                      19 January 2016 at 3:01 pm

                      I can’t see that there would be any, they’d be the same as every other time NZ has broken international law/protocol, nothing would happen. Which is why I’m interested in the ISDS thing and why it has so much weight. As far as I can tell it’s just fear of economic threat.

                      As for National at home, they’d lose the Mp as coalition partners, and we’d have agitation and protest the like we’ve not seen in a generation.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 3:16 pm

                      Apartheid era South Africa is probably the most relevant example, minus the implications for the five-eyes arrangement.

              • You_Fool …
                19 January 2016 at 11:19 am

                This one? http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435392.html

                Or you know the treaty itself, which was signed by the crown and all the tribes of Maoridom and is an international contract between the crown (also known as the NZ government) and the tribes of Maori.

                I know I know, pesky laws and international conventions and contracts… if only you could just break those whenever you like, but apparently that is irresponsible…

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 January 2016 at 11:33 am

                  Since when did a Tory ever demonstrate responsibility?

                • Gosman …
                  19 January 2016 at 12:08 pm

                  Ummm… how is this obligation meant to be enforced by parties other than the NZ Government?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    19 January 2016 at 12:13 pm

                    The government doesn’t enforce jack shit, Gosman. Civics 101? That’s up to the judiciary.

                    Perhaps you’ve heard of them.

                    • Gosman …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:01 pm

                      The NZ state then. How is this meant to be enforced other than a NZ based and controlled body?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:17 pm

                      Like the judiciary, for example…

                      I can’t imagine the imposition of National Party values would be too popular with our five-eyes partners either, given their response to Slobodan Milosevic.

                    • Gosman …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

                      A judiciary so liberal that a left leaning government was moved to pass legislation to remove the risk that it would rule in favour of Maori rights. Regardless the judiciary will not rule on matters of international law. There will have to be legislation passed here for them to do so. this can equally be repealed if necessary.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:39 pm

                      Meanwhile, in a galaxy far far away, on a planet called Earth, the Impact of Foreign Law on Domestic Judgments is significant.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 January 2016 at 1:53 pm

                      A judiciary so liberal that a left leaning government was moved to pass legislation to remove the risk that it would rule in favour of returning property to the rightful owners

                      Fixed it for you

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      19 January 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      Describing the Clark government as left-leaning is still rather generous. 😉

                • Tautuhi …
                  19 January 2016 at 7:58 pm

                  The Crown never honored the Treaty of Waitangi so I guess future Governments can tell the USA Corporates to stick the TPPA up their a****?

          • framu 6.1.1.1.4
            19 January 2016 at 10:25 am

            so if we elect a govt and that gives them a policy mandate – why do we debate and vote on each and every policy?

            could it be that all an election win gives you is a mandate to lead the govt?

            serious question there PR – either we engage in a bunch of stuff that is expensive and redundant – or an election win doesnt give a full spectrum policy mandate

            when did you, the govt or anyone else vote for the TPP, as a single issue, while being fully aware of its content?

            • Paul 6.1.1.1.4.1
              19 January 2016 at 10:25 am

              He knows that.

              • framu …
                19 January 2016 at 10:31 am

                yeah – i know.

                Though its a staggering display of poor logic that gets repeated everywhere – for once i would like to see someone explain this view succesfully

            • Gosman 6.1.1.1.4.2
              19 January 2016 at 10:38 am

              Except we elect parties that generally represent parts of the political spectrum and therefore are unlikely to implement policies that stray too far from their core belief (The 4th Labour government not withstanding of course). National stands for trying to encourage a more business frindly environment. They publically came out in favour of the TPPA pre 2014. People knew what they stood for and still voted for them. If you wish to stop them might I suggest you support political parties that will pull us out of the TPPA if they get elected.

          • adam 6.1.1.1.5
            19 January 2016 at 11:38 am

            So you agree you are not the majority then PR. So stop with the lies ahh.

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.2
        19 January 2016 at 1:00 pm

        The majority did not vote for it – less than half, and less than those were actual Gnats. No, the TPPA is the wet dream of only a tiny, extreme (and f**king stupid) rightwing minority who have no right whatsoever to impose their clusterfuck on the rest of us.

        Get your Key effigies ready to burn for the international press, people, they can signal the beginning of the antipodean spring.

  7. Lanthanide 7
    19 January 2016 at 9:40 am

    Actually the majority didn’t vote for TPP or this National government.

  8. Paul 8
    19 January 2016 at 9:40 am

    Trolling for a diversion, I sense.

    • Puckish Rogue 8.1
      19 January 2016 at 9:50 am

      Not at all, its the same thing with the partial privitisation of the power companies. National said before the election what they’d do, the people of NZ (remember them?) voted them in and then National set about selling a partial share

      Yet the looney left tried to sabotage the sale (in fact they did) and forced the government to lower the price of the shares (which allowed me to buy more but still it wasn’t good) so NZ lost out on more money then they would have normally got

      and like this before the election National said they’d be pushing the TPP and were re-elected and once again the looneys are out trying to stop it from happening

      Which is actually all fine (lawful protest is a good thing) but it still annoys me that a minority is trying to decide what happens to the majority simply because they cannot convince enough of the country to vote for them

      • Paul 8.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 9:52 am

        ‘Yet the looney left’

        Very very dull.

        As to the numbers…..
        ’20 November 2015
        A 3 News poll today showing only 34 percent of New Zealanders are in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and 52 percent are opposed.’

        If only 52% of the population were ‘loony left’…..

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1511/S00410/tppa-poll-shows-kiwis-dont-buy-the-govts-spin.htm

        • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 11:50 am

          Don’t you mean if only the 52% voted left

          • Paul 8.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 11:53 am

            I see you ignored the fact that 52% opposed the TPP.
            Convenient.

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 12:01 pm

              National campaigned on it and won, the Left campaigned against it and lost

              If nothing else it tells you the population aren’t listening to the left

              • Paul …
                19 January 2016 at 12:03 pm

                As to the numbers…..
                ’20 November 2015
                A 3 News poll today showing only 34 percent of New Zealanders are in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and 52 percent are opposed.’

                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1511/S00410/tppa-poll-shows-kiwis-dont-buy-the-govts-spin.htm

                I don’t think the reason people voted National was the TPP.
                Nor do you.

                This is not a left/right issue.
                It is one of sovereignty.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                19 January 2016 at 8:10 pm

                National didn’t campaign on passing the TPPA, don’t be moronic. They mentioned it a few times but it was hardly a central policy.

                Mandates are continuous things. The only one you get at an election is to form a government. You still need either the consent of the people or a good reason to over-ride it in order to be justified in passing a law, at least if you support demacracy as a principle. I haven’t seen any particular argument as to why the TPPA is so important that it’s worth passing despite people not wanting it.

        • Paul 8.1.2.1
          19 January 2016 at 10:02 am

          All those loony lefties, eh, pr?
          67.3% of them.

          • Gosman 8.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 10:32 am

            Yet almost 50% of the electorate supported the National party in 2014 after that same referendum.

            • Paul 8.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 10:34 am

              And people vote on a variety of issues, not one.
              And you know that.

              • Gosman …
                19 January 2016 at 10:39 am

                Name me the policies you believe the National party stood on at the last election which has broad support (i.e. they have a mandate to implement)? I suspect you can’t or at least don’t want to admit that policies you disagree with might have this support.

                • Paul …
                  19 January 2016 at 10:46 am

                  Clearly not the TPPA.

                  ’20 November 2015
                  A 3 News poll today showing only 34 percent of New Zealanders are in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and 52 percent are opposed.’

                  If only 52% of the population were ‘loony left’…..

                  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1511/S00410/tppa-poll-shows-kiwis-dont-buy-the-govts-spin.htm

                  • Gosman …
                    19 January 2016 at 10:51 am

                    As I thought you can’t name a single policy that you think the National party has a mandate to implement as a result of the last election. What you really want to see is an end to representative democracy and some sort of bastardised binding referendum approach. Good luck with getting that change accepted.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 January 2016 at 10:57 am

                      Since there was no substantive discussion of policies, and their “manifesto” didn’t mention them either, are you ignorant of recent history, or just lying as usual?

                    • Paul …
                      19 January 2016 at 11:10 am

                      I think the National Party campaign was a bunch of vapid slogans which bordered on the illegal

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10504690/Eminem-sues-National-over-election-ad

                    • You_Fool …
                      19 January 2016 at 11:29 am

                      Policy 1: Be such a nice man
                      Policy 2: TAX CUTS!!!!! (maybe, after the next election)
                      Policy 3: At the end of the day New Zealanders don’t think that it don’t matter much if we do or do not have a policy on everything, and really all they really want is to have a firm hand guiding the ship in a direction they known and feel comfortable with and anyway most average normal everyday kiwi mums and dads are quite happy and feel like they heading to a brighter future and those that don’t are evil leftists scum who are just trying to engage in dirty politics, because that comes from the left too and they have Kim Dot Com, who is a big fat german leftist who hates us right thinking kiwi mum and dads like myself and John banks because we promised to look after his problems when he was giving us large sums of anonymous money but then when he needed us we ignored him and anyway look at the end of the day I don’t think this much matters actually…

                      I think I got them all?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 January 2016 at 10:55 am

                  Brighter future. Being on the cusp of something special. Budget surplus. No, wait, not that last one.

                • framu …
                  19 January 2016 at 11:16 am

                  ” (i.e. they have a mandate to implement)?”

                  why does parliament debate and vote on policy?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.1.2
              19 January 2016 at 10:40 am

              About 30% of the electorate… fify.

      • Stuart Munro 8.1.3
        19 January 2016 at 1:04 pm

        Actually 70% of National voters opposed the asset sales – but Key did it anyway, because he is a tyrant and a traitor, and his economic failures will be exposed without constant cash injections.

        Same reason Christchurch is taking forever to rebuild – Bill’s pinching the money to try to make his economy look like a less than total collapse. Pathetic.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2
      19 January 2016 at 10:25 am

      Trolling for a diversion, I sense.

      No: let’s face it, racism is a core National Party value: Puckish Rogue actually believes his lines.

      • Paul 8.2.1
        19 January 2016 at 10:30 am

        I do wonder whether pr is National or just a paid mercenary.

        • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 11:53 am

          Which answer are you likely to believe the most? I’m that one

          • Scott M 8.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 5:55 pm

            I think you’ll find the true rascists inhabit the Maori party. Says it in the name really.

            • marty mars 8.2.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 7:16 pm

              sure scrottm – says it in the name, really???

              • Scott M …
                19 January 2016 at 8:40 pm

                Yes Marty. Just as the “NZ Asian Party” would be an equally rascist idea.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  20 January 2016 at 8:18 am

                  What would make that a racist idea? Minority groups have been forming political parties for generations, and yes, I know racists hate that, and make up specious arguments against it, and their arguments always trip over the very first tiniest hurdle, and break their teeth.

                  Just like yours will. So come on, let’s hear them.

                  • Scott M …
                    20 January 2016 at 5:51 pm

                    Seems to me framing laws and policies to treat one race differently from another is the very definition of rascism.

                    The Maori party are using the academic arguments of the courts on treaty principles. Would have thought the TOW was well and truely breached by the 1980s.

                    I dont object to redress to solve past breaches. What I object to is the living document nonsense which forgets we are in the 21st century and many more races than Maori and NZ European exist.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      20 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

                      @Scrottm “Seems to me framing laws and policies to treat one race differently from another is the very definition of rascism”, which is exactly how Maori felt when the colonial Government changed/implemented laws to ensure the crown and whoever damn well pleased got their hands on Maori land, denied Maori equal rights (and this continues), let’s not forget the institutional racism that Maori live with day in and day out, you really have no clue what racism really is if you are offended by the name Maori Party.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 6:35 pm

                      Korero – as you will see from my post I have absolutely no problem with treaty settlements to make up for past wrongs.

                      My objection is to the gravy train beng set up to make the TOW a “living document” with never ending claims being put in for compensation. I dont think your average NZ would supports this special treatment/reverse racism – whatever label you give it.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      20 January 2016 at 7:07 pm

                      @scrottm

                      “My objection is to the gravy train beng set up to make the TOW a “living document” with never ending claims being put in for compensation. I dont think your average NZ would supports this special treatment/reverse racism – whatever label you give it”

                      Can you please point out how this ‘gravy train’ is being set up? Can you explain what ‘special treatment/reverse racism’ is? I can think that Maori have had ‘special’ treatment, but nothing that actually benefits them but go on I always like to hear the views of a racist.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 8:19 pm

                      Playing dumb are we? Lawyers have argued at the Waitangi Tribunal that the treaty is a “living document”. As I undestand it:

                      – Even though the treaty was well and truly broken by the British, then NZ Government
                      – Apparently we can just patch it up and apply it to the 21st century that now exists in NZ
                      – Meaning special rights or status for mana whenua

                      I am not aware of any government campaigning on this platform. And hence it is just something government bureaucrats and Maori lawyers have decided for us.

