@ T Fellingham

Posted on 27-11-2015 09:19 | By Captain Sensible

If you stand for PM, I and every decent kiwi would vote for you! Well said. I agree 100% with what you say. I am sick of being treated as a second class citizen.

T Fellingam

Posted on 27-11-2015 23:40 | By groutby

Yes a "partnership" (a very recent and commonly used word often involving one party not having initially contributing anything at all) is not in the Treaty at all, so, how do we do this?..your letter is right "on the money", but, gaining traction with the issue is difficult...maybe Robin can help with insightful comments?

Well put sir!

Posted on 28-11-2015 11:28 | By Fonzie

Regardless of what happened or did not happen in the past we live in the here and now and separatism of citizenship based on ethnicity is the recipe for disaster for the future The only winners with this flawed policy are a few elitists Their descendants will be the losers

Ignorant nonsense

Posted on 29-11-2015 16:10 | By Peter Dey

It is great to see that this ignorant nonsense is no longer worth debating.

And that is the whole truth of it,

Posted on 29-11-2015 21:05 | By ROCCO

A good summary of what is wrong with Nz - problem is can it be fixed?.A good start would be to dispatch the freshwater rorters to kingdom come.I see Dey Dreamer ain't got the smarts to come up with the goods to counter you probably run out of the myths and legends think tank reserves.

Groutby asks

Posted on 30-11-2015 11:47 | By robin bell

How to get traction on this "issue" answer, get rid of Rocco,Fellingham and the rest then reasonable people MAY give you a hearing. Doubt it though. Robin Bell.

ROCCO only an ignorant minority don't want partnership

Posted on 30-11-2015 20:27 | By Peter Dey

For the past 30 years all New Zealand Governments have supported partnership with Maori, and supported the Treaty of Waitangi and Treaty settlements. Only an ignorant minority think that these Governments have got it wrong. We are a bicultural country. Recognising this is not divisive, It makes us a culturally richer and better place.

T Fellingham

Posted on 02-12-2015 14:26 | By tutae.kuri

You are correct T. Fellingham. Partnership is a newly invented situation by the radical minority to further their aspirations. Of course it is human nature to try and climb over the top of your fellow man.We are not bicultural at all, 175 years after the treaty was signed, but a hotch potch of all nationalities. Having said that, through marriage and interbreeding, we are closer together DNA wise than we were in those far off days. Another 175 years and you won't be able to tell the difference. The facts of the matter are that the money being expended by Govt in redress is not filtering down to the man in the street. The Tribes are paying no tax being considered charitable organisations, while paying large salaries to their leaders. The whole system seems out of control. What can be done to sort it do you think?

Wrong x 6 tutae. kuri.

Posted on 03-12-2015 08:03 | By robin bell

1.Partnership is an association of two or more people, in this case formalised by the treaty.2. DNA does not define race, Geo- Socio association does.Human social categories remain largely a matter of choice.3.Your crystal ball gazing 175yrs ahead is as inaccurate as your predecessors of 175yrs ago.4.IWI do indeed pay tax, like all Charitable trusts the pay on monies not disbursed,I.R.D.pay close attention.5.IWI assistance to tribal members is happening in health. education housing e.t.c. Seek and you will find.6.T.Fellingham is wrong on all counts. Rather than trying to dominate and dictate,why not try dialogue,you will be surprised. Robin Bell.

R Bell

Posted on 03-12-2015 09:56 | By tutae.kuri

Strange, I have never seen the word partnership in any of the wording in the treaty ? It is inconceivable that the preeminent power on the planet at that time would enter a partnership with a bunch of stone age natives with cannabalistic tendancies.The only thing that happened was Queen Vic took possession of the land in return for granting protection from predation by neighbouring tribes and instituting the rule of British law to all the people. Nothing else was implied. FYI iwi tax between 17% and 27% may be paid on companies owned by iwi as they achieve a profit. Funds that flow to iwi charitable trusts pay no tax. You are incorrect in your assumption that undistributed profits are taxed.Agreed, some funds are distributed, however, the majority is retained.

tutae.kuri tangata kuware

Posted on 03-12-2015 14:04 | By Peter Dey

For the past 30 years we have had a partnership between Maori and the Government. It undeniably exists because most thinking New Zealanders believe it should. The fact that 'partnership' does not appear in the Treaty is irrelevant.

p dey

Posted on 03-12-2015 15:49 | By tutae.kuri

Ignorant I am not and I respect your opinions while not necessarily agreeing with them sir. I expect the same respect from you. I don't believe that most thinking New Zealanders agree that a partnership exists except through numerous craven governments which have given way to the demands of radicals. Votes won, lost and maintained are the only currency of interest to them. I don't know your particular ethnicity and I guess not very relevant, however, the general rule of one person, one vote should be the norm in our democracy. Maori have never had a history of environmental soundness , but are showing a willingness to toll the rest of the country where possible.I believe that all young Maori coming out of school should be sent overseas to note the cultures of other races. May quieten the situation down over time.

