A question raised on TV One's Breakfast show (January 20) about Colin Craig's Conservative Party wish to rescind the ‘anti-smacking' law, saw Prime Minister John Key make the astonishing statement:'small parties don't have much influence”.
How come Mr Prime Minister,
1. Pita Sharples, from the minority Maori Party, had your authority to go to America to sign the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights? This, without knowledge or consent of NZ citizens.
2. The Marine and Coastal Area Bill was led through parliament by Chris Finlayson, the Attorney General, a pawn of the Maori Party and Maori elite. An Act that disconnects New Zealand citizens from large tracts of coastal beaches? Without consent of a majority of NZ citizens.
3. That, as a ‘behind closed doors' coalition deal with the Maori Party at the last election you, you agreed to set up an ethnically-loaded Constitutional Advisory Panel to entrench in a constitution the Treaty of Waitangi? Again without consensus or consent from NZ citizens that a constitution was needed.
And you're trying to convince me and others that minority parties ‘don't have much influence'.
MJ & GV Anderson, Pyes Pa.
Posted: 01:40pm Fri 24 Jan, 2014
Small party’s big influence
12-Nov 18:00
New men's fund launched to tackle isolation in BOP
12-Nov 17:00
SH2 roadworks bring overnight lane closures
12-Nov 14:35
Te Puke, Rotorua players score Lotto wins
12-Nov 14:00
Streetscape revamp targets safety and visibility
12-Nov 12:54
Pāpāmoa Hills reopens after slip risk closure
12-Nov 11:45
Waihī mine campsite gets council tick
12-Nov 11:00
Council to keep fire depot, historic cottage
12-Nov 10:00
Tauranga youth secure climate project funding
12-Nov 08:03
Petition backs Bethlehem footpath link
12-Nov 06:00
Run the Runway raises $24k for rescue chopper
11-Nov 17:00
New faces join BOP Garden and Art festival trail
11-Nov 15:28
Person dies at Bay of Plenty sawmill
COMPETITIONS
61 comments
True
Posted on 24-01-2014 14:38 | By Captain Sensible
Very very true, but key likes to dismiss those facts with a smile and a few empty sentences.
without knowledge or consent of NZ citizens.
Posted on 25-01-2014 15:25 | By crazyhorse
How many times have we heard that lately, a national gov't that treats the people who voted it in like mushrooms, keeps them in the dark and feeds them bull ####, the classic example at the moment is Finlayson doing us all a favour by Repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act, how many people is this already effecting,and he say's small parties make no difference!!who arranged this Finlayson the Ngae Tahu treaty negotiator, the unelected minister for National put in charge of treaty matters, Keys right hand man, and the maori party. The National Party and the Maori Party agreed to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act as part of their relationship and confidence and supply agreement. The decision comes after an extensive period of public consultation and stakeholder engagement, including last year's Ministerial Review Panel and this year's nationwide series of public meetings and hui, "YEAH RITE"
Not at all true,
Posted on 25-01-2014 16:43 | By robin bell
and you know it cap'n.N.Z.had no choice but to sign the Declaration.We were rapidly becoming isolated and among the last of almost 200 nations to sign.None of the coast is out of bounds,access maybe, no different to private property anywhere.The Constitutional Review was to guage the opinion of people.No power to "entrench"a Constitution or anything else.Our freely elected Governments do not need your "consent" for anything.You are the minority and should stop your silly campaign to misinform Robin Bell.
.None of the coast is out of bounds
Posted on 26-01-2014 19:44 | By crazyhorse
What the ####, whats the difference lap dog?
The Marine and Coastal Area Bill
Posted on 27-01-2014 10:58 | By crazyhorse
There are currently three major claims being made on the East Coast of the North Island and one on the Coromandel peninsula, which latter covers two separate stretches of the coast. The biggest claim is that by Ngati Porou - a claim for about 200 km of the coast north of Gisborne. Because of the secretive nature of Finlayson's dealings with his favoured tribes there is no other way for the public to make their objections known on this serious and revolutionary step of privatising the beaches on a racist basis. This is a further conflict of interest on the part of Finlayson - a 'man” who took megabucks from the Ngai Tahu tribe and then pushed the thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act through Parliament with the result that Ngai Tahu has the potential right to claim more of the coast than any other tribe.