                      Whats your version?

                    • marty mars …
                      20 January 2016 at 8:54 pm

                      scott your version, what? a cut and paste from 1loo4all surely

                      I like how you slip from the name to the policies – not just from TMP but bureaucrats and Māori lawyers – smooooth – almost like that is really what infuriates you

                      if i had your attitude then i’d be scared of those lawyers too – fucken brilliant they are.

                      a bit of 101

                      there is a treaty, there are two partners to that treaty and they determine not others when and if the treaty was/is breached – check it out – new agreements and settlements between the parties get sorted quite regularly – have a look at the website it will be an eyeopener.

                      You would say all these clams being settled are bogus? invalid?

                      Time to wake up mate and see the REAL world not some false fantasy you and others with your view inhabit – WAKE UP!!!

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 9:02 pm

                      Would that be the REAL world where hard working middle class people are paying never ending legal bills and pay outs under this legalistic gravy train? Oh yes Im already there but please note, for the THIRD time, I do not oppose historical grievances being settled. FFS.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 9:08 pm

                      Do you understand that te Tiriti is an agreement between two nations, both of which still exist?

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 9:12 pm

                      New Zealand and…

                    • weka …
                      20 January 2016 at 9:17 pm

                      Scott, you appear to be saying that you want the settlements settled and the treaty to be disbanded (or whatever happens to a treaty if both parties agree to terminate it). Is that right?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      When you understand it, I’ll be astonished.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 9:45 pm

                      No idea what you’re banging on about.

                    • maui …
                      20 January 2016 at 9:23 pm

                      Are these the same hard working kiwis that had ancestors that got into the property market by stolen/swindled means, and were able to accrue even more wealth from generation to generation because they had access to this land and it’s associated resources for next to nothing.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 9:41 pm

                      Maui – I am speaking from my circumstances. My family have been very middle class, for a number of generations, owning little more than the family home perhaps some shares. We havent made great fortunes from the treaty breaches. There will be many kiwis who are in that situation. At the other end of the scale are the farmers, the business owners yes who have done very well. But we’re all paying regardless of assets arent we…. Funny that.

                      Weka – yes ideally and replaced with clear legislation agreed by at least 75% of NZers.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 January 2016 at 10:04 pm

                      Even if 75% of New Zealanders were limp racist whingers, that isn’t how Treaties are annulled, Scott.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 10:15 pm

                      Much better to keep it muddy, and rely on “treaty principles” and other legal nuances that only enrich lawyers.

                      I think translating the TOW into legislation would be a positive nation building exercise.

                    • marty mars …
                      20 January 2016 at 10:20 pm

                      scott, Māori pay tax and some of that tax, like yours, is put in the big pot and out of the big pot small modest settlements are made for breaches of the Treaty. Ironic eh.

                      The thing I find hard to understand is why people that articulate your view are so stingy and miserly. You do realise the amount paid and likely to be paid is pittance compared with expenditures for other things your little bit of tax goes toward.

                      I think the money is a red herring to disguise what you really want to say – I’d like to hear it.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 10:25 pm

                      Yes I would like to see one law for all, where people are not given special privileges based on race.

                      How incredibly “rascist”.

                    • marty mars …
                      20 January 2016 at 10:27 pm

                      I appreciate your honesty – thanks.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 10:34 pm

                      To assist – given you subscribe to this viewpoint:

                      Reverse Racism
                      originally US
                      Definition of reverse racism in English:
                      noun

                      Prejudice or antagonism directed towards a majority or (formerly) dominant ethnic group; perceived discrimination by or in favour of a minority or (formerly) oppressed ethnic group.
                      In earlier use probably not a fixed collocation.

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 10:39 pm

                      Whats your gig – Maori or bleeding heart liberal?

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 11:18 pm

                      Good – A genuine view point then.

                    • weka …
                      20 January 2016 at 11:23 pm

                      “Weka – yes ideally and replaced with clear legislation agreed by at least 75% of NZers.”

                      So against the will of one of the treaty partners? How is that fair?

                      What would you be replacing the Treaty with?

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 11:33 pm

                      Legislation enshrined in NZ constitution. It would need to deal with the practical issues created by the treaty in 21st century NZ. Examples:

                      – Maori could have self determination on Maori owned lands. For example they could be exempted from planning laws or other local government regulations.
                      – Co ownership regimes could be enshrined. E.g. Joint decision making on maungas, rivers within each area.

                      All sorts of things would need to be ironed out I imagine.

                      You need to think what the treaty means for the future. The Government party is the repesentative of all non – Maori. There views on the treaty going forward (after treaty claims are settled) are obviously relevant.

                    • weka …
                      20 January 2016 at 11:40 pm

                      How much say would Māori have in that?

                    • Scott M []
                      20 January 2016 at 11:47 pm

                      Perhaps Govt and Maori would negotiate it and then put to referendum until passed? Who knows.

                      What do Maori actually want GOING FORWARD? I guess it would come down to how reasonable or extreme the position was.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 January 2016 at 7:00 am

                      You have to wonder whether racists like Scott actually realise how much contempt their views attract. You’d have to be unbelievably stupid not to, and yet he seems utterly oblivious.

                      Paging Dr. Hodson-Busseri.

                    • Scott M []
                      21 January 2016 at 8:34 am

                      No OOB – you just have very conceited views. And you really do need to look up the definition of rascist if youre going to call people that. You obviously have no idea what it actually means.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      21 January 2016 at 7:48 am

                      @ Scrottm “Would that be the REAL world…”

                      What ‘REAL’ world are you referring to, whose definition of the world are you referring to?

                      “…where hard working middle class people are paying never ending legal bills and pay outs under this legalistic gravy train….”

                      You are yet to explain what you mean by ‘gravy train’, whose ‘gravy train’?

                      Te Tiriti is a living document, it is a treaty, which while not ‘honoured’ in the true sense of the word, forms the basis of the ‘partnership’ between the Crown and Maori – you don’t just pay someone some money for completely harming them, their children, their life chances, their culture, language, values and beliefs and say “well, we paid you now time to move on, time for you to live under OUR rules, values and culture and forget your own because we are all ‘New Zealanders’” – Look up the definition of ‘mono-culturalism’ and the process of ‘othering’ which is exactly what you are doing to Maori under the guise of Nationalism.

                      You claim that you “do not oppose historical grievances being settled”, what about current grievances? For example, the systemic discrimination and racism that Maori continue to live with (as evidenced in every negative statistic), which incidentally are all products of the process of colonisation and institutional racism. Colonisation is still on-going as evidenced by the Foreshore and Seabed debacle (thanks Labour), or even the latest treatment of Maori when it comes to the TPP negotiations (I could go on to list the practices in our institutions too if you’d like).

                      I am glad that you and your family are ‘very middle class’ and doing well financially, you and your family must have had a reasonable start? Not marred by policy and practices that discriminated against you, is that because you are white ‘middle class’? Try starting out by having all of your lands taken, your people decimated, your culture and your language devalued (and beaten out of you) and undermined, forced to compete in a labour market and education setting that immediately discriminated against you and ask yourself how well you would be doing now? Maori paid the price from the outset so that others had an advantage, I think it is unfair that you complain about having to pay for it (the compensation is a pittance compared to the real value (not just economically) of what was taken from Maori, I think the Crown have gotten off lightly.

                      I do agree that ‘translating te Tiriti into legislation would be a positive nation building exercise’ – it would at least give Maori a stronger footing and ensure that the Crown doesn’t opt in and out of te Tiriti as it sees fit, as is currently the case.

                      “I would like to see one law for all, where people are not given special privileges based on race”.

                      So what ‘special privileges’ do Maori get that you don’t? Do you mean the over-representation in every negative statistic? Poorer health, poorer educational outcomes, over-representation and ‘targeting’ when it comes to criminal justice system, higher rates of unemployment, disproportionately higher rates of poverty etc etc etc…what are these ‘special privileges’ again?

                      And I am not quite sure what you mean by “one law for all”, can you explain? Whose laws are you talking about?

                      “Maori could have self determination on Maori owned lands” – Wow thanks for that, how generous, it is good that our colonial masters are allowing us tino rangatiratanga but as long as it is on ‘our’ land, what about our culture, our values, our language, our beliefs, our people? We are not ‘add ons’ for the dominant culture to display to dignitaries, in Govt. Departments, during ‘Maori language week’ where a few people like to pretend they are bi-cultural ‘New Zealanders’.

                      “All sorts of things would need to be ironed out I imagine” I imagine you are right, but who is doing the ironing?

                      Regardless of how racist you are, I think this is a case of ignorance rather than malice. There is one thing that I think a majority of Maori and Pakeha are firm on and that is the threat of the TPP. Perhaps dealing with the outside threat could be a starting point for forming a real ‘partnership’ one where both parties’ culture, values and beliefs are respected, rather than the current state where Maori have to justify and explain everything to Pakeha, including the much touted “he iwi tahi tatou”.

                    • Scott M []
                      21 January 2016 at 8:50 am

                      Korero – every other culture appears to be able to get along under our westminister system， with market economy. Why are Maori so different?

                      When I say gravy train I am referring to iwi and their lawyers who never want an end to the treaty greivance process.
                      We now have a multi cultural society – many of who are quite happy with our government system and who would be opposed to race based laws. Surely Maori need to be realistic about that?

                      The treaty did cede sovereignty， only academics are trying to rewrite history on that score.

                      Its good we agree on one thing – the abhorrence of the TPPA.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:11 am

                      You have no claim over the Westminster system: your ignorance and bigotry are a disgrace to the culture that established it.

                    • Scott M []
                      21 January 2016 at 5:46 pm

                      Wow there you go again， accusing me of the traits YOU actually demonstrate.

                      Rascist: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. That is YOUR view.

                      Bigot: intolerance to those with opposing views. That is exactly YOUR behaviour.

                      Have a think about that dipshit.

                    • te reo putake …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:17 am

                      Scott, the English version can probably be said to have sovereignty at its heart, the version in te reo, not so much. There also is a real question as to whether the concept of sovereignty meant anything at all to the local signatories. That is, whether both sides truly understood what was being signed.

                      Its usual in law that when one party is in a position of power, usually the party proposing and writing the agreement, there is an obligation to make the meaning and commitments clear. The ‘small print’, if you like. In the case of the treaty, there are two seperate documents, that say different things. That’s not an indication of good faith or fair bargaining.

                      So, if there is a treaty claims industry, blame the Poms.

                    • weka …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:17 am

                      There is one thing that I think a majority of Maori and Pakeha are firm on and that is the threat of the TPP. Perhaps dealing with the outside threat could be a starting point for forming a real ‘partnership’ one where both parties’ culture, values and beliefs are respected, rather than the current state where Maori have to justify and explain everything to Pakeha, including the much touted “he iwi tahi tatou”.

                      This.

                      Would still like to see this happening on ts too. If we can’t do it here what hope for the rest of the country? (or maybe others are better suited to this than us).

                    • Korero Pono …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:18 am

                      scrottm you have failed to explain the ‘special privileges’ that Maori get? You’ve made a lot of claims but haven’t backed them up with ‘evidence’, I am quite interested in learning about this from your perspective.

                      “…every other culture appears to be able to get along under our westminister system， with market economy. Why are Maori so different”

                      Who said they were?

                      “When I say gravy train I am referring to iwi and their lawyers who never want an end to the treaty greivance process”.

                      You are making assumptions here and not sure how you validate this statement, what do you mean they “never want an end to the treaty greivance [sic] process”?

                      “We now have a multi cultural society – many of who are quite happy with our government system and who would be opposed to race based laws”. Which ‘race based’ laws are you referring to?

                      “The treaty did cede sovereignty”， Of course there is a lot of contention about that isn’t there?

                      Depending which version of te Tiriti you are referring to “…only academics are trying to rewrite history on that score.” I think you will find this is a legal matter and has been determined:

                      “The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories”.

