Here is an irrefutable fact – straight after the signing of the Treaty, Hobson said 'The Treaty,which forms the base of all my proceeding,s was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840… This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.
Those were the exact words used by Hobson, the person who co-drafted the Treaty arranged for the translation into Maori by Henry Williams and its transcription onto parchment. He then attended the signing by the 52 Maori chiefs at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi as the representative of Queen Victoria.
It doesn't get any better than that:the evidence of an eyewitness, the creator of the Treaty, a party and signatory thereto. He finished off by saying 'He iwi taki tatou – we are now one nation.”
Hey Mr Dey and all other treatyists/separatists/apologists, I believe that is game set and match?
R Paterson, Matapihi.
58 comments
R.Paterson, you misunderstand Governor Hobson
Posted on 07-03-2016 11:39 | By Peter Dey
R.Paterson assumes that what Governor Hobson said on one occasion about the Treaty was all that he ever said. Clearly Governor Hobson referred to the Waitangi Treaty as the only true Treaty compared to other Maori Treaty documents signed in other parts of the country. This is obvious because Governor Hobson sent an official English version of the Treaty to Britain at the same time as he sent the official Maori version of the Treaty to Britain. Clearly Governor Hobson did not mean what R.Paterson thinks he meant, and it is now too late to find out. Governor Hobson's actions gave us our present official English version of the Treaty. Actions speak louder than words.
Governor Hobson
Posted on 08-03-2016 22:41 | By k Smith
Part of the problem is the Maori language was limited and some english words had no translation into Maori. Also there soon become an argument about we are one nation some Maori wanted Maori representation on the flag. How are we one nation then? Food for thought.
The Maori version
Posted on 08-03-2016 23:45 | By Fonzie
Of the treaty is the only official version that is the one read out ,discussed at length ,debated and signed by the Chiefs at Waitangi on 6th Feb 1840 The problem we all now have is the interpretations since then by those who have something to gain summed up by the likes of Pita Sharples who is on record as stating " The Maori language is our language it can mean whatever we want it to mean " The never ending gravy train rolls on
Herein lies the problem
Posted on 09-03-2016 15:53 | By Cydifor
We are being taken for a ride with this treaty business and those who make a living from it - lawyers for one! I believe the word taonga is also widely misinterpreted to mean anything Sharples and Co want it to mean. It really means what can be procured from the point of the spear. Now it means anything and everything. Freshwater is about to become another battle with radical Maori. It has already been foreshore/seabed, wind, radio waves, eventually it will be sunshine and they will look at charging Air New Zealand to fly in their airspace. it is the non-stop sense of entitlement which makes the rest of us so angry! Also the lack of tax paid by them while they rake in the money! In effect we are supporting them with the tax WE pay!
Peter Dey
Posted on 09-03-2016 22:22 | By Fonzie
It is you who misunderstands Hobson There is only one Treaty document the Maori version First there was the final draft of February 4 that was not the treaty Then there was the Treaty itself in Maori translated by fluent Maori speakers of the Ngapuhi dialect and signed by those present on Feb 6 then the pretentious Freeman made his flowery idea of a treaty which is not the treaty and many others since then Remember Hobson suffered a stroke on March 1 and was extremely ill after that and could not even sign his own name If anyone wants to read the treaty in English they only have to read the final draft of Feb 4 No separatism to be found anywhere all one people under one sovereign
Fonzie, your information is propaganda not fact
Posted on 10-03-2016 14:24 | By Peter Dey
Fonzie the reason that Parliament has taken no notice of your information about the Treaty is that you ignore fact. Our Parliament endorsed the two Treaties (Maori and English) that Governor Hobson made official in 1840. Repeating that there is only one Treaty, the Maori one, when Parliament has accepted that there are two and put them into law in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, just means that you are repeating a lie. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Claudia Orange confirms the historical fact on page 272 of her book that Governor Hobson sent the Maori and English official versions (that we still recognise) to Britain in 1840. That is fact.
Fonzie, it does not matter what English version you use
Posted on 10-03-2016 14:39 | By Peter Dey
Whether you use the final draft English version of the Treaty(Littlewood) or Hobson's official English version it makes no difference. Both versions claim sovereignty for Britain but offer only government(kawanatanga) to Maori. Both versions grant Maori only the possession of their property but in the Maori version grant Maori tino rangatiratanga of their taonga katoa (chiefly control of everything they value). That is why it is stupid for people to keep denying the fact that we have an official English version of the Treaty. We have to use both English and Maori versions, and it does not matter what English version we use.