Posted on 03-12-2015 16:06 | By Anbob

I believe most people want equality. But to find out what the majority of New Zealanders think about treaty issues, surely the only way is to have a binding referendum. The Govt already know that outcome, as a result of their Constitutional Debate, and doesn

tutae. kuiri

Posted on 03-12-2015 16:26 | By robin bell

you make it up as you go. Your words " tribes pay NO TAX". NOW YOU CLAIM THEY DO ACTUALLY PAY TAX. Which is it? The word partnership is not required for a partnership to exist. Pedantic insistence that the British (Crown) did not intend joint association is ludicrous,why else the wording of the treaty? They were determined not to make the same mistakes as in N.America ever again. Instead of trying to turn the tide of progress, accept it and "enjoy" Robin Bell.

tutae.kuri tangata kuware tonu

Posted on 03-12-2015 18:04 | By Peter Dey

tutae.kuri, you are ignorant because you believe that the current desire by Governments and Maori to have a partnership is wrong because the word 'partnership' is not in the Treaty. Both Government and Maori know this but they still want a partnership. So do most sensible New Zealanders. End of story.

Anbob,

Posted on 04-12-2015 09:20 | By robin bell

Binding referendum were the favorite tool of Mussolini and Hitler.One Canton in Switzerland denied the vote to Women until the late 1980s. Madison described them as the Tyranny of the Majority.People vote on a whim.Your referendum would simply deliver a return to injustice for Maori.I think you know that.Partnership is NOT a "new construct" it has been there from day one, simply totally ignored by that same majority.In the two years to 2015 Ngai Tahu paid $1 million in company tax.All Charitable Trusts operate under the same rules. Robin Bell.

cowardly to change the words when all signatories are dead

Posted on 04-12-2015 09:33 | By Captain Sensible

You can not change the wording of a 'treaty' after all the signatories are dead. Just because a weak PC spineless government wants to ( with no mandate) to appease a bunch of part-maori standover merchants, does not make it ok. Nowhere in the treaty is the word 'partnership' and that is because .....it was never going to be one. End of.

Captain Sensible Governments have had a 30 year old mandate

Posted on 04-12-2015 10:34 | By Peter Dey

Every Government that has been elected for the past 30 years has had a policy of partnership with Maori. Those who object to this are clearly a minority, living in their own irrelevant world.

applying to r bell & p dey

Posted on 04-12-2015 12:58 | By tutae.kuri

your opinions as to whether the majority agree with the partnership invention or not can only be known through referendum, in the meantime I, and obviously others,have diametrically opposite opinions of equal validity.Debate on this is therefore without foundation. Fact, however, is that nowhere in the ToW is there an implication of partnership. A very simple document giving all the people the same rights as British citizens, nothing more implied. You mentioned that ngai tahu paid $1m company tax while carefully omitting that any regular NZ company would have paid more than $30m on the same amount of income. I reiterate that charitable trusts pay no tax on retained income. This may change as the govt is aware of the rorts in the system.

tutae.kuri

Posted on 05-12-2015 13:24 | By Crash test dummies

I believe you are correct, the Treaty is certainly not a partnership, there is not even a hint of it anywhere within. Add to that of course the real purpose of the ToW was so as what Maori remained in New Zealand in 1840 realised that and accepted that the best arrangement was that all were equal all under the Queens law.

Wiffle woffle

Posted on 06-12-2015 01:43 | By Crash test dummies

The Pete and Robin it show rolls on, just ignore them. Little changed there despite the facts, despite the evidence in ages. Jus the usual suspects ranting the usual stories. None of them are or were ever true and there is not a chance that one wee aspect centuries ago was either.

Why we are not ready for any referendum

Posted on 07-12-2015 08:57 | By robin bell

on these issues.With Sunlives indulgence I would offer these reasons.tutae kuri and plonkers mate jaffa offer the best evidence of the inability of many to face the truth.Ngai Tahu are a registered tax exempt Charitable trust, as is Sanitarian Foods the funding arm of The 7th Day Adventist Church.They pay tax on any funds not used for charitable purposes.Why single out only IWI? That you don't understand that The Articles of association contained in the treaty constitute principles and partnership is proof positive that many are incapable of delivering anything but biased,emotive prejudice. Robin Bell.