                      “The rangatira agreed to share power and authority with Britain. They agreed to the Governor having authority to control British subjects in New Zealand, and thereby keep the peace and protect Māori interests”

                      “The rangatira consented to the treaty on the basis that they and the Governor were to be equals, though they were to have different roles and different spheres of influence. The detail of how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the Māori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis”

                      “The rangatira agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown, and the Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had not been properly acquired from Māori”

                      “The rangatira appear to have agreed that the Crown would protect them from foreign threats and represent them in international affairs, where that was necessary”

                      http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/waitangi-tribunal/Reports/he-whakaputanga-me-te-tiriti-the-declaration-and-the-treaty-the-report-on-stage-1-of-the-te-paparahi-o-te-raki-inquiry/chapter-10-our-conclusions

                      The last point is particularly relevant when it comes to the TPP, and not just for Maori.

                      Its good we agree on one thing – the abhorrence of the TPPA.

                    • weka …
                      21 January 2016 at 9:27 am

                      I would add to what TPR has said that it’s convention internationally to use the native language version where there is a dispute about versions in different languages.

                      The treaty did cede sovereignty， only academics are trying to rewrite history on that score.

                      How do you know that the treaty ceded sovereignty if you dismiss the views of Māori, academics and lawyers? Serious question, I’m interested what you base your opinion on.

                      Its good we agree on one thing – the abhorrence of the TPPA.

                      Yes.

                      Korero – every other culture appears to be able to get along under our westminister system， with market economy. Why are Maori so different?

                      This is patently not true Scott. If you look at indigenous cultures that were colonised by the British Empire and forced to become part of the Westminster system/market economy, they all did very badly because of the colonisation. (someone can correct me if I am wrong and there were some peoples that did ok). Those cultures have never recovered, which is why this isn’t just about historic grievances but ongoing ones as well. In some cases cultures actually disappeared and no longer exist. The British actively sought to do this, so it’s not really a surprise.

                      We can also see that other Polynesian cultures within NZ haven’t done so great if we measure by statistics of health, education, poverty, etc.

                    • Scott M []
                      21 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      Korero:
                      – the main special privilege is seeking to create laws establishing maori seats on government bodies like local councils. The maori statutory board in Auckland is particularly bad. Why are unelected members like that voting on the Council budget etc?
                      – the “living document” argument suggests the grievance process will never end.
                      – It is interesting to note that National Party policy is that treaty settlements ARE final
                      – As you have quoted there is a lot of case lase that has been generated by the Waitangi Tribunal. That has not been tested by the electorate and in my view wouldnt find favour.

                      Weka:
                      – I do not “dismiss” what the courts have said. My view is based on a plain reading of the english version. I acknowledge there are differences in meaning between the two versions.
                      – I dont agree with the outcome that courts have reached and dont think the approach would last electoral scrutiny. Judicial activism can be over turned by the govt.

                      There are nice legalistic arguments that can， and have， been made on the issue.

                      As I have stated previously I think it would be far more productive to have a democratic discussion about the issues， then form these in a constitution.

                      At the moment people are hiding behind lawyers.

                    • weka …
                      21 January 2016 at 11:51 pm


                      – I do not “dismiss” what the courts have said.

                      I asked what your view is based on if you dismiss Māori, academics and lawyers.

                      My view is based on a plain reading of the english version. I acknowledge there are differences in meaning between the two versions.

                      My question still stands. Why do you think that your view of the what the Treaty says is more pertinent than Māori, academics or lawyers?

                    • Scott M []
                      22 January 2016 at 8:34 am

                      Because weka it is a legalistic interpretation that has occurred through court processes and in my view doesnt fit a 21st century context.

                      Courts shouldnt set policy， that is the role of parliament who are accountable to the electorate.

                      Neither you or Korero have established what Maori want going forward.

                      That is actually what is important.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 January 2016 at 8:49 am

                      My view is based on a plain reading of the english [sic] version. I acknowledge there are differences in meaning between the two versions.

                      Whether you “acknowledge” it or not, the te reo version of te Tiriti takes precedence over the English one. Contra Preferentum.

                      So basing your academic interpretation on the English language text is just going to confuse you.

                      Hobson signed a document he couldn’t read; you’re interpreting a document you can’t read. Silly much?

                    • Korero Pono …
                      22 January 2016 at 8:58 am

                      Scrottm, I am not sure that ‘seeking to create laws establishing maori [sic] seats on government bodies’ is a ‘privilege’.

                      What does the principle of ‘partnership’ actually mean? The rationale behind what was being sought was because Maori are under-represented in local bodies and Maori participation is declining. Rather than seeing this as a ‘privilege’, would this not be better framed as applying the ‘partnership’ principle of te Tiriti? Regardless of the supposed privileges that Maori have in any political system, the history of how that supposed privilege was thwarted every step of the way tells the reality of this so called privilege. Unlike Pakeha, Maori have to fight every step of the way to have any footing at any table, let alone an equal footing. Perhaps you could go read the HRC report to give what you suggest some context and perhaps educate yourself about what this is really about. https://www.hrc.co.nz/your-rights/indigenous-rights/our-work/maori-representation-local-government/

                      Te Tiriti IS a living document, it is an agreement between two peoples, Tauiwi and Maori, why do you assume that te Tiriti is all about grievance? When will these ‘grievances’ ever end? Could and probably should be reframed to ask the question, ‘When will the crown honour their side of te tiriti’? Historically the Crown have not. They continue to treat Maori with disdain (read what you will into our Government signing TPP on 4 Feb, against the wishes of most Maori, without consulting with the Tiriti ‘partner’, I call that a major insult, I call it arrogance beyond comprehension, the TPP itself is a real threat to not just the Tiriti and Maori but to the sovereignty of all citizens, regardless of race. Waitangi will be interesting if Maori allow the PM to waltz in as though nothing happened (but then again Maori are quite forgiving too).

                      Scrottm, which ‘electorate’ should the ‘case law’ be ‘tested’ in? A Pakeha dominated electorate? Come on Scrottm, surely even you understand how that would disadvantage Maori as they have always been disadvantaged historically in the political system (gee you need to read some history on this stuff) http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/nga-mangai-maori-representation/page-2

                      Scrottm, I appreciate your genuine effort to present ‘evidence’ of these so called ‘privileges’, yet you remain silent on the facts outline in my previous posts – like the disproportionate representation of Maori in every negative statistic, the systemic oppression and institutional racism that they are subject to. Your attitudes, are indicative of what Maori have to deal with (even though you don’t class yourself as racist), your narrow view, based on a biased look at history lacks understanding and depth, which reinforces the belief systems that you have. Yet again Maori have to justify themselves over and over again, can you not see how attitudes like that perpetuate systems that are racist and oppressive?

                      Meanwhile we all face a common enemy and I think that should be our priority – it is incredibly sad that the Government that is supposed to represent the wishes of the people are forging ahead with the TPP regardless of evidence that the majority oppose the TPP!

                    • Scott M []
                      22 January 2016 at 12:18 pm

                      Korero:

                      You will find if you read my comments that I do not dispute that Maori have been badly treated in the past， that is why I have NO problem with treaty settlements to address past bad behaviour/actions by the government.

                      And of course I dont claim to be an expert in all the inappropriate things that have occurred， but on the same token I am not completely ignorant on that score either. An example being Ngati Tamaoho who were kicked off their ancestral lands to make way for the Auckland Airport as late as the 1960s! That is despicable.

                      I note both you and weka keep avoiding my question. I will ask it again:

                      “If given the option of writing a new law to form part of a NZ constitution， what would Maori being looking for in such a statute?”

                    • Korero Pono …
                      23 January 2016 at 8:03 am

                      @Scrottm
                      “You will find if you read my comments that I do not dispute that Maori have been badly treated in the past， that is why I have NO problem with treaty settlements to address past bad behaviour/actions by the government”.

                      That very statement reinforces that you have no understanding of what is happening now for Maori. From my perspective this is not about settlements that carry a monetary value, this is about the on-going processes of colonisation. Maori are still treated poorly and that is evidenced in every negative statistic. There is ample evidence and research that backs up the assertion that Maori are targeted, but not in the positive ways you believe.

                      You continue to talk about the way Maori were treated in the past tense, while over-looking the current situation. Maori are disadvantaged because of the institutional racist practices of Government, these practices are supported by attitudes such as yours, Maori continue to have to justify themselves over and over again.

                      https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/archive/1988-puaoteatatu.pdf (little has changed since this report was published in 1988 – evidenced by the current state within CYF).

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfAe3Zvgui4 (Maori are subject to more surveillance and ‘the gaze’, Maori are compared to Pakeha (who are the supposed norm).

                      http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/JustSpeak/JustSpeak%20-%20Maori%20and%20the%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20-%20A%20Youth%20Perspective.pdf Police attitudes toward Maori racist. http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Maori%20and%20the%20CJS/22%20Police-Perceptions-of-Maori.pdf

                      http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/pacific-media-watch/nz-un-says-criminal-justice-system-institutionally-racist-against-m-ori-8551 racism in New Zealand backed up by the UN.

                      http://salient.org.nz/2009/07/discrimination-and-maori-health/ Maori are discriminated against in health.

                      http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/6397/thesis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y This thesis covers a number of areas where Maori are discriminated in health (and other sectors), provides a comprehensive explanation on the types of racism experienced by Maori, in depth discussion on te Tiriti etc etc. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11249785 , racism toward Maori in education.

                      “If given the option of writing a new law to form part of a NZ constitution， what would Maori being looking for in such a statute?”

                      I do not speak for all Maori, only for myself.
                      Tino rangatiratanga and partnership as outlined in te Tiriti. Equality based on outcomes.

                    • Scott M []
                      23 January 2016 at 10:48 am

                      The Salient article concludes that worse health treatment rates for Maori is based on institutional racism? We’re talking about doctors and nurses here! Is it not more likely that Maori have worse health incomes because they are not taking personal responsibility for their health? If so, surely the solution is more education in te reo – not suggesting doctors and nurses are rascist and with hold treatment on that basis. Do you not think that is an outrageous conclusion for the article to reach?

                      Please explain how government systems seem to work for every other culture, but somehow not for Maori? Education, health, law, aren’t cultural matters are they? Maori have the same rights of access to all of these systems.

                      I think your argument is actually a socio-economic one. If you solved the poverty issue I think the problems you highlight above would disappear.

                      TREATY
                      Thanks for the response. I respect that point of view but I still believe that the partnership approach wouldnt find favour in the electorate as it appears to give 13% of the population special political rights when compared to the rest.

                      Looks like the Treaty and case law will be the legal framework going forward for some time.

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2016 at 11:11 am

                      Think of it this way. The Treaty gives all non-Māori special privileges if they hold citizenship or residency i.e. the right to reside in NZ. It’s the Tiriti that grants non-Māori the legitimacy to be here. Otherwise we’re here simply by being thugs with the biggest stick.

                      Please explain how government systems seem to work for every other culture, but somehow not for Maori? Education, health, law, aren’t cultural matters are they? Maori have the same rights of access to all of these systems.

                      I’ve already pointed out that this is patently untrue. All indigenous cultures that were colonised by the Brits in this way have suffered and continue to suffer, it’s not specific to Māori. Also, Pacifica stats in NZ aren’t that great either.

                      A lot of good work has been done over the decades on the need to make health services culturally appropriate on the basis that health services delivered in the wrong way are much less effective (that’s a general principle btw, not just about Māori health). It’s shameful that this is even still an issue in NZ. I agree that poverty is part of it, along with the neoliberal capture of NZ, but even within that it’s obvious that race issues are still distinct.

                      You might also be interested to know that gender is an issue in health too, and that it’s generally accepted that it’s better to provide health services to women in ways that work for them rather than in the ways that men think they should work. It’s also a well known phenomena that much medical research in the past was done on men and so was not entirely applicable to women whose bodies work differently. You have to do the research on women as well if you want it to be relevant.

                      What you appear to be saying is that Māori should be white when they engage with health services because the health services are designed for normal people (i.e. white people). Not only is that racist, it’s not actually possible. This isn’t about special treatment for Māori, it’s about equal treatment.

                    • Scott M []
                      23 January 2016 at 11:46 am

                      So what is a concrete example of this? If a maori and pakeha were admitted to hospital with the same stomach cancer， what are you saying would need to be different for the maori person?

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2016 at 1:04 pm

                      A concrete example that happened in real life,

                      When the cervical screening programme was being set up in NZ in the early 90s, it became apparent that Māori and Pacific Island women were much less likely to get cervical smear testing than Pākehā women. When this was looked at, health officials and researchers found that if you did smear testing in places that Māori and Pasifika women were comfortable in, and the testing was done by people who they were comfortable with (eg Māori/Pasifika female practitioners), then the women were much more likely to get the smears done.