@ Peter Dey
Posted on 11-03-2016 09:00 | By Captain Sensible
So you admit the racism we non-part-maori endure every day is legalised racism. There can not be two contradicting versions of a contract. That makes both null & void. Cowardly to add and reinterpret after all signatories are dead. Illegal also.
Captain Sensible, two complementary contracts
Posted on 11-03-2016 09:21 | By Peter Dey
Captain Sensible, Governor Hobson was in charge at the Treaty signing in 1840. The two Treaties that he made official in 1840, one in English one in Maori, are the two that are used in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. They have not been changed since 1840. Nothing has been changed since the signatories have been dead. But it does not matter. Argument about the English version is irrelevant. Everything that Maori want is contained in the Maori version of the Treaty. So even though R.Paterson is wrong it does not matter.
There is no doubt that the intention
Posted on 11-03-2016 14:26 | By Fonzie
Of the treaty in 1840 was to create a nation of equal citizens The separatism that has been promoted in recent years is no better demonstrated than the declaration on TVone just todayby Massey University communications lecturer Steve Elers "If a cop knocks on my door he better be Maori or I,ll be shutting the door" Note this persons occupation This is where we are today
Fonzie, equal does not mean all the same culture
Posted on 14-03-2016 11:01 | By Peter Dey
We are all equal citizens but Maori culture is separate. It has survived by being separate. That does not divide us. It is people who are intolerant of separate cultures who divide us. Being equal does not mean that we should all take on the same Pakeha culture. Pakeha domination has been unfair to Maori in the past. It makes sense to try and avoid unfairness to Maori now and in the future. People like R.Paterson who provide misinformation about the Treaty are trying to undermine our efforts to improve race relations.
Governor Hobson
Posted on 17-03-2016 14:13 | By Anbob
Treaty
Anbob, Governments dislike international embarrassment
Posted on 18-03-2016 10:42 | By Peter Dey
New Zealand Governments refused to fully honour the Treaty until 1985. No other nation had such a clear treaty with the indigenous people and legally ignored it for 135 years. Maori protested against the Government at Bastion Point for 15 months in 1977. In the finish The Government was wrong and Maori were right. The longer we took to deal with it the more international embarrassment we suffered. Sooner or later the Treaty had to be honoured and put into law which happened in 1975. The Principles of the Treaty are simply a realistic way of legally moving forward while dealing with Maori and English versions that are not exact translations. The Treaty of Waitangi is unique so redress is also unique. Modern academics are in a better position than participants closer to the Treaty signing because they can now access much more written material about it.
Peter
Posted on 18-03-2016 14:21 | By Anbob
My comment on your comments. The Treaty is far from
Anbob, NZ law is not in doubt about the Treaty
Posted on 18-03-2016 17:02 | By Peter Dey
The Principles of the Treaty were first spelled out in the 1987 Court of Appeal case between the Maori Council and the Government over State Owned Enterprises selling land that might be subject to a Maori land claim. Since then there have been over 30 laws passed that required the Government to take the Treaty into account. There has been no challenge to these laws. So now the Treaty is being honoured. Only people ignorant of the law think otherwise. The Principles spelled out in the 1987 Court of Appeal decision are quite straightforward. Governments are now doing their best to implement them, and what they are trying to do is quite clear. Discussion of Maori privilege needs more words but many claims by Maori are not claims for privilege but claims for the return of ownership wrongly taken in the first place.
Anbob, Treaty law is now very clear
Posted on 19-03-2016 10:25 | By Peter Dey
Since 1987 there have been more than 30 laws passed that require the Government to take into account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Principles were spelled out very clearly by the Court of Appeal in 1987. So now even though we have English and Maori versions of the Treaty that are not exact translations the position of the Treaty in law is very clear. For the past 28 years Governments have been doing their best to implement the Principles of the Treaty without any legal drama at all.
