Treaty Principles Bill

You have a different version of partnership to that being promoted and implemented.

Māori did not have all sorts of words. Were you there when it was explained to them?

The Waitangi Tribunal is there for the alleged breaches.

The fact that we have this discussion says there is no agreed principles.

Damien Grant:
OPINION: The proposition to be assessed; The sun is the centre of the world and completely devoid of motion. On one side we have the troublesome Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei. On the other was a commission of the most respected theologians in the Catholic Church; the Qualifiers.

Their conclusion? You know their conclusion. “ All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”

You would think, after centuries of being consistently wrong on everything from astronomy to zoology that church leaders would have developed some humility when it comes to, er, pontificating, on matters secular.
Seems not.
Earlier this month four hundred cassocked and tonsured clerics, bishops, priests reverends, very reverends, Commissioners, Cardinals and Archbishops dipped their wicks into the political mainstream. They declared that debate on the Treaty of Waitangi would “…lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
It takes some chutzpah to criticise others about spreading misinformation when your founding document is the greatest collection of fables masquerading as fact ever promulgated.

Now. I could dwell on this obvious hypocrisy, or raise the turbulent history of various religious orders when it comes to wars, pederasty, heretic burning and repeated moral failure in the face of evil during the last century; but that would be to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominin.

Because a person has some moral flaw or taint, does not invalidate the argument they are presenting. A fool’s observation can be prescient. This column, perhaps, is evidence of that.

Perhaps not. Forgive me father, for I have sinned. Boy, have I sinned.

When assessing an idea, we need to examine what is being said, not dismissing it based upon the merits of the author.
The converse of this fallacy is the appeal to authority. This, also, has a long tradition in matters religious, so it is not surprising to see it being repeated by those caught in the ferment of faith.

English philosopher John Locke wrote, in 1689, “When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it…. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam”

The appeal to authority is an error, because assumes that a reference to the status of the person determines who is right. In a debate between a prince and a pauper, the prince is always correct.

This might be true when debating who shall have access to the ladies in waiting, but it is not a basis to resolve deeper issues.

Ideas should be debated on their merits. Those holding religious office have an expertise in their chosen field and were I to wish to understand how many lashes I may deliver to my slave, then I shall consult these individuals on how I should interpret Exodus 21 in a contemporary era.

However. If I wish to understand the workings of an electric engine, the correct method of assembling patio furniture or how to interpret historical documents, the views of religious leaders are of no moment other than the force of their plain words.

So. Let’s deal with the argument being made; that to debate this issue is to risk disharmony and discord, and consequently this topic and the treaty referendum proposed by Act should be shelved for the good of the realm.

The assertion is that some arguments are unacceptable and should be silenced. From a Christian perspective, this is consistent. The bible has a lot to say about obedience and harmony. But we are not a theocratic state.
In the secular realm we discover truth by debate, reason and disproving one proposition after another. We cannot progress unless we examine ideas, however awful some may perceive them.

We have been having this discussion since 1975. The Treaty of Waitangi Act put this issue into the political arena. David Seymour did not initiate this conversation; he is merely participating in it.

It is correct for those with a religious viewpoint to join Seymour in this debate. They have a perspective and it should be listened to. What they have no right to do is to claim, as a consequence of their status as religious leaders, the moral authority to ask others to fall into silence.

The clerical 400 opened with a Beatitude; Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God; presumptively elevating themselves to be divine adjacent for their efforts in this area.

To demonstrate that the Bible is the greatest Rorschach test ever devised, let me finish with a Sermon of my own. Colossians. 2,3, from the New Testament; “You have been raised to life with Christ. Now set your heart on what is in heaven… not about what is here on earth.”

Amen.

www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350424254/damien-grant-church-leaders-wrong-over-treaty-debate-risks

A nice summary of the ruling elite like Finlayson - I'd call it detached from reality.

breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/09/caleb-anderson-treaty-unbridgeable.html?m=1

A recent abc programme focussed on rising tensions around the Treaty of Waitangi was predictably biased and barely worth the watch.

What was interesting though was the interview with former attorney general Chris Finlayson. In this brief interview, Finlayson commented lamentably on the rise in support for the ACT Party and NZ First on the back of growing concerns about where the treaty might lead. Most notable was Finlayson's comment that voters who opted for NZ First in the last election were bewildered and frightened of the future.

Finlayson's comments have a wider application than the narrow context of this interview. His comments indicate a pervasive disdain for voters who question the promulgated vision for New Zealand, and who dare to question people like him.

Who, then, are the "people like him"?

These are the people, of course, who know best.