                      By your argument, those programmes that targeted Māori and Pasifika women were ‘special treatment’ that they shouldn’t have been getting. Whereas in reality, the main programme was by default targetting Pākehā women (because they were set up by Pākehā according to Pākehā cultural values), and exluding Polynesian women. So the programmes aimed at non-Pākehā were just making things more equitable.

                      (and Pākehā women benefited as well, because it opened up the discussion about what Pākehā women wanted not what Pākehā male-dominated systems had designed).

                    • Scott M []
                      23 January 2016 at 2:18 pm

                      Sounds fine to me.

                      My main concern with “special privileges” is when a race based outcome is enshrined in a law or public finds syphoned off just for race based programs.

                      In the example you gave its simply an operational matter of how best to use the health budget given that is there for the use of all NZers， maori and pacific included.

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2016 at 3:00 pm

                      That’s confusing then. Can you please give a couple of real world examples of race based funding that is siphoned off somehow? Because I don’t know what you are referring to if it’s not things like the cervical screening programme using some of its funding specifically for Māori and Pasifika women?

                      edit, I think above you were saying that the health system isn’t racist. But can you accept that if the cervical screening programme hadn’t put those targetted programmes in place then it would have been structurally racist because of the way it was excluding some women?

                    • Scott M []
                      23 January 2016 at 5:04 pm

                      No I wouldnt and Im not sure why everthing has to be defined as being “rascist”. Why not just say it was “ineffective” which isnt so emotionally charged.

                      An obvious example of race based funding is Whanau Ora. $137m spent, a third on administration, in four years. Ofcourse this politics in play and as an individual sum hardly breaks the bank. But why a specific Maori program? Whats to stop Pacific people, Asian people, Indian people now saying they need their own special programs.

                      The overall problem I would say is inefficiency. In the Whanau Ora example that is $45m wasted on duplication of administration tasks.

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      If the health system were simply being inefficient it would be across the board, not affecting specific groups. What I’m getting is that you don’t like the term racist even if it’s true. But racism has a range of meanings and it’s a very useful word. It might make people uncomfortable but it allows us to see the truth. Trying to find other language to make us feel more comfortable is fine too, but not when it obscures the truth (eg calling it inefficiency when it’s actually race-based inefficiency).

                      AFAIK Whānau Ora is open to all people irrespective of ethnicity. But I fail to see how it’s any different than the cervical screening example I gave. Can you be more specific?

                      I’m in favour of any marginalised group having access to targetted funding, so I’m good with Pasifika, Indian, Asian etc people putting their hands up too where they have a need. In a country still dominated by Pākehā making decisions and designing programmes it makes sense for the people who are directly affected to have a say in how the money is spent. As you said in response to the cervical screening example, it’s all our money, everyone has a right to it.

                      The overall problem I would say is inefficiency. In the Whanau Ora example that is $45m wasted on duplication of administration tasks.

                      Ok, so if the mainstream system were doing its job properly and providing services for Māori, you would be ok with that targetting so long as it was done by say the MoH or MSD rather than Whānau Ora? I might be ok with that too if it meant that Māori were actually getting to control the way services were delivered within those departments but the point of the existence of Whānau Ora is that those departments aren’t doing that despite having had many years in which to do so. That’s not the fault of Māori btw.

                      I don’t know a huge amount about Whānau Ora, but I think they are providing services not provided by other departments so I’m not convinced about the efficiency argument other than in theory.

                    • Scott M []
                      23 January 2016 at 10:18 pm

                      Those figures are from the Auditor General. She was highly critical of both the Ministry of Maori Affairs and sister Ministries of Social Development and Health who in her view were not working cohesively together. So yes agree the govt carries the blame for any inefficiencies of Whanu Ora.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      24 January 2016 at 9:45 am

                      “The Salient article concludes that worse health treatment rates for Maori is based on institutional racism?? We’re talking about doctors and nurses here”

                      The Salient article covers the types of racism experienced by Maori in health systems, it is not simply a case of inter-personal racism (though that plays a part based on assumptions that individual health care workers make) – this is a systemic problem at policy and practice levels. Of course the Human Rights Commission has quite a lot to say on the level of institutional racism in New Zealand’s public services https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/2914/2409/4608/HRC-Structural-Report_final_webV1.pdf – if you genuinely want to understand then I suggest you make that a starting point for reading, however I am starting to suspect that you do not want to understand, you have made up your mind and are framing the ‘debate’ accordingly.

                      “Is it not more likely that Maori have worse health incomes because they are not taking personal responsibility for their health”

                      And the inevitable ‘taking personal responsibility’ discourse enters the frame. I have no doubt there is an element of ‘personal responsibility’ needed by all people (regardless of race). I am sure Maori would like to take responsibility for their own health, rather than rely on the current systems that provide a ‘doing to’ rather than a ‘doing with’ approach. Tino rangatiratanga is certainly something to strive for.

                      “If so, surely the solution is more education in te reo”

                      Your ignorance of te ao Maori is telling here (let’s just say a few Maori words, like kia ora, ka kite, te Whare Tapa Wha and we’ll tick our cultural boxes). Tokenism is all around us.

                      “not suggesting doctors and nurses are rascist and with hold treatment on that basis. Do you not think that is an outrageous conclusion for the article to reach”

                      I am not sure you actually understand the article if that is the conclusion you reached, or the way you choose to frame it.

                      “Please explain how government systems seem to work for every other culture, but somehow not for Maori? Education, health, law, aren’t cultural matters are they? Maori have the same rights of access to all of these systems”.

                      Do they? If you’d read the Salient article, you would see they don’t. As to your statement that ‘government systems seem to work for every other culture’, it reinforces how ignorant you are, this statement is simply not true (HRC, 2012). And it didn’t take long for you to jump into the ‘equal opportunity’ argument, whilst ignoring the points made in previous posts about outcomes. If you read the HRC (2012) report, and/or the Came (2012) thesis you’d probably realise how ignorant and racist your statements are but these are indicative of the attitudes and discourses that Maori have to deal with on a daily basis and then have to explain and justify themselves. You would love it if Maori were fully assimilated into what you deem to be the ‘normal’ culture, the pakeha culture and ignore how that is (and has been historically) detrimental to Maori.

                      “I think your argument is actually a socio-economic one. If you solved the poverty issue I think the problems you highlight above would disappear”.

                      Poverty is an outcome of policy, practices and dominant ideology that impacts on the well-being of the most vulnerable, of which Maori and other ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented (is that not indicative of an issue at a systemic level?).

                      “I still believe that the partnership approach wouldnt find favour in the electorate as it appears to give 13% of the population special political rights when compared to the rest”

                      Are you really this dumb? Whether you like it or not Maori are a Tiriti partner, ffs how ignorant can you get? These supposed ‘special political rights’ are exactly what pakeha gave themselves and used to maintain power over and disadvantage Maori every step of the way. This treatment continues under TPP, which will undermine te Tiriti and NZ sovereignty https://tpplegal.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ep3-tiriti-paper.pdf

                      Elsewhere you wrote that Maori get special funding for Whanau Ora, you would probably be a little shocked to realise that access to Whanau Ora is open to all, not just Maori…so again I don’t see the ‘special treatment’ argument working here either. Whanau Ora exclusively for Maori was never going to be a popular move, which is why the Natzi Govt made it available to all.

                      I am still waiting for concrete examples of ‘special privileges’ that Maori get that you don’t.

                    • Scott M []
                      24 January 2016 at 5:53 pm

                      Korero – I should have framed it better， the special priveleges I was referring to were political rights e.g. specific Maori seats on elected bodies.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 January 2016 at 5:59 pm

                      Far easier for councils to consult with treaty partners up front rather than pandering to bigots and then having their decisions reversed in court.

                      I don’t think Scott understands the nature of partnership nor treaties. Or perhaps his deeply held reckons depend upon his failure.

                    • Scott M []
                      24 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

                      OAB – ramming through race based seats， like the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland recently without electoral mandate. How is that any less democratic than National ramming through TPPA with scant interest to democratic process. Im sure the Nats would share the same conviction about their cause.

                      [lprent: You appear to be a damn stupid and lazy bigoted idiot. But in the interests of the education of morons with race obsessions then perhaps you should look at the legal basis for the IMSB – enshrined in legislation passed by parliament.

                      http://www.imsb.maori.nz/index.php/about-us

                      The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 established the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

                      In other words it was passed the same way as everything else is – using legislation in parliament. I’d strongly suggest that you pull your finger out of your lazy arse and fact check before lying here. That took me exactly 3 minutes to locate.

                      I have a thing about people deliberately lying about facts and I include dickheads who are too lazy to use google in that. If you want to assert a fact, then link to support it. Otherwise I start banning you for deliberately lying. This is your warning. See the policy ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 January 2016 at 6:53 pm

                      Personally, I think ramming things through bigots is a desirable outcome. After all, it isn’t like the bigots will ever show any understanding or respect, and why on Earth should anything be left up to ignorant morons to decide?

                      You can’t even figure out what a partnership entails.

                    • Scott M []
                      24 January 2016 at 7:10 pm

                      OAB – you are intolerant of anyone who doesnt share your toffee nosed view of the Treaty.

                      By definition that makes you the bigot…

                      [lprent: See the note above. I think that you fit the lazy ignorant bigot category myself. I’d suggest that you look at your behaviour and fix that before decrying others. ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 January 2016 at 7:17 pm

                      😆

                      The ability to understand basic English words like “treaty” and “partnership” no doubts resembles snobbery when you’re as thick as pigshit.

                    • Scott M []
                      24 January 2016 at 7:22 pm

                      Did you google “Bigot” OAB? You should， its very stupid indeed calling someone a bigot while dislaying those very same behaviours.

                      [lprent: Read my note above and improve your behaviour immediately. ]

                    • weka …
                      24 January 2016 at 7:56 pm

                      @ OAB. And yet here we have someone engaging in open and honest debate who is expressing ideas that many of us find offensive or unacceptable, but who is probably basing much of his thinking on simply not understanding some aspects of history or not having been exposed to other ways of seeing things. He comes across as debating in good faith, isn’t trolling and isn’t being nasty.

                      So why be so mean to him? Honest question, I’d really like to understand the strategy. I can see how it might be useful for some commenters who really are just nasty neoliberal shits beyond redemption, but surely this conversation is a great example of what Incognito was talking about in the value of being able to work with other points of view?

                      Edit, good grief, just seen the last few interchanges and Lynn’s moderating. I get the whole robust debate thing, and I get the expediency of your moderating style Lynn (and have some sympathy for that), but do we really have to drive away all the people who would make this place more interesting than the circle jerk that is the regular lefties bitching at the RW trolls?

                      OAB, how about you stop being such an up yourself, oblique bastard and actually describe what partnership is?

                    • Korero Pono …
                      25 January 2016 at 7:18 am

                      @Scrottm

                      “I should have framed it better， the special priveleges I was referring to were political rights e.g. specific Maori seats on elected bodies”

                      Regardless of how you framed it, I have still addressed this aspect, I know I wrote a lot in my posts but in an attempt to educate you a lot needed to be said (hell I even gave you links to back up what I am saying). At least have the courtesy of reading it before charging ahead with your uninformed beliefs and opinions.

                      I have spent time trying to inform you from a Maori perspective, not to prove a point but in the hope that you are genuinely interested in learning. Whether you like it or not, many of your comments/beliefs are racist and form the very back-drop of what Maori are up against on a systemic level. Your comments/beliefs/attitudes while racist appear to stem from ignorance and lack of education (and probably the discourses that you have been indoctrinated with through MSM). Perhaps if you tried referring to the HRC report or the Came (2012) thesis you may form a different opinion, or at least an educated one.

  9. Manuka AOR 9
    19 January 2016 at 9:44 am

    I would like to see a clear statement as to where they stand on the signing, by the Maori Party, the Greens and NZ First.

    • Manuka AOR 9.1
      19 January 2016 at 10:44 am

      Found them in the post – but not yet NZ First?

      • mickysavage 9.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 12:47 pm

        Pretty staunch. They have tried to get investor state disputes being excluded from the treaty …

        http://itsourfuture.org.nz/nz-first-bill-throws-down-the-gauntlet-over-tppa/

        • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 9.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 2:06 pm

          When does the Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill get debated in Parliament? Or has it already been debated?

          I see this Press release was from March 2015
          http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1503/S00302/nz-first-bill-throws-down-the-gauntlet-over-tppa.htm

          I don’t understand how the Executive can give away Parliament’s sovereignty by making a foreign body -Investor State Dispute Tribunals be able to veto Parliamentary Supremacy, without Parliament been able to debate and agree to this change. I would have thought that such a massive constitutional change as the loss of Parliament Supremacy would require a referendum.