Indigenous scientific evidence is now conclusive
Posted on 19-03-2016 15:53 | By Peter Dey
Anbob suggests that calling Maori "indigenous" may cause debate. Debate on Maori being indigenous only occurs when people are misinformed. Janet Wilmshurst had scientific evidence published by the US National Academy of Sciences (official advisers to the US Government)in 2011 that showed the results of radiocarbon testing of early settlement dates throughout East Polynesia. This testing showed conclusively that there were no residents in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250AD. There has been no scientific challenge to this scientific result. Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. They got here first and there was nobody here before them. Some people say that because Maori arrived here only 500 years before Europeans that that was not long enough to make them indigenous. The United Nations does not believe this because it is nonsense. Maori are represented on the United Nations Committee for Indigenous people.
Anbob, Government still keeps the profit from stolen Maori land
Posted on 20-03-2016 10:44 | By Peter Dey
Yes Maori do have some special rights and privileges. As a nation we are trying to remedy 150 years of injustice to Maori, and the rights promised in the Treaty are still valid. But people cannot fairly complain about the cost of special measures for Maori, and ignore the value of stolen Maori land still retained by the Government. Treaty settlements are not preferential handouts. They are justified compensation for land taken by Government fraud. Even then Maori get only 10% of the value of land taken. The Government and taxpayers keep 90% of the value of stolen Maori land, which is worth far more than the cost of any current special measures for Maori.
Peter
Posted on 22-03-2016 14:17 | By Anbob
I can never condone special citizen rights or privileges based on race. Whenever, throughout the world, there has been higher privilege based on race it has always ended badly, without exception. Every example of special rights and privilege for one sector of citizenship has always been justified in the minds of those privileged (Hitler, Saddam Hussein being classic examples). I do not want my future generations to inherit that misery. You do need to have equal citizenship, but you need to be careful what you wish for. However, I do appreciate your answering the privilege question honestly.
@ Peter Dey
Posted on 27-03-2016 14:53 | By Crash test dummies
I am having trouble identifying the "wrongs" done to one or any other small sector of the population? In fact Paterson has rendered to print an exact account of the actual history of events/meaning/translation as Hobson intended in 1840. The rest is history as they say. Please explain?
indigenous
Posted on 27-03-2016 14:56 | By Crash test dummies
Yes well I am to, I was born here in NZ.
Tanafas and maui?
Posted on 27-03-2016 15:01 | By Crash test dummies
All fall in the same category, they reflect the true substance of the average treaty claim and the basis of it. We are still looking to here from Peter on the actual science that proves part Maori were in NZ first (they weren't). The echoes rolling around the hills in an evening after a tantrum has been had just are not evidence in any respect. There is just so much fats, data, science out there to say that there was many peoples here before about 1400AD, prior to part Maori arrival the postulations otherwise now reside completely in the land of Nania and no gate to come back, all gone.
anbob, Maori rights are property rights
Posted on 29-03-2016 09:38 | By Peter Dey
Our economy is based on property rights. What people call privileges for Maori mostly property rights that were taken illegally by previous Governments and are now being restored. All Treaty settlements are the restoring of property rights not handouts. We do not get upset with rich people owning large properties. It is racial bias to get upset over Maori ownership of property. We have a Pakeha dominated society. The result is that Pakeha get preferential treatment in many ways. It seems wrong to me to describe measures taken to counter preferential treatment for Pakeha as privileges for Maori. The whole Maori education initiative is not privilege. It is an attempt to counter discrimination against Maori that occurs in the mainstream education system. Maori television is not privilege. It is survival of the Maori language which is the indigenous language of New Zealand and no other country.
JAFFA, you write nonsense
Posted on 29-03-2016 09:47 | By Peter Dey
JAFFA has been told many times that the American substantiated radiocarbon dating research of Janet Wilmshurst published in 2011 shows clearly that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand about 1250AD and that there were no residents here before then. People, like JAFFA, who pretend that this fact does not exist are living in their own fantasy world, and arguing nonsense. R.Paterson has completely misunderstood what Governor Hobson meant by his statement about the Treaty. Every other action taken by Governor Hobson makes it clear that R.Paterson's understanding is wrong.
JAFFA, the irrefutable fact
Posted on 29-03-2016 12:15 | By Peter Dey
Here is an irrefutable fact
refutable fact?
Posted on 30-03-2016 21:27 | By Crash test dummies
Sadly Peter, your stories yet again unravel themselves to the sharp, aware and educated. there is only one treaty it is the signed one, it is in part Maori, there is no other. Perhaps to help you understand how self misled you are, how about you contact Claudia Orange, ask her to explain to you why she said "that's awkward" when presented with a copy of the Littlewood final draft (the one Williams translated perfectly to part Maori on the evening of 5/2/1840. That translation was then signed 6/2/1840 by some 50 odd part Maori chiefs, there is no other treaty except this. The rest of what you say is historically a desired jumbled mess that merely reflects your predetermined desired outcome.