In short, Finlayson's comment reflects the persistent views of political elites across the West that their duty is not to accede to (or even seriously consider) the wishes of those who elect them, but to impose upon them their own particular worldview. Finlayson's comments around bewilderment and fear, were akin to Hillary's deplorables, the great unwashed who voted in favour of Brexit, or those who support Donald Trump.

Disproportionately, those who voted NZ First (and ACT to a lesser degree) have a conservative worldview, as do those who support Trump (some of whom do not like him at all), or who voted in favour of Brexit. They are concerned about the erosion of Western values, about the assault on free speech (or markets), about the invasion of immigrants who, sometimes (especially the second generation) appear to have no respect for the values of the country that has opened its doors to them, about the selective re-writing of history and the denigration of all that is Western.

When researchers have drilled down a little they have found that conservative-leaning voters are much more diverse and well-educated than left-wing stereotypes allow. They cross all income groups and professions. This is not what mainstream media want you to know, this does not fit the "bewilderment" (or deplorable) narrative.

Conservatives generally (while not perfect) are cautious folk, they value their history, believe people should work, they pay their taxes, are generally law-abiding, and believe in the collective wisdom of those who have gone before. They believe in the Western experiment, its significant cultural legacy, and the opportunity and freedom this produces.

The characterisation of conservatives as shallow and poorly educated is a myth, calculated to avoid addressing their arguments. It reflects the sort of political tribalism (and polarization) that threatens to undermine faith in the democratic order.

There is a view in social psychology that functional systems should be tinkered with only with great caution. If a system (or society) is functional, and far-reaching changes are made, there is a much greater chance of making things worse than better, sometimes irreversibly. The conservative worldview reminds us that functional systems should be played with only with great caution, conservatives know this, they know, often instinctively, that political (and social) experiments can have catastrophic consequences, and that it is very difficult to turn the clock back.

There is growing evidence that on treaty (and other) issues, our political elite has no interest in listening to the genuine and well-founded concerns (and inherited cultural wisdom) of many New Zealanders.

Most disturbing is that their determination to misinterpret the treaty, to deny accession of sovereignty, to grant rights to some, and deny them to others, has its adherents, in some form or other, across the political spectrum. The left is no longer accountable to the right or the right to the left. Political difference is, in part, an illusion.

Concerning the treaty, our main political parties have, by and large, joined hands over what would once have been an unbridgeable abyss, and they have been doing this for decades.

Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.

All I can say....WTF.

Lets give it a bit of time.
Watercare was one of the better organised council outfits around, some of the smaller councils are pretty good too but Auckland is a whole different balgame. They have a huge task at hand but they are steadily getting on with it, methodically catching up to where they need to be.
Any organisation that big is going to have things go wrong to pick holes in but in the grand scheme of things they do pretty good. Go ask Wellington.
Some Iwi have got some clever bastards up top too.
This smacks of a race card play but like DM says, they are stuck with it for now. If they make an appointment based on race then that would be pretty questionable too.
Hardly surprising that a "Independent Maori Statutory Board" recommends a Maori to be appointed, but thats just part of the equation. Pretty hard to justify appointing someone based on race over ability. If it all goes bad you can look to Wellington to see how it will turn out.

So if you selected someone based on race, could that be taken to the high court?

Surely that wouldn't meet statutory requirements?

afaik

labour created some kind of list of 'maori businesses'

a business needs to prove it is 50?% owned by 'maori' to get on this list

it is handed out to all gov. owned/run? companies and they are instructed to direct a certain amount of their spending towards 'maori businesses' on the list

i have a friend who is a 'builder' and employes a varying number of carpenters etc for commercial and private construction

his father is 'maori', his mother non-maori, so he is 'maori', he owns his building company with his non-maori wife

because his family is registered? with an 'iwi?' he qualifies as a maori-owned business and hopes he can get extra work out of gov. for building projects etc.

2020 electio nmanifesto
Labour will support Whānau Māori enterprise and opportunities through a progressive procurement policy that would set a target for Māori business procurement.

We want to back our whānau in business and help build their financial, governance, and leadership skills. To help do this we will support whānau Māori enterprise and opportunities through a progressive procurement policy that would set a target for Māori business procurement and facilitate greater strategic alignment of business support for Māori SMEs. It would also consolidate targeted access to finance to grow Māori enterprise and support Māori to access and deliver training and development opportunities for existing and emerging employment or enterprise initiatives.

www.labour.org.nz/maori-manifesto

jacinda said she'd build houses...but she didn't...instead she did things she carefully didn't go into the 2017 election talking about

deep structural change to how nz was run

www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/employment-strategy/maori-employment-action-plan/why-we-need-this-action-plan