          I wonder about the constitutional legality of what is happening.

          What is stopping a future Parliament from declaring that in New Zealand Parliament has always been the supreme arbiter of the public good and that trade agreements cannot change this constitutional fact. In particular that ISDS decisions are just recommendations which Parliament will decide whether to uphold or not.

          Why should our most representative institution -our Parliament that is the most democrat, that has evolved through progressive changes dating back centuries be secondary to some new less representative foreign court?

          • Manuka AOR 9.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 3:13 pm

            “I would have thought that such a massive constitutional change as the loss of Parliament Supremacy would require a referendum.”

            Yes, the entire process seems deeply flawed, fundamentally wrong, from any truly democratic perspective.

            “I wonder about the constitutional legality of what is happening.”

            We have a constitution?

            • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 9.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 3:30 pm

              Yes we have a constitution, it is simple and it is unwritten -being a collection of rights handed down from the British 1688 -‘Glorious Revolution’ -which gave supreme sovereignty to Parliament not the monarchy.

              What is being proposed by Key et al is that this constitution be amended, so an unelected, unrepresentative, foreign court with a mandate to only consider one sector of society -foreign investors, will have sovereignty over our Parliament.

              I question if Key et al has the authority to make this change.

  10. maui 10
    19 January 2016 at 9:47 am

    I was reading the other day how the whole of the Welington region was traded away in 2 days. Over 2 days local chiefs were invited on board a sailing ship to view the goods they would receive and “Harry” a white guy who could speak some broken Māori translated what the deal meant to them. Then the deal was signed and pakeha had ownership and control over the whole Wellington region. Not even the pa that Māori were living in were secure, and were eventually taken.

    The TPPA isn’t as bad as the above, but you can understand Māori not wanting to be ripped off again.

    • Macro 10.1
      19 January 2016 at 11:50 am

      Exactly! And to think that the Wakefield deal was in many ways a better deal than they got in other places you can see why there was agreement by Maori to the signing of the Maori version of the Treaty. The fact that afterwards the colonialist then proceeded to rip Maori off even more, and with this abhorrent TPPA allowing others to rip Maori off yet again, it is clear evidence that imperialism and colonialism is far from over. Now its corporate power not individual wealth and greed that has to be fought.

      • weka 10.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

        +1 to both of you.

        I think that the language and culture differences had a significant part to play as well. How well did Māori understand the implications of individual land ownership and what that meant to the Brits? And I’m pretty sure the Brits didn’t understand Māori ‘ownership’ and where they did they simply didn’t care.

        They can’t get away with that now, hence the agreement is secret.

  11. Anno1701 11
    19 January 2016 at 9:58 am

    “I am struggling to understand why the treaty is being signed here”

    a restive & apathetic population

    more worried about chasing the Kiwi dream (boat,bach and a bentley ) that their own rights and freedoms….

  12. Manuka AOR 12
    19 January 2016 at 10:03 am

    “The TPPA isn’t as bad as the above”

    We don’t know all the longer term consequences, only that it is opening the door for foreign entities to impact on our laws, including those regarding the sale of Aotearoa, the land itself. So we cannot say it “isn’t as bad as that”.

    • Paul 12.1
      19 January 2016 at 10:06 am

      NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret

      Keystone XL NAFTA Nightmare: 15 Billion Reasons to be Wary of ISDS & Free Trade Agreements
      http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-ISDS-KeystoneXL-Statement.pdf

    • weka 12.2
      19 January 2016 at 12:21 pm

      So we cannot say it “isn’t as bad as that”.

      I think this is true and not true. Whatever happens it’s unlikely that we will see the kind of decimation to our population, language and land that Māori have experienced. At least we are more useful to the imperialists this time and we have more relative power.

      The potential losses from the TPPA shouldn’t be underestimated, but I think part of the problem with it (and with the proto-fascism of Key’s neoliberalism) is that they’re not going head on as colonialists, they’re playing a smart game of taking things in such a way that the population are lulled into a sense of complacency. If it was the same all out assault that the 1800s colonisation was, there’d be civil war.

      • Manuka AOR 12.2.1
        19 January 2016 at 12:43 pm

        “they’re playing a smart game of taking things in such a way that the population are lulled into a sense of complacency.”

        Exactly.

  13. Gosman 13
    19 January 2016 at 10:58 am

    The inconvenient truth that the opponents of the TPPA ignore (I presume because it doesn’t serve their purpose to try and paint this as the worst attack on NZ’s sovereignty ever so they can drum up support for their cause) is NZ could quite easily leave the agreement at any stage (giving 6 months notice) and suffer no penalty (beyond losing preferntial trading access gained under the TPPA of course). This is not something leftists really want to address though as they need to paint this as an immediate and catastrophic issue that needs urgent attention to stop.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      19 January 2016 at 11:04 am

      Gosman, the internationally recognised authority on leftists, was today found blithering uncontrollably in the gutter, as usual.

    • Paul 13.2
      19 January 2016 at 11:08 am

      Spin 1 failed
      Now onto spin 2 from the handbook

    • Macro 13.3
      19 January 2016 at 11:56 am

      Why the fuck would we want to sign it in the first place and open the door for corporates to rush in and do us over? It doesn’t take 6 months to rob a house – or haven’t you noticed?

      • Gosman 13.3.1
        19 January 2016 at 12:01 pm

        How would these corporates “rob” us in such a short time given that any dispute that would entail an ISDS process would take years to progress and even then there is no enforcement mechanism beyond other nations sanctioning us (which would take years to do as well). You just need to look at how Australia has delayed allowing NZ Apple exports access to their market to see how this process is a slow one.

        • Paul 13.3.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 12:05 pm

          You enjoy shilling for mega corporates, do you?

          • Gosman 13.3.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 12:18 pm

            Avoiding the questions I posed once again I see.

            Interesting that for many hard core leftists the red flag word is ‘Corporates’ rather than for many conservatives ‘Immigrants’.

            The purpose is the same though. A desire to create an impersonal bogeyman that the woes of the world can be ascribed to.

            • Stuart Munro 13.3.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 2:14 pm

              By no means – the Gnats have an abundance of suitably abhorrent inhuman material, ranging from vicious (Collins) to brute stupidity (whaleoil & yourself).

              But leaving aside your gross personal inadequacies, corporates do not uniformly act in the public interest, nor do they claim to. The best sometimes err by ommission and cause harm, and the worst are untroubled by the prospect of causing harm and are positively sociopathic.

              Of course as a menkurt corporate lackey (or wannabe corporate lackey)you suppose that embracing this harm is the best response – but actually corporates can be disciplined and made to desist from their worst practices.

              Not everyone is as craven as yourself.

          • Stuart Munro 13.3.1.1.2
            19 January 2016 at 1:16 pm

            He’s hoping for a personal ‘trickle down’.

        • Macro 13.3.1.2
          19 January 2016 at 2:17 pm

          So it takes years to lodge an ISDS claim does it?
          What makes you think that is going to go away?
          Furthermore, if and when an incoming govt signals its intention to withdraw, there will be even more applications for ISDS claims made.

        • Macro 13.3.1.3
          19 January 2016 at 2:23 pm

          Oh Gossy you simple soul …
          You don’t understand the difference between a WTO dispute and an ISDS do you?
          NZ apples to Australia is not under an ISDS but had to go to the WTO and a different court.
          https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds367_e.htm
          http://pundit.co.nz/content/of-tpps-isdss-and-the-constitution

          • Gosman 13.3.1.3.1
            19 January 2016 at 3:30 pm

            I’m well aware they are different but the concept is similar. Any trade dispute is very unlikely to be resolved quickly.

            • Macro 13.3.1.3.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 4:12 pm

              Of course the concept is “similar” – but the process and the out comes are very different! read the second link above, by someone who knows what he is talking about, if you don’t believe me. We open ourselves up to all manner of claims if we subsequently decide to pull out. Corporations who have invested will want their money back and much more eg TransCanadians claim re the pipeline.

            • Macro 13.3.1.3.1.2
              19 January 2016 at 4:54 pm

              Furthermore – Key et al are intending to hand over the sovereignty of NZ to a tribunal of 3 unelected hand picked people giving them the power to judiciate for one set of people – foreign investors – above and beyond the power of elected national governments. I’m not sure that National have the mandate to do that. In fact I’m positive they don’t.

  14. weka 14
    19 January 2016 at 11:24 am

    Micky, Kingi Tairua says in the video (or the translation says) that he is opposing the signing in NZ, and that if it goes ahead the govt shouldn’t be allowed on the marae. It’s unclear to me whether he means the problem is that the signing is taking place in NZ, or whether the signing is taking place at all.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 14.1
      19 January 2016 at 4:43 pm

      Celebrations at Waitangi often commence the previous day, 5 February, at the Ngapuhi Te Tii marae, where political dignitaries are welcomed onto the marae and hear speeches from the local iwi. These speeches often deal with the issues of the day, and vigorous and robust debate occurs.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Day

      This is the part that I think that Kingi Taurua is referring to. Maybe Key will just go up to the Treaty grounds on 6 Feb.

      • weka 14.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 6:45 pm

        Thanks for that. Do you think the issue is the signing of the TPPA in NZ specifically (and the timing), or it’s just the signing at all (eg he would still call for the govt to not come on even if they were signing overseas)?

        • Tautoko Mangō Mata 14.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 7:13 pm

          I think the issue is the signing (regardless of where) without consultation with Māori. I have added a bit of the history. I have been fortunate enough to have spent 2 nights with a school group at Te Tī and have heard this history from a kaumatua who showed us the site where the chiefs held their discussion.

          1840 Treaty of Waitangi signed
          As soon as Hobson arrived at the Bay of Islands he met with Busby
          on the Herald, and Busby organised an invitation to the chiefs of
          the “Confederation” (which had not actually met before) to meet
          Hobson, “a rangatira [chief] from the Queen of England”.
          The meeting was to take place on Wednesday, 5 February.
          Meanwhile a draft of the Treaty was prepared in English and a copy
          of this text was provided to Henry Williams so that he could translate
          it for the meeting. At the meeting, the text, in both languages,
          was discussed before about 500 Mäori and 200 Päkehä. Most
          of the speakers were suspicious of what was intended, but the
          speech of Tamati Waka Nene is thought to have swayed the chiefs
          towards acceptance. Hobson expected several days of discussion and
          lobbying by those in favour and those opposed, and discussion
          did continue overnight at what is now Te Tii Marae. On the
          following day, 6 February, the meeting was hurriedly reassembled, the
          text read again, and signing commenced with Hone Wiremu Hene
          Pokai (Hone Heke), one of the signatories to the 1835 Declaration.

          http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/documents/Timeline.pdf

          • weka 14.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 8:09 pm

            Do you know what it was that Nene said that convinced them?

            • marty mars 14.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2016 at 8:50 pm

              This is what he said to the Governor after addressing his fellow chiefs, (not sure if he spoke English)

              “O Governor, remain I, Tamati Waaka, say to thee, remain. Do not go away from us, remain for us a father, a judge, a peacemaker. You must not allow us to become slaves. You must preserve our customs, and never permit our lands to be wrested from us. Yes it is good, it is straight. Stay here then, dwell in our midst. Remain, do not go away…. Stay then, our friend, our father, our Governor. (Buick 1936:145) from Waitangi Tribunnal (1987) The Orakei Report.

              Needless to say these are some illuminating sentences.

              • weka …
                19 January 2016 at 9:08 pm

                Indeed, and it raises many questions. Was he suggesting that if the British didn’t stay that others would come who could take their lands? Or was it that if the British didn’t ensure order amongs their own people there would be chaos?

                The ‘father’ language is interesting too, bet there were considerable cultural differences on what that meant.

            • marty mars 14.1.1.1.1.2
              19 January 2016 at 9:22 pm

              This is what he said, in English

              “I shall speak first to us, to ourselves, Natives…What do you say? The Governor to return? What then shall we do? Say here to me O ye Chiefs of the tribes of the northern part of New Zealand! What we, how we?

              Friends! Whose potatoes do we eat? Whose were our blankets? These spears… are laid aside. What has the Nga-Puhi now? The Pakeha’s gun, his shot, his powder. Many months has he been in our whares: many of his children are our children. Is not the land already gone? Is it not covered, all covered, with men, with strangers, foreigners – even as the grass and herbage – over whose we have no power? … Had you spoken thus in the old time, when the traders and grog sellers came – had you turned them away, then you could well say to the Governor, “Go back,” and it would have been correct, straight: and I would also have said with you, “Go back,” – yes we together as one man, one voice. But now as things are, no, no, no… Oh Governor…” (Caselberg J (Ed) (1975). Maori is my name – historical Māori writings in translation.)

              and then into the other bit I put into the post above.