Pete
Posted on 30-03-2016 21:28 | By Crash test dummies
If only you could match you volume of blogs with an equivalent volume of facts, evidence and authenticity would indeed be a miracle.
Peter, again
Posted on 31-03-2016 09:31 | By Anbob
I struggle with your logic. If the Treaty was clear as you say there would not be the debate. The modern historians you rely on are similar to scientists employed by the fishing industry (employed bias). Also take away Sir Robin Cooke and Geoffrey Palmer
Anbob, Parliament and lawyers do not debate the Treaty
Posted on 31-03-2016 14:42 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, what Justice Cooke and Geoffrey Palmer did, putting the Principles of the Treaty into New Zealand law, has been endorsed for the past 40 years by Parliament. There are now over 30 Statutes that contain the Treaty Principles. Parliament and lawyers do not debate this. It is accepted. Only people who are not knowledgeable about the Treaty debate it, and they are ignored by Parliament and lawyers because they cannot credibly justify their claims. Modern language scholars agree that the word 'taonga' covers all the rights granted to Maori in the English version of the Treaty. Only people who do not speak Maori argue about this. The other points you make deserve answers to come.
JAFFA, repeating fiction does not make it fact
Posted on 31-03-2016 14:57 | By Peter Dey
JAFFA, firstly the NZ Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 contains two official versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, one in English and one in Maori. Our Parliament and lawyers have accepted this for 40 years. To prove them wrong you need stronger evidence than what you have provided. Just repeating the claim that there is only one true Treaty is not good enough. You need to provide evidence to show that Governor Hobson did not make English and Maori versions official. Secondly the English versions of the Treaty do not really matter because Maori are not trying to reclaim sovereignty, and language experts agree that 'taonga' in the Maori version covers everything that Maori were guaranteed in the English versions anyway.
debatable
Posted on 01-04-2016 14:29 | By Anbob
Pete, repeating fiction does not make it fact
Posted on 01-04-2016 15:20 | By Crash test dummies
We are still all awaiting to see any "fact" just one will be a good start. Until then all you have written can only be looked upon as fiction, so this much I agree with you on. With regard to my comments and statements of fact, I have provided you with reference to various authenticated written facts and evidence, you have so far been unable to provide anything in rebuttal in any form as yet. I guess that about sums things up fairly well then doesn't it?
JAFFA, some facts
Posted on 01-04-2016 16:49 | By Peter Dey
Fact1: Governor Hobson sent an official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and a Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi to Britain. Fact2: The two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi that Governor Hobson sent to Britain are the two versions in our Treaty of Waitangi Act. Fact3: There are Treaties, signed by Maori chiefs, the same versions as Governor Hobson sent to Britain as official documents, now in our National Archives in Wellington. Fact4: Neither you nor R.Paterson knows exactly what Governor Hobson meant when he said that the Maori Treaty signed at Waitangi was de facto the Treaty. You just assume that you know.
FACTS??????
Posted on 01-04-2016 20:00 | By crazyhorse
Only the maori version of the treaty in the ngapuhi dialect was signed by maori, how many versions do we need for treaty troughers to use, honest Hugh Kawharu, Margaret Mutu's version, the more maori ""scholars"" we get the more the treaty changes. From a simple violent stone age people saved from themselves, look what we have now, how sad.
Peter
Posted on 02-04-2016 02:38 | By Kenworthlogger
One can use the same analogy then about what you or maori think of the treaty then. Neither you or any maori know what was meant. You just think you know... When in doubt just make it up then ah.... Remember all laws can be changed!!!
some facts?
Posted on 02-04-2016 13:27 | By Crash test dummies
Actually from your snippet there are none in there and glaring gaps of convenience definitely.
Facts ... missing in action Pete?