PUBLIC HAVE A SAY?
Posted on 27-01-2014 21:49 | By crazyhorse
How undemocratic is National's Office of Treaty Settlements headed by Chris Finlayson , a frightening example can be seen here. A claim being opposed by both the Gisborne District Council and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council as well as by CORANZ(The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand) has hit a "SNAG", Because of the secretive nature of Finlayson's dealings with his favoured tribes there is no other way for the public to make their objections known on this serious and revolutionary step of privatising the beaches on a racist basis. And yet the right of CORANZ and Dr. Hugh Barr to raise their objections is currently being challenged in court by the Rongomaiwahine applicant" AS WELL AS" Finlayson in his capacity as Attorney-General, the applicant and Finlayson - are colluding together" again" to rob the public of our rights to use the coast."READ ALL ABOUT IT" http://coastwatch.info/tag/chris-findlayson/
PUBLIC HAVE A SAY?
Posted on 27-01-2014 21:57 | By crazyhorse
How undemocratic is National's Office of Treaty Settlements headed by Chris Finlayson , a frightening example can be seen here. A claim being opposed by both the Gisborne District Council and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council as well as by CORANZ(The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand) has hit a "SNAG", the right of CORANZ and Dr. Hugh Barr to raise their objections is currently being challenged in court by the Rongomaiwahine applicant" AS WELL AS" Finlayson in his capacity as Attorney-General, the applicant and Finlayson - are colluding together" again" to rob the public of our rights to use the coast."READ ALL ABOUT IT" http://coastwatch.info/tag/chris-findlayson/
Tut Tut Crazy,
Posted on 29-01-2014 12:08 | By robin bell
It now seems you are calling anyone who denies access across privately owned land 'a thieving racist'Thats one hell of a claim,even by you.Oh! thats right,silly me,it only applies to Maori.Ngati Porou like all coastal Iwi have the right to have a say in who can or cannot 'exploit' the resource of thier tahatai.You on the other hand have no rights.You simply want the right to 'exploit',you can't have it Crazy sorry. Robin Bell.
Twisting The Treaty AND TRUTH!
Posted on 29-01-2014 12:49 | By crazyhorse
Again Robby,I
Twisting The Treaty AND TRUTH!
Posted on 29-01-2014 13:03 | By crazyhorse
Again Robby, I clearly said coast, as in ocean shore and access to it, big difference between that and privately owned land maybe a couple of hundred meters up the road. You clearly said in your comment,"quote"[.None of the coast is out of bounds,"ACCESS" maybe?, no different to private property,] pretty confusing comment even by your standards, how are kiwi to enjoy a dip if we can't get "ACCESS" pray tell!!!!. OHHH, I know "koha", I have to admit, you do amuse me Bell, "greatly".
Killing rewards rubber stamped
Posted on 29-01-2014 13:13 | By crazyhorse
This is what I have been talking about "Bell" hope you read nzcpr, but in case you don't http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/john-robinson-killing-rewards-rubber.html
You'r bouncing around Crazy,
Posted on 29-01-2014 21:57 | By robin bell
like a rocking-horse on rubber runners.Go ahead and quote John Robinson,co-author of that 'best seller'(that never actually made the lists)a man who believes he can solve everything with a slide-rule and calculator.Mathematician and Treatygate blogger.Why don't you take up a good cause like er,Child poverty,social injustice,you know the kind of thing Crazy..Fighting a losing cause must be so frustrating. Robin Bell.
Nothing confusing Crazy.
Posted on 30-01-2014 13:05 | By robin bell
Landowners are not legally bound to provide access to the waters edge.They cannot however stop access from the seaward side.Maori are sick and tired of people trespassing,littering and generally abusing thier land.Who can blame them? Robin Bell.