              • weka …
                19 January 2016 at 9:43 pm

                Ok, thanks, I get it now 🙁

              • Tautoko Mangō Mata …
                19 January 2016 at 9:55 pm

                Thanks for the information, Marty.

              • Macro …
                19 January 2016 at 10:08 pm

                It’s also interesting and informative to note that almost every one signing signed on the Māori version of the Treaty prepared by Williams, only a handful of signatures are on the English version, and then only because there was no room left on the Māori version. The English version was the document then forwarded back to England where it was ratified by the English Parliament.
                What many do not appreciate is that the Māori version, is the version that was signed and accepted by Māori, not the English version.

                • marty mars …
                  19 January 2016 at 11:00 pm

                  kia ora Tautoko Mangō Mata, weka and macro

                  yes Macro – very true and an important point.

                  Thanks for making me look this up – reading what the other chiefs said has made me quite sad but it is an okay sad, an understanding sad, a connecting sad.

  15. Observer (Tokoroa) 15
    19 January 2016 at 11:32 am

    The problem with the TPPA is that it has been done in secrecy. People do things in secrecy when they have things to hide; or when they have personal vested interests.

    From an ordinary kiwi’s point of view the TPPA has been promoted by:

    1) The Auckland Herald, a news paper with total bias and loyalty to the very wealthy.
    Do you trust the Herald to be even handed Yes or No?

    2) The National Government of New Zealand who even lied about the date of release. Such was their determination for secrecy. People do things in secrecy when they have things to hide; or when they have personal vested interests. Do you trust the honesty of the Key / English government. Yes or No

    3) Does the National Government consistently obey and please the wealthy owners of the Auckland herald? Yes or No

    4) Lanthanide seems to comment on this blog on every subject under the sun. He is very supportive of everything the strange Mr Key does. Do you trust the word of Lanthanide, given his curious craven acceptance of anything that comes through Key’s mouth. Yes or No.

    5) Then there is the suave MR PR man Hooton. Do you trust PR monkeys? Yes or No

    6) Do you trust the collumnists and jounalist in the Main Stream Media of New Zealand. Yes or No

    7) Do Cameron Slater and David Farrar, the unsavoury twins, support the interests of the common man or just the wealthy corporates and national politicians. Yes or No

    8) Have the supporters of the Right who appear constantly on this blog, such as Puckish Rogue, BM, Psycho Milt done anything other than support slavishly the Key Government. Yes or No

    9) Do you think that other corporates and Nations have the right to manipulate the sovereignty and parliamentary Law of New Zealand’s Dermocracy? Yes or No

    10) Does John Key have the right to sell our Land democratic rights of Sovereignty to overseas interests? Yes or No

    11) Is it good that the Ngapuhi are trying to put a brake on the extraordinary secrecy and the hidden detail of the TPPA. Yes or No

    • Gosman 15.1
      19 January 2016 at 2:50 pm

      The full text of the agreement is now available. If you object to parts of it please specify which parts and why.

      • Macro 15.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 5:00 pm

        So we can take it that you have read and agree with all 6000 pages Gossy? Quite happy to give away NZ’s sovereignty for a paltry 0.2% per annum growth in GDP are we?
        FOOL!

    • Puckish Rogue 15.2
      19 January 2016 at 3:07 pm

      I’d certainly trust Lanthanide over most posters on here

  16. Penny Bright 16
    19 January 2016 at 11:54 am

    UPCOMING AUCKLAND PROTEST AGAINST TPPA SIGNING!

    Seen this?

    February 4th will see trade ministers from around the Pacific Rim converge on Auckland to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

    Kiwi’s all over Aotearoa have shown our government strong opposition to signing us up to this treacherous deal – they have not listened.

    People are angry and rightly so. Our sovereignty, democracy and the protection of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is at stake. As our representatives, the government needs to take heed of democratic processes in which they have denied throughout the negotiations and now the signing of the TPPA.

    The signing is not the final step in this deal coming into effect, the deal will still need to pass through the select committee process, law changes and ratification. We still have time to stop the TPPA!

    The government is keeping the venue of the signing secret, it will most likely NOT be held at Sky City, and we expect to find out closer to the date.

    We invite the people of Aotearoa to join us in protest against the TPPA.

    This will be a FAMILY FRIENDLY EVENT!

    We do not support violent actions and riots. Children and elderly will be present on the day and their safety is paramount.

    For those that cannot make it to Auckland, we encourage you to take a stand in your city and town.

    We understand that many people are angry at the governments disregard and blatant attitude towards the TPPA, however there is still a need to maintain the huge support from the majority of the New Zealand public for our campaign against the TPPA .

    We encourage and support non-violent civil disobedience.

    Maintain the kaupapa, keeping respect and aroha at the forefront of your actions.

    For those who can make it to Auckland, we will help to provide billets/accommodation. Please let us know If you can help with accommodating out of town comrades.

    When: 12pm, Thursday 4th February 2016
    Where: Aotea Square, Auckland

    Let’s make some noise! Bring along pots, pans, drums, whistles etc. Let’s ensure we are heard!

    We will gather at Aotea Square at 12pm, ready to march at 12.30pm, then we will march down Queen St. After the protest, please join us for an afternoon of music and entertainment at Victoria Park.

    Now is the time to unite and take a STAND!

    Kia kaha Aotearoa!

    For more info on the TPPA see http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz and https://tpplegal.wordpress.com/

  17. weka 17
    19 January 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Here’s a thought for the standardistas. Micky has posted about Māori perspectives on the TPPA, and opened a door for us to discuss those and, IMO, learn some things about how tangata whenua might be viewing this. It’s not unreasonable to assume that Māori have different perspectives on this than non-Māori, given their history and their world views.

    Perhaps we could pay more attention to that than the usual bun fights and bickering between the various left/right factions arguing? Seriously, how many people here pay real attention to what Māori are saying and wanting here?

    Because it looks to me like we are pretty poor at including Māori perspectives in the standard discussions in general, and if we want to be anything other than hypocrites when it comes to the TPPA, we should probably change that.

    I say ‘we’ referring to the overal tenor of Pākehatanga that is the culture here on ts, but obviously there are already Māori voices here, so let’s take a step back and listen for a change eh?

    • framu 17.1
      19 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

      and a bloody good thought it is too

      its all to easy to slip into the familiar roles and modes.

    • mickysavage 17.2
      19 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

      Agreed Weka and I was pleased when I saw the Te Karere post as it presented an opportunity. Guest post? Us pakeha posters acknowledge the importance of the Māori perspective but we are not qualified to properly represent it.

      I have read a bit of the information surrounding the Waitangi Tribunal interim decision on the TPPA and I agree this is a rich subject that deserves proper attention.

      • weka 17.2.1
        19 January 2016 at 3:37 pm

        I tend to think that as for feminist/women writers, to get Māori to put the work in and risk the exposure the standard would have to be more accommodating/encouraging. A couple of ways that could happen would be putting up more posts like the one you have just done and also in Notices and Features.

        The other would be for the commentariat to focus on the topic at hand and actually engage with the relevant issues (which might require more moderation. Certainly that’s true for feminist writers. Māori will have their own ideas on that but it can’t hurt to change the culture here a bit anyway).

        • mickysavage 17.2.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 8:20 pm

          It is a really difficult issue Weka and one that authors have discussed on a number of occasions. I am more than happy to put up others thoughts as part of one of my posts. But I lose the subtlety and the intricacy of what they are saying.

          Morgan Godfrey for one (http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz) is one blogger who can write with an understanding I can only dream of. But then the Standard kaupapa is that you have to put up with the trolls in comments if we post that type of post here.

          We could turn moderation on for guest posts and then let the author select what comments they will let through.

          • weka 17.2.1.1.1
            19 January 2016 at 9:00 pm

            Is the moderating issue one of time/energy for the moderating team, or is it about the allowing robust debate thing, or both? I think by far the best way to encourage both feminist and Māori writers would be to have tighter moderation for those posts. It gets done for MPs and other select situations. If it’s a matter of time/energy, have you considered recruiting moderators (as opposed to authors)? I know that’s not particularly straight forward either though.

            Allowing guest posters to moderate their own posts sounds good, I didn’t know you could do that.

            I appreciate what you say about writing and losing the subtlety. I was thinking just having a certain amount of regular posts on Māori issues or views would start the change happening even if they are written by Pākehā. Notices and Features doesn’t require subtlety 😉 I appreciate that guest posters might not want to have the kinds of discussions beneath their posts that happen here.

          • marty mars 17.2.1.1.2
            22 January 2016 at 6:26 pm

            “But then the Standard kaupapa is that you have to put up with the trolls in comments if we post that type of post here.”

            A good point – I wouldn’t imagine many would want to go through the 101 bigoted and offensive stuff just to get to where the real questions are. Like for instance having to counter the bullshit 1law4all lines in this post.

            The other point is that maybe the environment here is just not aligned with Māori communication. After all any Māori writers would really be there to educate and give insight – that type of approach is not really suited to tr0lls or 101 repeatage.

            One of the reasons I started my blog because I couldn’t find any Māori blogs. During my blogging Morgan set up Maui St and a number of other really cool Māori blogs started – they aren’t, we aren’t, here anymore – why?

            For me I ran out of steam and life impinged. I’m actually really pleased I managed to stay here because it was a very close ran thing and probably still is.

            • mickysavage 17.2.1.1.2.1
              22 January 2016 at 6:41 pm

              Thanks Marty.

              It is interesting where blogging is heading to. TS is nearly eight years old and many authors have come and gone. My sense is that the overall number of political bloggers and blogs is declining which is unfortunate because the demand to read political blogs has grown considerably. I used to read your blog and Morgan’s regularly because they offered insights I would not otherwise get.

              One option some of the authors have discussed is the greater use of fully moderated posts. That way a feminist or Maori perspective could be offered free of the fear of attack. It is interesting that the groups who have suffered the most oppression are less willing to subject their views to attack.

              If you feel the urge to submit a guest post on a fully moderated basis feel free to do so 😀

              • Anne …
                22 January 2016 at 7:27 pm

                The trolls are putting me off TS mickysavage. And I suspect they’re putting other commenters and readers off too. Contributions with cogent points of view by the political right are welcome eg. Wayne and even Matthew Hooten. But so often someone will offer a valid point of interest only to find themselves being ripped apart – often with personal connotations attached – by the more cretinous trolls. Women commenters and authors are especially vulnerable and I’m not surprised many have disappeared.

                • mickysavage …
                  22 January 2016 at 7:40 pm

                  Understood Anne. We probably need a two speed TS, one where everything goes and the other where discussions are respectful.

                  When I look through social media I now see trolls everywhere, I suspect many of them are retired National supporters with nothing else to do but their lack of understanding really does derail discussions.

                  There has to be a better way …

                  • Anne …
                    22 January 2016 at 7:49 pm

                    I suspect many of them are retired National supporters with nothing else to do but their lack of understanding really does derail discussions.

                    Quite sad really. It shows they have learnt nothing from history – even those within their own lifetimes. The words/phrases like uncompromising, rigid-held views and wilfully blind come to mind.

                • weka …
                  22 January 2016 at 8:40 pm

                  Anne, I’m curious how you see the left wing regulars’ role in that? eg how they respond to RW trolls and whether that’s an issue. Or were you using the term troll in a politcally neutral sense?

                  • Anne …
                    22 January 2016 at 9:38 pm

                    No, weka I was referring to the right wing trolls. They can be vindictive towards those they perceive (in their sublime ignorance) to be vulnerable. They are also apt to pass judgement on opponents without a skerrick of evidence. For example, most regular female commenters and authors have been on the receiving end of their vitriol – often disguised as supposed debating points.

                    I haven’t noticed any notable left-wing trolling in the sense they set out to entrap and ridicule opponents for no reason other than to ferment ill-will and derail discussions. Granted, some of our more strident lefties can go too far sometimes but I don’t see it as trolling.

              • marty mars …
                22 January 2016 at 9:49 pm

                “It is interesting that the groups who have suffered the most oppression are less willing to subject their views to attack.”