Posted on 02-04-2016 13:27 | By Crash test dummies
Fact1: Governor Hobson didn
Facts ... missing in action Pete? #2
Posted on 02-04-2016 13:31 | By Crash test dummies
... Fact4: To apply the same theory equitably and consistently then neither do you know anything either, so what exactly is the point of your blogs here then? The Treaty signed at Waitangi (there can only be one
The Treaty is more important, Kenworthlogger
Posted on 02-04-2016 15:22 | By Peter Dey
Kenworthlogger, the words of the Treaty are more important than what Governor Hobson said on one occasion. When the two versions of the Treaty were put into the Treaty of Waitangi Act, later followed by the Principles of the Treaty now in over 30 Statutes Parliament decided on an agreed understanding of the Treaty. We do not need to argue about what Maori and Pakeha thought the Treaty meant in 1840. We have now decided through Parliament how the Treaty will be understood now.
The Littlewood final draft
Posted on 02-04-2016 15:27 | By Crash test dummies
What Peter is feverishly avoiding is this document and its meaning, this is the final draft of Hobson and Busby that they worked on and finalized, it started with a very rough draft prepared by Freeman a few days later on the 5/2/1840 Hobson and Busby had finalized the treaty on paper and in English. There is no question remaining as to this. Williams then translated that to part Maori on the evening of 5/2/1840, that translation is known as "Tiriti o Waitangi", that is the document that is signed and is one of the treaties in the 1974 Act of parliament. The other treaty enacted in the Freeman initial draft and has no standing as anything. The Littlewood has been sitting in the Smithsonian since 1840 and is verified as genuine. In end result the statute is wrong, all know it.
Crazyhorse, you exaggerate
Posted on 02-04-2016 15:30 | By Peter Dey
Crazyhorse, there is only one official English version of the Treaty, and only one official Maori version of the Treaty. The fact that there are many translations of the Maori version from Maori into English does not mean that we do not know what the Maori version means. All translations from Maori into English are different in shades of meaning only. The basic meaning of the Treaty in Maori is absolutely clear. Only some words have debatable meaning, and Parliament through the Principles of the Treaty has provided clear agreement on the meaning that we take from the Treaty.
Treaty - there can only be one!
Posted on 02-04-2016 15:53 | By Crash test dummies
As a consequence of a false treaty being enacted (confirmed by Hobson himself), part Maori so called scholars (in their own mind alone) have been re-writing Te Reo vastly so as to change the meaning of words to line up the two enacted treaties (one real and one false) so as the meaning of Tiriti o Waitangi
JAFFA, British Colonial Office Archives 290/6 and 290/7
Posted on 02-04-2016 17:10 | By Peter Dey
JAFFA, page 272 of Claudia Orange's book "The Treaty of Waitangi" records that the official English and Maori versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, that were sent by Governor Hobson to Britain, are still held in the British Archives CO290/6 and CO290/7. So there were in 1840 official English and Maori versions of the Treaty that we now use in the Treaty of Waitangi Act. In New Zealand Archives there still exist original documents in Maori and in English that were signed by Maori chiefs in 1840. The Littlewood document undeniably was a translation draft but it has not been acknowledged by the New Zealand Parliament because Governor Hobson gave it no official status.
Parties to ToW
Posted on 02-04-2016 17:29 | By Crash test dummies
Part Maori and the Queen, not Peter, not the NZ Government, not the NZ taxpayer.
Demolished
Posted on 03-04-2016 02:11 | By Kenworthlogger
Well looks like Peter has been demolished. Note he only quotes Claudia Orange when it suits him. Funny how he wont quote her saying oh this is really embarrassing. No honesty there.... Hmmmm
JAFFA, you are rejecting verifiable fact
Posted on 03-04-2016 09:17 | By Peter Dey
JAFFA, it is a fact, verifiable on line, that the same official English and Maori versions of the Treaty are held in the British Archives (sent by Governor Hobson in 1840), in the New Zealand Archives (both English and Maori versions signed by Maori chiefs in 1840), and in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. These three places contain copies of the same versions, which can be verified on the internet. You are clearly being irrational when you deny these facts. Everything else you write does not change these undeniable verifiable facts.
Kenworthlogger, not demolished
Posted on 04-04-2016 11:26 | By Peter Dey
The comment by Claudia Orange about the Littlewood translation working copy being embarrassing is a mystery, because there is nothing embarrassing about it. I suspect Claudia was not fully or correctly quoted. Whatever Claudia may have said it is the evidence recorded in her book that JAFFA and R.Paterson cannot refute. The two copies of the Treaty that we now use were authorised by Governor Hobson, signed by Maori chiefs, and the evidence is still available in the British and New Zealand Archives. The Littlewood working copy is not even an accurate translation of the original Maori Treaty signed at Waitangi. It has sovereignty translated to kawanatanga which means government not sovereignty.
