Ryan Wood, in his ruminations (The Weekend Sun, March 2), writes that there is no such thing as a partnership between the government and Maori because the word 'partnership' does not appear in the Treaty of Waitangi. Ryan ignores the fact that parliament and High Court decisions have put the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership agreement between the government and Maori into New Zealand law. The Treaty has always been a partnership because that was the intention when it was signed, and courts have ruled that a legal partnership agreement does not have to include the word 'partnership'.
P Dey, Welcome Bay.
10 comments
STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER
Posted on 23-03-2018 15:41 | By crazyhorse
On the 25 November 1947, New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster, passed by the British Government in 1931. The Statute granted complete autonomy to New Zealand in foreign as well as domestic affairs. Prior to this, the New Zealand Government was under the control of the British Government, therefore any injustices created by Government against Maori before 1947 were the responsibility of the British Government, although most claims were full and finally settled in the late 1930s and early 1940s. After 1947, there was no distinction between the people of New Zealand, as we all became New Zealand citizens, under One Sovereignty, One Law. There is no Partnership between Maori and the Crown in the Statute of Westminster!
Fraud
Posted on 24-03-2018 12:51 | By Captain Sensible
Thinking that some modern standards may apply to a Treaty from nearly 200 years ago, just shows what uninformed simpletons some people are. Does the word "partnership" appear anywhere in the Treaty? No? Then it is not a partnership. Simple. End of. Changing the wording or meaning without all the signatories permission is fraud.
All at sea again
Posted on 24-03-2018 18:46 | By waxing
Your marriage certificate doesn't specifically include the word "partnership". Does this mean your marriage is not a partnership?
Do some research crazyhorse
Posted on 24-03-2018 18:54 | By waxing
Your comments show no cognisance of any facts, either in terms of constitutional law or New Zealand history. You don't even understand what the Statute of Westminster was about. Go away and do some very basic research before you try and pollute people with your twisted sense of history.
They claim, they always claim.
Posted on 24-03-2018 19:21 | By crazyhorse
Tribal leaders continue to make on-going demands for new rights and privileges based on claims of Treaty partnership and Maori sovereignty. The question that needs to be asked is whether such partnership and sovereignty claims are valid. Two examples of their use will suffice.The first example, which uses the Treaty partnership argument, is the situation in the Far North where iwi leaders are claiming guardianship rights over the region as affirmed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi as Treaty partners. They claim that a Treaty partnership gives them the right to seats at the top council table rather than any Maori working committees: Relegation to the side tables is not the partnership envisaged by the treaty, and we should not accept anything less than what the Treaty proposed, well the "truth is"" there is nothing about partnership in the TOW,1840 partnership with stone age cannibals, yeah right!.
JUST ANOTHER TROUGH TO FEED FROM.
Posted on 24-03-2018 19:27 | By crazyhorse
Iwi want their own representatives on the council, but they arent prepared to gain that representation the democratic way by doing the hard yards and winning the support of voters in their communities in a fair election. Instead want dedicated Maori seats a third of the seats on the new council to be reserved for them, with the Maori representatives selected by them. Their approach, using their Treaty partnership claim to justify the reserved seats, will ensure their self-interested projects can be imposed onto the district funded by all ratepayers. The second example involves the use of the Maori sovereignty argument and exposes the underlying agenda of the elite leaders of Maoridom.The resurgent demands of iwi are based on their claims of superiority over all other citizens as a result of Treaty partnerships and sovereignty. This is the mantra used to elevate them above K1W1's.
Despair, desperation, and dishonesty.
Posted on 25-03-2018 11:00 | By R. Bell
When the British granted autonomy to N.Z. THE CROWN CONTINUED to exist through the executive. Maori continued to exist through natural progression. It is good that crazyhorse now accepts that injustice occurred. no claims were ever accepted as full and final by Maori. The partnership that therefore continues is between the crown and Maori. The crown on behalf of the beneficiaries of those injustices continue to apologise and rectify, as much as is possible, the blatant theft that occurred. Robin Bell.
duh!!
Posted on 25-03-2018 21:02 | By Captain Sensible
I never got married in 1840, and I think anyone with a brain would agree that marriage in 1840 is not the same as marriage today. Nowhere in the ToW does the word partnership appear, and you can bleat and whinge and try to twist the facts, but it makes no difference....that word is not there!!!
As new claims are
Posted on 26-03-2018 08:08 | By crazyhorse
Because of constant abuse by treaty troughers like "honest" Hughy Kawharu, the Treaty has become vague and self-contradicting courts and the tribunal constantly overlook the exact wording in the Treaty , instead, "twisting" society (as represented by their elected government) to accept that the Treaty created a partnership, in the name of partnership many changes have been introduced to the way New Zealand is governed, unelected maori boards, free pass on council, there is no specific definition of partnership, the TOW has become a never-ending always changing "feast" at the tax payers expense. As new claims are "dreamed up" the relevant arm of government negotiate and come up with an agreement on who must pay what, the power-sharing arrangements that we've arrived at are in direct conflict with the wording of the TOW article 3 clearly states we are all "equal"
crazier and crazier
Posted on 26-03-2018 15:50 | By waxing
I know you would like to write laws completely for yourself but are you declaring that you will not accept the rule of law? And maybe you better keep in better liaison with the petty officer. You're insisting article 3 includes the word equal. It doesn't. It simply says all have the rights and privileges of British citizens. But it does imply equality in THIS regard just like the treaty as a whole implies partnership. But article 3 is not the overriding one, otherwise it would be the only one. You still continue to ignore, for example, the wording of the preamble which is an integral part of the treaty.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.