,Child poverty,social injustice
Posted on 30-01-2014 15:40 | By crazyhorse
I support both those Bell,but, I'm sorry to say all the extra money that should go to Child poverty and social injustice is spent on separatism and race based privileges, imagine what inroads we could make to child poverty education and health if kiwi weren't wasting their tax money on Nationals idea of an "apartheid" New Zealand. Winston Peters said at Ratana much the same, he was a lawyer so should know the meaning of "apartheid" given your always arguing people have no idea what it means, election year, is it not exciting Bell??.
NZ LURCHING INTO APARTHEID STATE
Posted on 30-01-2014 19:26 | By crazyhorse
In Parliament , Mr Peters asked Treaty Negotiations Minister Finlayson why some M?ori were able to apply for total property rights over the foreshore and seabed, with most of the decisions being made behind closed doors in Parliament. Mr Peters said this legislation amounts to a program of "apartheid and separatism". On one hand the Minister says the public has guaranteed access to the beaches and seabed but the legislation actually allows for major areas of the coastline to be closed off to" New Zealanders". 'This legislation also allows holders of customary title to veto resource consent applications made by other New Zealanders. There are sixteen claims at present for 632 kilometres of coastline and a total of 6,148 square kilometres of seabed, taking in some of New Zealand's best beaches and fishing grounds.Finlayson and claimants are trying to stop High Court actions that question the decision!
Have you noticed Crazy?
Posted on 31-01-2014 08:30 | By robin bell
all your former "friends" have deserted you.No matter.Youv'e bounced from Robinson to good old Winston,you must be getting desperate.He will say anything to appease his anti settlement,grey-power support group.He is the most duplicitous polly in N.Z.Anyone can apply for resource consent,anyone can oppose it.Customary title is to protect those who have seen thier rights trampled on by the likes of you crazy.You claim to support social justice,yet you want complete freedom to trample on the rights of Maori.The settlement process and targeted spending has made giant inroads into the inequality in N.Z.You and your ever dwindling friends will never stop the prgress.Robin Bell.
0
Posted on 31-01-2014 10:02 | By robin bell
Winston Peters,you Crazy and your fellow(few)thinkers are wrong.Aparthied is a policy of social segregation enforced by law.In S.Africa it was enforced by the controling minority over the coloured majority.Immoral,unjust and unworkable.N.Z.on the other hand is governed by a coalition of the free,different mindset,policies different races etc.Those who claim we "are lurching toward Apartheid" seek to frighten those able to be frightened (not many)Winston panders to these people.You crazy, parrot such talk in the folorn hope that your persistence will win.The philosophy of a loser. Robin Bell.
.Finlayson and claimants
Posted on 31-01-2014 10:57 | By crazyhorse
Are trying to stop High Court actions that allow public to make their objections known on this revolutionary step of privatising the beaches on a racist basis. How "democratic is this, perhaps Bell can fill us in, New Zealanders not even allowed a say, everything done behind closed doors, welcome to democracy the "key and Finlaysons" way,NZ organised the maori party way!!
Crazy asks a question,
Posted on 31-01-2014 17:20 | By robin bell
"Wonders never cease"Fist you have to drop your naive interpretation of democracy.We all see thru it.N.Z is evolving a form of democracy unique to us.There is precedent in the U.S.and Canada,similar but not the same.In our democracy the rights of the Indigenous minority are protected in law.Your protestations and those of a small but vocal minority,also have similarities to north America.They failed as will you.Robin Bell.
BELL ANSWERS THE QUESTION
Posted on 01-02-2014 09:35 | By crazyhorse
with, -{.N.Z is evolving a form of democracy unique to us}!!!!,least he's honest, "you get a say but I don't", you do a deal with Finlayson behind closed doors, "I'm stopped from questioning it",yep, NZ under the National gov't is certainly forming it's own "unique" form of democracy,
Here's a challenge for you,
Posted on 01-02-2014 15:44 | By robin bell
Crazy.Name two democracies any where in the world that are exactly the same.Same laws, same rules, same method of determining thier representatives.Good luck on that little challenge.N.Z.is totally unique.We are a nation born in bi-culturism,and yes Crazy I know you deny that.The Maori people have the rights of natural justice to be Maori.You on the other hand have no right to deny them that.That is why you and your Crazy minority will never have the ear of our elected representatives.Most people are content. Your not and never will be.Democracy your way will never happen,our reps' would be pestered to death by you,imagine that!!Robin Bell.