Referendum, TOW and Tax

Posted on 07-12-2015 15:56 | By Anbob

Trouble is Iwi tax benefits (Sealord, The Base etc) are based on settlement negotiations not the Charities Act. Totally agree charity tax revision should include Sanitarium etc. What a referendum would show is most NZer

IWI Tax

Posted on 08-12-2015 08:31 | By robin bell

Since receiving 170 million in settlement for $billions of illegally taken land Ngai Tahu (as a for instance) have distributed $240 million in charitable donations,not only to Whanau,health,housing,etc.but to many non Maori initiatives.Regular large donations to the Canterbury rebuild fund,joint conservation projects etc. It is inconceivable that these donations do not benefit the "tax-payer" It is equally inconceivable that "given the wonders of company accounting" any where near 240 million would have been paid in tax over the same period.You cannot "disappear" the Treaty under International law any ambiguity in the wording must be found against those who drafted it. Robin Bell.

@ Robin Bell

Posted on 08-12-2015 12:30 | By Captain Sensible

You quote "international law". Well, under "international law" your beloved treaty is not recognised because a treaty is between two or more countries, not a country and hundreds of chiefs. Secondly, under "international law" you can not reinterpret and re-word a contract after all the signatories are dead. Thirdly, there is no such nonsense as "the spirit of the treaty" in any international law, and if there was, it is likely both sides would have some input, not just the part-maori side.

Robin

Posted on 08-12-2015 14:28 | By Anbob

You

Anbob, good comments but not the whole story

Posted on 08-12-2015 16:08 | By Peter Dey

Anbob, I enjoy your comments, very restrained. However our recent history cannot be ignored. In the 1970's and 1980's there was a great deal of racial unrest in New Zealand. We had the Bastion Point confrontation where the Government used the police to arrest Maori protesters and then had to admit that the protesters were right. The same at Raglan. Then we had the violent Springbok rugby tour protests. We were heading towards violent racial conflict in New Zealand. The Government decision to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and set up the Waitangi Tribunal has enabled us to move forward in much greater harmony. Governments have chosen to work in partnership with Maori because they believe it is the best way to move forward in harmony. Arguing about whether the Treaty justifies this is irrelevant. For the past 30 years Governments have believed that it does. They decide.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 08-12-2015 21:15 | By Captain Sensible

Ironic how you should mention the Springbok tour protests....maori are doing exactly what white Sth Africa did, but you now think that's OK. Oh, the irony!

To Peter Dey

Posted on 09-12-2015 08:50 | By Jitter

You state once again that NZ is a bicultural society ! Again you are wrong as NZ is a multicultural society and has been for many years with two cultures now not far behind "Maori" in population numbers according to Stats NZ figures ie Asians and Pacifica people.

The

Posted on 09-12-2015 08:53 | By robin bell

include terms,conditions i.e principles.Upon signing the contract became, and still is a partnership.Marriage is a similar example. No mention of partnership but one is created in law. Modern interpretation differs to ancient.No one has ever claimed 15% should have equal say, yet another exaggeration.That you should believe that you and I should benefit from the mistakes even "crimes" of the Crown and not be responsible in a small way, and I mean small, less than $100 per head over the last few years, is beyond belief. Peter Dey is correct we have a better society because of the Partnership finally recognised. Robin Bell.

Captain, nonsense not irony

Posted on 09-12-2015 09:38 | By Peter Dey

Maori are not trying to copy white South Africa, and rule New Zealand. You are out of touch with reality when you suggest that. T.Fellingham says that the Maori race no longer exists. We have Maori marae where they have been for over a hundred years, Maori schools, Television, Newspapers, Universities, Sports Clubs, Kapa Haka Festivals, all based on Maori custom and language. Saying that the Maori race no longer exists is clearly nonsense. Certainly New Zealand is now multicultural but Maori have a unique place as the indigenous people who agreed to share New Zealand with newcomers. The present Government has a partnership agreement with the Maori Party. Maori have a separate electoral roll. We are a multicultural country founded on a Treaty that is bicultural, and is still being honoured as a partnership because the Government interprets it that way, and for good reason.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 09-12-2015 11:13 | By Captain Sensible

Maori are demanding and getting race based privileges/favours/rights that are NOT available to non-maori. Can you not see the similarities there with white Sth Africa? I can!! You can dress it anyway you want, but when it boils down to the facts, they are there for all to see. And just because it's legal, as with white south africa, that makes no difference. Can you see the irony now?!