                It is relentless and wears you down. There is no up side to it, no positive, no educational value, no good. And the people who do it know this – dirty politics – repeat attack mantras, move to next mantra if challenge successful, ignore discussion points for pinpricking proceedural issues and so on. This is well known on the net now. They do do it everywhere and they do it here.

                Genuine debate is always wanted but engaging with the righttr0lldirtypolitcs approach just helps them.

                • Scott M …
                  22 January 2016 at 10:49 pm

                  Am I to take it that I am being classed as a “troll” because I have dared to post opposing views to yourself and others on the TOW. I am not like Acrophobic who is quite obviously looking to wind people up and repeating the same arguments no matter how many times they are disproven.

                  I am generally interested in this topic and yet was smeared as “rascist”, “ignorant”, “bigoted”. If you are going to have such superior attitudes then I suggest you have a look at your own approach and your general intolerance of opposing view points.

                  Not all opposing views are “trolling”.

                  • weka …
                    22 January 2016 at 11:29 pm

                    The piece that marty quotes isn’t referring to trolls. It’s referring to the shit that people have to take when they author posts from Māori or feminist (or other oppressed groups) perspectives. Some of that shit is trolling, some of it is the politics of race and gender.

                    I think people have been pretty tolerant of you (OAB aside) and engaged in good faith despite the offensiveness of you some of your points. If a Māori author put up a post and got told that their views were not relevant and instead their ideas should be voted on by the predominantly white electorate to judge their fitness, why would they bother again? If the comments were filled with people telling them they should live their lives according to how white people think they should, why would they bother?

                    The whole point of this discussion is to explore ways in which authors in addition to the predominantly white men ones can be encouraged to write on the standard.

                    One of the things you have missed in your own contributions is a willingness to listen to what people of marginalised groups have to say about their own experiences. Most of us don’t want that writ large by doing a post and having the comments section overwhelmed with more marginalisation.

                    edit, This is nothing to do with not tolerating opposing views. The way people have talked with you tells you that you are tolerated here, they just disagree with you. Intolerance would be people telling you to fuck off (or you getting banned) for having opposing views. Have a read of the rules of the standard, it’s pretty clear that calling people names so long as its in the context of a point is normal and acceptable. Telling people they are being intolerant for expressing politics strongly doesn’t go down very well.

                    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/policy/

                    edit 2, btw, I don’t perceive you as trolling (in the conversations I’ve seen). I agree there is a difference between what you’ve been doing and people who are disagreeing and trying to wind people up.

                    • Scott M …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:13 am

                      Thanks weka. Debate is healthy even if you think the other point of view is completely off the wall.

                      My views have certainly changed over time on a number of topics following debate with others. Debate allows you to test your own beliefs and update them when found wanting!

                      I am still interested in your views of what a future NZ legal landscape would look like if the Treaty was replaced by legislation.

                    • weka …
                      23 January 2016 at 10:39 am

                      Nice one Scott, I hope you stick around because it’s good for the place to have differing views from people who are genuinely interested in the debate.

                      I can’t really comment on your proposal about replacing the Treaty because the Treaty is an agreement between two partners and I cannot see Māori wanting to disband and replace it at this stage. To debate something that Māori aren’t wanting is both disrepectful and adds to the race relations problems in NZ.

                      Māori know what they want, it’s not one view, and it’s not something that’s laid out for Pākehā to mess with. If Tau Iwi want to understand what Māori want, it’s on us to make the effort to engage and behave in ways that Māori see as appropriate.

                      At this point in time we can use the internet and library, but ultimately we also need more people willing to be in Māori spaces on Māori terms and learning what that means. If that happens, we get a much better understanding of the things that simply aren’t possible to understand from the Pākehā perspective. At least that’s been my experience, although I’m not so good at walking the walk on that at this time in my life. But even little bits go a long way.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 January 2016 at 7:16 am

                      Weka, – a response to your remarks in the somewhat unwieldy thread above:

                      I find it quite difficult to imagine that John Ansell’s opinions are being repeated here by some innocent coincidence.

                      KP put a considerable amount of time and effort into answering them:

                      I am starting to suspect that you do not want to understand, you have made up your mind and are framing the ‘debate’ accordingly.

                      As for my thoughts on partnership, I think we’ve had quite enough ‘whitesplaining’ on the topic as it is without me linking to The Oxford English Dictionary.

                      Is it bigotry to reject John Ansell’s opinions?

                    • weka …
                      25 January 2016 at 2:57 pm

                      But they’re not John Ansell’s opinions, that’s the point. You’ve decided that Scott is an extreme bigot and that’s that. Remember what you said to CV yesterday about the problem being that he was so convinced that he is right?

                      You see a man spouting white supremacist bigotry. I see a man engaged in good faith debate who upon clarification agrees with some of the things being pointed out to him about race. That’s not the debate actions of an Ansell.

                      I also see the huge value in the thoughtful comments made by people here in response to Scott and that it’s his willingness to engage that has in part enabled that (as opposed to say Ansell where the conversation would just be a shouting match). You can pull out KP’s comment questioning the good faith, but that’s not the only thing that’s happened here by any means.

                      Explaining what partnership is isn’t whitesplaining in a context where the Crown representing non-Māori are one of the treaty partners. That’s what partnership is and if we want Pākehā to honour the partnership then it’s up to us to do the mahi on that. Condemning people as bigots doesn’t help advance anything.

                      I guess what it comes down to is that you have judged Scott as a bigot with no redeeming features, and I have withheld judgement on the basis that the conversation is useful for us all. If you want to drive him from the site and have the place be just you and BM and CV bitching it out, that’s your perogative, but in the interests of an environment that encourages us to get out of the political stalemate we are in I’m suggesting we utilise the place differently.

                  • marty mars …
                    23 January 2016 at 12:06 am

                    weka sums it up pretty well scott – I have debated many many times with those that believe 1law4all – our interactions in this thread have been pretty good I think – shit I’m sure I even thanked you didn’t I 🙂

                    So as I said debate is good and differing viewpoints are good.

                    Sometimes the debates I’ve had over the years have descended into farce – you know the brailsford, celtic, notruemaaori approach. Sometimes people are so caught up in their view they just cannot understand the basics of where I even come from, sometimes they become fixated on some aspect or just don’t know enough about the subject and sadly, rarely have I seen someone change or adjust their minds or opinions.

                    So I’m less willing to go through that now – I will on a thread but in a big post yeah, nah just not worth it for me in general – I am beyond trying to change peoples minds, or educating them – unless they have some idea of what the fuck we are talking about.

                    edit – and apart from the racist name thing (which I think is ridiculous) I don’t believe you have been tr0lling.

                    • Scott M …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:21 am

                      Hi Marty

                      I apologise for any offence caused, that is certainly not what I intended. This is obviously a delicate subject, but one where NZ European should be free to have a view, and in doing so perhaps learn a thing or two as you say.

                    • marty mars …
                      23 January 2016 at 12:31 am

                      thanks – good on you and all good mate, onward and upward – we are here in the waka together and the waka will continue, as will our discussions and debate.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 January 2016 at 7:07 pm

                      I apologise for any offence caused…

                      The fact that a Clayton’s apology compounds the offence eludes you? Or are you doing it deliberately?

                    • weka …
                      25 January 2016 at 2:59 pm

                      Are you really that socially illiterate OAB?

                      Such a good example of how Māori often approach things (marty’s generosity and willingness to accommodate), and your approach, which to be honest I have no idea what the intent of is, because it looks like you want people hating each other.

      • Tautuhi 17.2.2
        19 January 2016 at 8:10 pm

        Sounds like the TPPA is superceding the Treaty of Waitangi does this mean the TOW is now redundant?

  18. Scott M 18
    19 January 2016 at 12:53 pm

    As much as I find the whole Maori academic approach completely rascist， it does have its uses.

    It seems only Maori care about NZ sovereignty and a healthy environment.

  19. marty mars 19
    19 January 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Davidson believes, “Our communities, our whānau, hapū, have the mana for the land. Let us not give that right to big businesses.”

    The mana is the big one for me. Self determination. The mana of the treaty is considered the lessor when corporate international agreements are in play as is shown by the signing being so close to Waitangi Day – this is wrong and another slap in the face for all of us.

    Yes this is another part of the colonisation process as many things that happen here are. And yes many indigenous communities have experienced this yet continue to fight it – often at the front lines (survival and mana are equivalent here imo) – as indigenous people do on many other world dominating issues too such as climate change, peak oil, clean water and air, pollution, conservation and so on and on.

    • weka 19.1
      19 January 2016 at 7:10 pm

      Is mana in this case the authority to make decisions/grant permission (stemming from the relationship with the land) or even just to know what is right?

      Some of the indigenous actions against the oil and fracking companies in Canada are inspiring. From what I understand the Canadian courts have granted a kind of defacto supreme authority over the tribe’s own lands so that now oil companies have to get permission if they want to say build a pipeline across tribal lands. Because it hasn’t been legislated as such the companies are still trying all their dirty and big bucks legal tricks to do what they want. And the tribes are saying no, and taking direct action via occupation and camps and fencing etc, and in some cases turning down big bribes and choosing the land instead.

      I hope that NZ as a whole can get to that point, where we value what’s real over what’s not. What you say about mana and survival makes sense, most of NZ is still far too comfortable.

      • Macro 19.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 7:23 pm

        Some of the indigenous actions against the oil and fracking companies in Canada are inspiring. From what I understand the Canadian courts have granted a kind of defacto supreme authority over the tribe’s own lands so that now oil companies have to get permission if they want to say build a pipeline across tribal lands.

        I was disgusted to read of this the other day:

        Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona slipped a fine-print rider into a thousand-page bill to fund the Pentagon. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 gave essential money to the U.S. military. Thanks to the rider, however, the must-pass legislation also offered a surprise giveaway to the world’s largest mining company: a sacred stretch of Apache land.

        The disenfranchisement of indigenous people continues.

  20. Ralf Crown 20
    19 January 2016 at 2:12 pm

    It is highly remarkable that hardly anyone understands what is going on. TPP and ANZUS is a way to annex New Zealand to the US and Washington. New Zealand will be a sub state of the US and the agreement will be used to control our relations and trade with any country, especially China, outside the US power sphere. This is nothing new, imperial Japan used it with Korea from 1910 to 1945. Koreans became second class Japanese as Kiwis now will become second class Americans and a form of serfs.

  21. Wayne 21
    19 January 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Ralf,

    I guess the Vietnamese, Mexicans, Chileans and Malaysians must also be happy to be sub states of the US.

    • Paul 21.1
      19 January 2016 at 3:11 pm

      No, it means the elites of these countries are happy to deliver their citizens to become consumers of multi-national corporations.

      The bribes may have been good.

  22. Michael who failed Civics 22
    19 January 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Mr Taurua seems to be labouring under a widespread misapprehension: that the act of “signing” TPPA brings it into force. It does not. TPPA itself provides that the agreement only comes into force some time after each party “ratifies” it. That provision is consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which TPPA preserves as the standard guide to interpretation of its provisions. Ratification includes Parliament’s examination of TPPA, followed by a vote on whether it will ratify TPPA. It looks as though Parliament will take most of this year to examine TPPA, during which time we can all make our views on it known to our parliamentary representatives (conveniently ahead of the 2017 election, but not so far ahead that we will have forgotten their response to our views). TPPA itself provides that it enters force some time after ratification; my best guess is that date is about three years away, even if everything goes to the government’s plan.
    As for Mr Taurua’s specific concerns (which I share, BTW, along with a lot of other New Zealanders), Article 29 of TPPA contains a provision, expressly preserving the government’s obligations to fulfill its duties to iwi under the Treaty of Waitangi.
    Finally, I think Mr Taurua’s objections are perfectly understanbale. Our government has done a piss-poor job of communicating with the people about TPPA, both during the negotiations and after the text was agreed. it only has itself to blame if there’s strife at Waitangi on Feb 6 and in other centres, too.

    • lprent 22.1
      19 January 2016 at 5:59 pm

      It appears that you are quite ignorant of how treaties are signed and ratified in NZ. Parliament doesn’t get a vote on ratification, they just get a cursory look at it for 15 days in a select committee. Parliament never votes for ratification. They only get a vote on any supporting legislation (not much under the TPPA) when it is required to be enforced – which could be years after ratification.

      Basically you should examine reality rather than imagining that the US congress is the model of how parliamentary systems operate. Start by looking at the MFAT site on the process of signing treaties. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/ Learn about how NZ actually operates before making a fool of yourself.

      And in the case of the TPPA, it is not a requirement that all parties sign and ratify. It could be done with just two of the twelve parties. We are bound as soon as executive council (ie cabinet) decides to ratify. That could be as fast as 3 months, and is likely to be as soon as a single reasonably sized party is also ready to ratify – cetrainly within 6 months.