Yes it is
Posted on 05-04-2016 11:04 | By Crash test dummies
To deny otherwise is a bit na
Peter, once more
Posted on 05-04-2016 14:09 | By Anbob
Irrespective of which copy of the Treaty you use, the fact still remains that all copies are ambiguous in their meaning, not signed by all Maori (Ngai Tahu, Tainui)and should only used as a historic document. To say they are
Peter its just like a Tui ad
Posted on 05-04-2016 14:12 | By Kenworthlogger
Yeah right!
@ Anbob
Posted on 05-04-2016 15:51 | By Crash test dummies
Actually there is on one binding treaty, that is the part Maori one that Hobson and 500+ chiefs signed. The only other treaty document that has any standing otherwise is the Littlewood final draft. That has merit and some meaning because it translates perfectly from English to part-Maori(in 1840 Te Reo) and that is exactly what Williams did with it to get the part-Maori version as signed. There is no argument even from Peter on these facts. Hobson never signed any other treaty document, he even confirmed that, there a flowery version that is meaningless and does not translate that has a forgery on it, is that the one you are referring to Peter?
Treaty troubles
Posted on 05-04-2016 20:08 | By Bay Citizen
The Waitangi treaty was an important document that integrated Maori and Pakeha as one people and established the principle that they should be treated equally and fairly and that Maori assets were not to be plundered. This was largely successful, certainly if one compares how Maori fared compared to Aborigines in Oz. However, what the treatyists are currently not comprehending is that when laws/treaties create injustice, then the democratic will of the people will always triumph. Using the treaty and splitting hairs over the language/version used misses the point, which is that NZ is a democracy and new laws can be made that override the treaty. This might well happen if application of the treaty becomes too burdensome and unfair, which is where things are heading.
futile arguments
Posted on 05-04-2016 20:48 | By tutae.kuri
going back to R Paterson's letter. Hobson said that the Maori version was de facto the original instrument and all signatures susequently gathered are testimonials to the original.The dictionary I have has de facto meaning, in reality, actually, actually exercising power. Following this logically should mean that any signatures gained subsequently, no matter what document they were signed to ,pertained to the original Maori language Treaty.Following logic further, the draft document in English, from which the translation to Maori was made, must be the correct wording that should be used in any discussion. It is a shame for Orange and all other would be revisionists that the "Littlewood" draft came to light. Hence Orange's comment that this will put the cat among the pigeons. Also the exceptional efforts to ignore the document and discredit it. Never the less this draft is preserved in the National Archives in Wellington.
Futile arguments 2
Posted on 06-04-2016 11:32 | By tutae.kuri
Unfortunately, the Littlewood draft only came to light 150 odd years after the event. Had it accompanied the original Treaty Document, we would not have had to put up with the garbage we are getting. Weasel gutted politicians who well know now that parliamentary enactments passed over the last 150 or so years are incorrect in some cases, continue to perpetuate the myths. They have no cojones available to set things right. I believe that Bay citizen is likely right , that in the end public opprobrium will force the issue.The revisionists, in the meantime, continue to alter history in favour of Maori in the face of eye witness accounts from the time, in some cases.With history though,I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are observing it from.
@ tutae.kuri
Posted on 07-04-2016 12:44 | By Crash test dummies
Yes correct, but once aware of the error of their ways the remedy needs then to be applied promptly.
we are now one nation
Posted on 07-04-2016 12:46 | By Crash test dummies
Does not feel like it, where a few have preference and the majority have the privileges of paying for it. Definitely gone west on this.
@jaffa
Posted on 07-04-2016 22:21 | By tutae.kuri
Remember that we have a minority govt and they would not be able to pass the necessary laws by themselves. None of the other wallies would help even if they thought the deal was right. Govt is too cowardly to call elections over the issue although it would be a fair bet they would romp in if the issue was no preferential treatment and abolition of Maori seats. Then we would truly be one people all with equal rights.
@ tutae.kuri
Posted on 08-04-2016 16:57 | By Crash test dummies
Agree, a binding referendum on: - 1. Wipe the Waitangi Tribunal, 2. repeal all laws, committees that are race based and or preference to one colour over another 3. Repeal the Waitangi Act 4. remove all race based seats in parliament and or Councils and or anywhere.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.