Jitter, correct but not the whole story

Posted on 09-12-2015 11:24 | By Peter Dey

Jitter is quite correct in saying that we are a multicultural society. However Maori do have unique rights in New Zealand based on the Treaty and their indigenous status, which other cultures do not have. For the past 30 years our Government has recognised a bicultural partnership with Maori. The Government has accepted that Maori have been the victims of serious injustice for many years from the Government and that a partnership was the best way to heal the injustice and move forward in greater harmony. The people who object to the Government Maori partnership seem to be motivated by the belief that Maori should continue to be subjugated in a Pakeha dominated society. Talk of equality is meaningless if at the same time you preach continued Pakeha domination.

Captain Sensible still nonsense not irony

Posted on 09-12-2015 13:28 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible completely fails to acknowledge that in white South Africa the whites were in control. No special allowances for Maori in New Zealand will ever put Maori in control. They are not asking to be in control. The Government and Maori in partnership are simply trying to redress the injustices of the past. Maori as a whole are still worse off than Pakeha in New Zealand. People who describe measures to remove unfairness as special privileges are playing with words. Those who complain that Maori are getting special privileges and ignore the results of a hundred years of injustice to Maori are simply supporting continued racial injustice. Our Government is now enlightened enough to realise that racial harmony requires the Government to continue looking for ways to redress the Government crimes of the past against Maori. It is not a special privilege to have injustice redressed.

Special privileges and the spoiled child

Posted on 09-12-2015 14:11 | By Peter Dey

People complaining about special privileges for Maori are like spoiled children. The spoiled child sees something that another child has and says "I want that too" all the while ignoring every good thing that they have and the other child does not have.

clip the ticket

Posted on 09-12-2015 14:18 | By Captain Sensible

"hundreds of years of injustice", as you know, this is fraudulent and has been proved to be so. When you break the law, you are punished...both today and in the 1800s. If white south africa was defined as being in control because they had all the race based favours/privileges/rights, then by definition, maori are running this country. In a democracy, which is what all those chiefs signed up for in 1840, there is no race based rights. maori just want to clip the ticket on everything to get a free race based ride, and us non-maori are therefore racially discriminated against every single day. Fact.

@ peter Dey

Posted on 09-12-2015 14:20 | By Captain Sensible

Please name these racist rights you speak of that the treaty grants.

Captain Sensible Maori are not running the country, fact

Posted on 09-12-2015 14:44 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible when you say that by definition Maori are running the country we can all see that you are in fantasyland. Every Treaty settlement has been approved by Governments for the past 30 years. Every Treaty settlement has been an admission by the Government of injustice against Maori. The United States has the same challenge to redress the injustice against African-Americans. The measures taken to do this are accepted by most intelligent Americans as sensible progress to greater racial harmony. Only a bigoted minority keep banging on about special privileges when they are simply measures to try and redress injustice. It is not a special privilege to have injustice redressed.

Captain S, redressing injustice is not a special privilege

Posted on 09-12-2015 15:09 | By Peter Dey

Captain S says that it is fraudulent to claim that there has been a hundred years of injustice against Maori. 30 years of Treaty settlements have been an admission of Government injustice against Maori. Democratically elected New Zealand governments do not accept Captain S's point of view.

Captain S, envy is not racial discrimination

Posted on 09-12-2015 15:33 | By Peter Dey

Captain S, when the Government takes special steps based on race to try and improve the position of disadvantaged people, it takes nothing from you. You are not disadvantaged. It is not racial discrimination because it takes nothing from you. If you object it is purely envy on your part, like a spoiled child wanting what somebody else has and ignoring all the good things that you have and that they do not have.

The biggest Irony of all cap'n

Posted on 09-12-2015 15:46 | By robin bell

is that you still believe that your nonsense will influence people.More evidence that we are "light years" away from any referendum on this or any related subject. Sorry Anbob, Way to go!! Peter. Robin Bell.

Partnership= privilege

Posted on 09-12-2015 16:37 | By Anbob

No issue with redress where the victim can receive compensation eg Raglan Golf Course, confiscated from contemporary owners. Most crimes (including property fraud) have statutory limitations. How far back do we go? Have no issue with govt policies that benefit certain groups to correct inequality (health, housing, poverty etc). I take issue with laws that create privilege to a group of people. Example, ownership of water and ownership of lakes and rivers that are navigable. Most NZers can only own to the riverbank, in most countries no-one owns water. The Partnership you and Robin promote appear to promotes equal say in local body- govt decisions, resources etc and is a 50/50 partnership giving 15% extensive influence over the majority. That govt has promoted partnership for 30 years, does not make it right, just, or morally sound. I

NATURAL RESOURCE?