      Other MPs outside really have nothing to do with it, so whining to them is of little use. Just note who votes for whatever supporting legislation is put in place before the next election and make their reprehensible nature well known. Because after cabinet signs and ratifies, it is going to be very costly for us to dump it as we need to do.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1
        19 January 2016 at 7:15 pm

        Perhaps a question for the legal boffins: Te Tiriti O Waitangi is a treaty between nations. So is the TPP.

        Which has greater standing? Both a legal question and a practical one. For legal purposes I’d say the latter, maybe.

        For practical purposes, however…

        • weka 22.1.1.1
          19 January 2016 at 9:11 pm

          Why the latter? How could Te Tiriti be assigend less status without the agreement of Māori? Wouldn’t that make the Crown’s involvement in Te Tiriti a farce? Or their involvement in the TPP for that matter. If you can just have a subsequent treaty/agreement that undermines previous ones without recourse to the signatories, aren’t we just talking about who has the bigger stick?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.1.1
            20 January 2016 at 7:13 am

            As Wikipedia puts it:

            Since the late 1980s the Treaty has become much more legally important. However, because of uncertainties about its meaning and translation, it still does not have a firm place in New Zealand law or jurisprudence. Another issue is whether the Crown in Right of New Zealand is bound…

            Take Tino Rangatiratanga, for instance. Kawanatanga it ain’t.

            Has it (te Tiriti) been formally ratified? Its force is more practical and political than legal.

        • Matthew Hooton 22.1.1.2
          19 January 2016 at 10:22 pm

          The TPP itself makes clear that the Treaty of Waitangi trumps it.

          • sabine 22.1.1.2.1
            19 January 2016 at 10:30 pm

            Really, how can you say confidently that the Treaty of Watingani will trump the TPP. Where in the 6000 pages does it say so, and can you link to that?

            • Matthew Hooton 22.1.1.2.1.1
              20 January 2016 at 11:38 am

              Article 29.6: Treaty of Waitangi
              1. Provided that such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction on trade in goods, trade in services and investment, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
              2. The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement. Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) shall otherwise apply to this Article. A panel established under Article 28.7 (Establishment of a Panel) may be requested to determine only whether any measure referred to in paragraph 1 is inconsistent with a Party’s rights under this Agreement.

              • Tautoko Mangō Mata …
                20 January 2016 at 4:39 pm

                @Matthew Hooton. The points to counter your view that article 29.6 adequately protects Te Tiriti are numerous so I refer you to
                please read P22-24 at least of the peer-reviewed expert analysis titled
                MĀORI RIGHTS, TE TIRITI O WAITANGI AND THE
                TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

                The ultimate threat of the TPPA is that those who have power conferred on them by the agreement and who wield power over its final content are foreign states and foreign corporations who have no obligations under te Tiriti. The Crown has been complicit in that outcome.

                https://tpplegal.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ep3-tiriti-paper.pdf

                • marty mars …
                  20 January 2016 at 4:56 pm

                  This from Annette Sykes on FB –

                  “2000 page affidavit on its way to fight the TPPA. THANK YOU Jane Kelsey Moana Maniapoto Moana Jackson Hone Harawira Angeline Greensill Rikirangi Gage Paparangi Reid for documenting our dissent”

                  The fight continues…

                • Michael who failed Civics …
                  20 January 2016 at 6:44 pm

                  Thanks for posting that link, Tautoko Mango Mata: it’s the first expert analaysis of Article 29.6 of TPPA that I’ve read since the text was published. I agree that it contains a number of significant challenges to the integrity of Art. 29.6. What I’m not sure about is whether that provision in TPPA can be amended, say if the Parliamentary committee examining TPPA recommends that it should? Is TPPA, from now on really a straight thumbs up v thumbs down contest? I can’t see anything reliable on this question.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.1.2.2
            20 January 2016 at 7:01 am

            The Washington Post made “Obama’s big tpp trade deal” (lol) searchable.

            It has “Waitangi” mentioned twice in Chapter 18 – Intellectual property, and three times in Chapter 29 – Exceptions and general provisions. There’s little point in quoting the sentences in question as they’re presented in isolation from the surrounding text, and (on further digging) even that refers to clauses in other chapters.

            Kelsey is quoted in Mana: “it’s so full of ‘weasel words’ it would be impossible to enforce.”

            You will certainly need a team of lawyers. Chapman Tripp perhaps. /sarc

            However, if te Tiriti trumped the TPP in the Crown’s eyes they’d have consulted with iwi before launching into it in the first place. “Trust us”. Uh huh.

          • Tautuhi 22.1.1.2.3
            23 January 2016 at 7:48 pm

            US Corporates and the National Party will bulldoze through the TOW

      • Michael who failed Civics 22.1.2
        20 January 2016 at 6:34 pm

        On the contrary, lprent, you are the one acting in ignorance concerning TPPA ratification and I suggest you follow your own advice. The parliamentary committee will not spend “15 days” conducting a “cursory examination” of TPPA; instead, it will spend most 2016 examining its provisions closely. In that time, there will be plenty of opportunity for people to make their views on TPPA known to their representatives. After that, the committee will report to the House, which will then debate the report and vote whether to accept its recommendations (including whether it should be ratified). I note too, that TPPA does not come into force until well after ratification by the parties. My sources for this post include: the text of TPPA itself (Chapter 30); the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; Prof Alex Conte, “An Introduction to International Law”, (LexisNexis, Wellington, 2006), 5.5 “New Zealand’s Treaty-Making Process”. Kindly take these authorities and read them or stick them up your arse. I don’t care either way.

          • Michael who failed Civics 22.1.2.1.1
            20 January 2016 at 9:23 pm

            Thanks again. Your links are most helpful. One apparent inaccuracy though – IIUC, Parliament has already said its committee will take most of 2016 to examine TPPA. The strongly suggests to me that it will hear public submissions and, perhaps, travel from Wellington to conduct hearings. While the committee’s report to Parliament, and any subsequent debate or vote arising from it, do not strictly bind the Executive from deciding whether or not to ratify TPPA, does anyone really think the Government will completely ignore the views of its legislative branch?

  23. savenz 23
    19 January 2016 at 6:20 pm

    As soon as we mention the key word ‘TPPA’ all the trolls and lobbyists come out.

    Of course the Maori party supports the Natz and helps prop up the government . Don’t worry the Natz will give more funding for the Whanau Ora programme or some state houses in return for not kicking up a fuss.

    Have Maori inequality improved with the Natz/Maori partnership. I think not. But Maori complacency has defiantly improved under the partnership.

    • Macro 23.1
      19 January 2016 at 6:56 pm

      The Maori Party are also speaking out against the TPPA and even more strongly than Labour. They do not support National on this.
      Just where the Dunny sits is unclear but I would place bets on him shafting NZers as always, and Act – well no need to ask.

    • weka 23.2
      19 January 2016 at 6:58 pm

      It’s certainly hard for this Pākeha woman to understand the Mp at times. But I think you are too harsh. Consider that the Mp are there to do what is best for their people (not necessarily NZ) and that they’ve been screwed over by Labour as much as anyone. By working with National they at least get some control over government spending and get to use it in ways that do better for their people. I know Whānau Ora has it’s problems but who is best placed to say Māori would be better off with nothing?

      If the Mp didn’t have that bargaining power, say they stayed out of government and refused confidence and supply and voted on legislation piece by piece, what do you think would happen? Genuine question, because that’s an issue for the GP as well and most people appear to believe that such a govt would be considered too unstable to exist or be able to govern and that any party that did such a thing would be punished at the next election.

      Or say they went with Labour and were betrayed again. What then? Sometimes it’s better the devil you know, and sometimes it’s better to see the knives coming. I’m not saying that’s how it is for the Mp, but I do think we have to consider that traditional left/right ideas about politics don’t serve Māori and so they work with what they can.

    • Chooky 23.3
      19 January 2016 at 11:15 pm

      +100 savenz…Maori Party is pathetic…the real socialist/ environmentalist radical Maori are in Mana/Int…eg. Hone Harawira and Annette Sykes

      The Maori Party is propping up jonkey nact and hence TPP…if they are really sincere in opposing the TPP they should walk out on nactional…they can’t have it both ways

  24. savenz 24
    19 January 2016 at 7:50 pm

    I agree Maori have been shafted in the past by Labour, but going with the Natz and selling out!! Maori are better to be independent and just avoid them all or team up with the Greens and Mana, at least they would be respected and not be haemorrhaging votes.

    Yes Maori are speaking out against the TPPA but in the past piped down with a bribe or two so not sure how long they will keep it up. I don’t think the Natz care anyway, Maori have served their purposed by eroding their own Maori votes and propping the Natz up with their privatisation agenda. Win win for the Natz.

    I agree Labour are idiots on TPPA and Maori are slightly better but that just shows how stupid Labour are on the issue, not how great Maori are at protesting.

    • weka 24.1
      19 January 2016 at 8:13 pm

      “Maori are better to be…”

      How do you know that? Shouldn’t they get to decide what’s best for them?

      Also the Mp is not all of Māoridom. Plenty of Māori who don’t vote for them or agree with what they do.

    • Korero Pono 24.2
      20 January 2016 at 9:05 am

      Savenz – agree, my feeling re the MP, they sold Maori out for a bit of power at the table and a couple of concessions, they still sold Maori out! A number of instances where they have propped up the Natz and ensured bills/legislation passing under the guise it will help Maori! Take the Wayne Mapp bill as an example – Maori sold out again! I think Maori see it the same, hence the declining MP vote.

  25. savenz 25
    20 January 2016 at 8:45 am

    “Maori are better to be…” this is in the context of declining votes for the Maori party after their hook up with the Natz.

    Yes it is always a big issue. Should a party compromise their principals to get a benefit for their voters BUT in the long term does this do more damage by helping prop up a government that in every other way is destroying them and their beliefs? Does this also eroding the trust that voters have in the party and their leaders of the opposition?

    It is similar tactic with the Greens – the Natz trying to lure them into collaborations and deals which horrify a percentage of Green voters who lose confidence in the party. No one wants the Greens to prop up the Natz even if they get some free solar panels concessions out of it. Look at the flag debacle.

    The Natz cannibalise any party they collaborate with. Look at ACT, Maori Party, NZ First. Once they have them under control they use them to put through unpopular bills or to be ridiculed. Soon the collaborating party has dwindling voters and needs the Natz to prop them up like with ACT.

    Even being associated with Natz polices such as surveillance bill with Labour drops confidence in the collaborating party.

    Not just a Maori party issue – just a Natz tactic issue.

  26. savenz 26
    20 January 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Look at the latest drivel on TPP by Pagani.

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/opponents-of-the-tpp-have-been-vague-about-their-alternative

    I’m not sure Pagani has read 6000 pages of TPP either (and is certainly not capable of understanding it) not having an international law degree and access to the side agreements and parts the public are still not able to read, to be able to claim…

    “Despite a summer of opportunity to read every clause of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, opponents of the TPP have failed to produce a clause showing the agreement requires each of us to surrender our first born to the corporate masters of neo-liberalism, and nor have they discovered any other nugget that sustains their vilification of the trade pact.”

    Rather than Pagani’s rantings I think I will go with nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stigilitz who has called it ‘ the worst trade deal in history’.

    and agree with

    “Duncan Garner, Josie Pagani and the NZ Herald walk into a bar…”

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/19/duncan-garner-josie-pagani-and-the-nz-herald-walk-into-a-bar/

    https://web.facebook.com/groups/TPPActionGroup/?fref=nf

    • greywarshark 26.1
      20 January 2016 at 5:18 pm

      ‘To surrender our first born’. I never take notice of people who use hyperbole like this, or greatly exaggerate. What a clever little madam Pagani is. Too busy chattering to thoughtfully consider and study fully the matter in question and its serious ongoing issues

      • Scott M 26.1.1
        20 January 2016 at 8:46 pm

        I cant stand Pagani on Q + A! Constantly interrupting others on the panel with her utter drivel.

        And now to hear her coming out in support of the TPPA – wtf?

        Labour needs to do a neo-liberal cull once and for all. There are plenty of right wing parties pushing that barrow already.

  27. Sabine 27
    22 January 2016 at 6:01 pm

    It’s my party and I cry if I want to, cry if I want to

    la di da di da.

    Waitangi Day is going to be interesting this year.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-key-says-hes-going-to-waitangi-push-the-tppa-welcome-or-not.html