Posted on 09-12-2015 20:50 | By crazyhorse

No one has asked why local iwi want their local water resources?, a naturally occurring resource!. What will they do with it?, if they "own" water can they sell it??. I mean to us,how much will we have to pay for it, just wondering?. Can they stop K1W1's from using it. What are they planning to do with water?, the essence of life, some thing we can not do without?. If we do not pay "homage" to iwi will they cut it off?.

it's funny

Posted on 10-12-2015 08:38 | By Captain Sensible

It's funny how Dey & Bell deny maori privilege exists and then try to justify it with ramblings about indigenous rights, socio-economic rights and reinvented treaty expectations. I guess all racist regimes had perfectly good reasons for their privileges!!!

Partnership = privilege?

Posted on 10-12-2015 08:49 | By robin bell

Not so Anbob.No one owns the water, how many times do you need to hear it? Access to water however is a different story, and negotiation is required.Maori wish and have the right to be involved.They have never had equal partnership and in my opinion never will.That does not diminish their right to partner in such negotiations.Democracy demands that they have the right to representation by themselves for themselves, to such a degree governed by the 15%/50% ratio or there about. Token representation is not privilege, its common sense and nothing to be frightened about.Raglan by the way was 75yrs in the making, hardly contemporary.Land theft in this context has no statute of limitations. Robin Bell.

The biggest Irony of all?

Posted on 10-12-2015 09:05 | By crazyhorse

Is that we have a binding referendum on the flag issue that polls show between 70 to 80 % of K1W1"s are against a change, but, "honest" John wants it. But important issues as this that will effect the lives of the next generation, nothing, definitely no referendum , why?, because they already know the answer and it doesn't suit them, it is continually pushed down our throats that politicians like Key and especially Finlayson know best, if that's so why is it always done behind closed doors. why does no one hear about it till it's to late to do anything about it, this water thing is the latest, this deals are being done or are done, if anybody thinks they will have any input into that fact they are "kidding" themselves!.

Crazyhorse, Maori want to end exploitation

Posted on 10-12-2015 09:36 | By Peter Dey

Maori in Whangarei have had to put up with years of having spring water on Maori owned land licensed to Pakeha business owners to sell commercially. All that Maori want from partnership is to have a fair say in the use of water. At present the use of all water is Pakeha dominated, with numerous cases of Pakeha commercial gain from water that belongs to everybody but is granted free to a privileged minority.

Captain S, your use of 'privilege' is misleading

Posted on 10-12-2015 10:08 | By Peter Dey

When somebody is unemployed they receive an unemployment benefit. Captain S would call this a privilege because they receive a benefit that others are not entitled. But nobody else calls an unemployment benefit a privilege because the unemployed person is still worse off than everybody else. Captain S accusing Maori of getting special privileges is doing the same thing. He is suggesting that Maori are being made better off than everybody else when in fact they are still worse off than everybody else. Captain S is misusing the English language for propaganda purposes.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 10-12-2015 11:04 | By Captain Sensible

Yes, getting an unemployment benefit is a privilege and all on it should appreciate it... as it comes from the hard earned graft of the workers in the form of tax. However, what you do not see is that if everybody gets a "privilege" because they are needy, then that is not discriminatory. It's when part maori get something that is not available to non-part-maori. And I have listed many many privileges that are only available to part-maori and DENIED to non-maori who may be more needy. That is racist and if you can not see that, then I suggest it's because you are enjoying some of these race based privileges and desperately want to keep your elevated status as a premier kiwi while suppressing us non-maori to second class status.

Captain s, more misuse of language

Posted on 10-12-2015 11:41 | By Peter Dey

Captain S continues to use words in a way that is not common usage. People of Maori descent are Maori not part-Maori. Using the term part-Maori is deliberate offensiveness. Actions that help somebody like the unemployed to be better off but still worse off than everybody else are not usually described as privileges. Special actions taken to help Maori are not racist. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. No actions taken to help Maori are based on that belief. Non-Maori do not have second class status in New Zealand. Non-Maori in New Zealand can not be second class citizens when they control the Government, police, army, health, local government, education, and social welfare. Those who believe that non-Maori are second class citizens have tried but still failed to get their own political party into parliament. This is because it is an irrational belief.

OMG Mr Dey

Posted on 10-12-2015 13:38 | By Captain Sensible

If you are part anything, then by definition you are also part something else. No mean for offence but....duh!!!!

Robin & Peter

Posted on 10-12-2015 13:53 | By Anbob

The Raglan land was taken under the Public Works Act and never returned. A