Minority
Posted on 03-02-2014 08:52 | By Anbob
All lot of what Crazyhorse has said has merit. Robin, if Crazyhorse is such a minority, why does the Government not have binding referendums on the status of the Treaty in NZ and Treaty issues. I think the Constitutional Review was a good thing, any MATURE discussion is a good thing, but the Review committee was heavily stacked to produce a certain result.
Its easy to say Anbob,
Posted on 03-02-2014 15:44 | By robin bell
perhaps you can help me out here.How was the Panel stacked?And what was the desired end result?How do you 'know" this?And finally Anbob,how can an Advisory panel "entrench" anything in law?As for binding referendum,as you well know Maori would be swamped by the inherent prejudice that Crazy is a good example of.If you are blissfully unaware of the the benifits of current and previous governments regarding Maori advancement,vote for the 1law4all party thats if they ever get thier "ACT"together.Robin Bell.
How was the Panel stacked?
Posted on 03-02-2014 21:31 | By crazyhorse
Hmmm, lets get a panel together to see if we want a written Constitution, and, if the "Treaty Of Waitangi" should be entrenched in "said Constitution". I know lets put 6 maori activists on the panel as well as "Dr Ranganui Walker maori activist and member of the Waitangi tribunal, ONCE MORE FOR THE DUMMYS, "Dr Ranganui Walker maori activist and member of the Waitangi tribunal. Democracy NATIONAL GOV'T style,
INCREDIBLE !!!!
Posted on 04-02-2014 15:18 | By Jeromy Murkin
If green peace set up a board of 12 people to halt mining in NZ do you think they would put 6 or 7 miners in there, one of these miners maybe head of a company like "BHP". That is wat has happened here.
Your not wrong
Posted on 04-02-2014 21:17 | By robin bell
It sure is incredible,Your analogy that is.Maori have been shafted (Politically)in N.Z.from day one.The shafting is over,get used to it.It was the Maori Party who negotiated the "review" of the place of the Treaty in our Constitution.Thier absolute right in a democracy.The panel had NO power to "enchrench" the treaty or anything else.Maori were well represented,yes but not a majority.When it comes to matters of the treay and the crown they have the legal rights of any signitory to the treaty.You mirkin have no right to deny them that.Robin Bell.
Reply to Robin
Posted on 05-02-2014 13:25 | By Anbob
Some of Panel made their views clear before submissions. The review was a pre-election promise by National for Maori party support. Claiming the panel was independent and a cross section of NZ would be being economical with the truth in my view. Entrenching ideologies against the majority will has proven unsuccessful throughout history. The 'inherent prejudice that Crazy is a good example of” may be the majority view in this democracy, the only way to find out is referendum. Maori have a special place in NZ, without doubt, the degree to which Maori have a special place in law appears to be where the public is polarized. I believe any "constitutional laws" should avoid any form of favouritism or separatism and must be generalist in nature, "one law for all". Procedural implementation of general law should be where issues relating to disadvantaged or minority sectors of society are addressed.
Whew!!at last a sensible comment.
Posted on 05-02-2014 19:56 | By robin bell
Anbob,to find a neutral panel to suit all would be nigh impossible as you know.Some would claim (Crazy)that any pakeha who has an association with Maori is suspect.There is a so called Independent Panel,they are not independent at all,they all belong to the extreme right.Anti settlement,anti Treaty,anti Maori representation.We are not talking 'ideologies"here we are talking moral and legal rights for Maori.You Anbob seem to accept that "Inherent Prejudice"exists among the majority.If that is the case how can a binding referendum deliver anything but disaster for both Maori and Pakeha?.We have one Law for all now.You refer I think to targeted spending on Maori.These are not laws they they are treaty based rights.'Procedural implementation'of general law has not served Maori well in the past,what guarantee for the future.The Treaty.Thanks for the comment,minus the insults.Robin Bell.
Free money ?
Posted on 06-02-2014 08:42 | By ow
we need hard working educated role models to aspire to be like - not for some of us to be given free money and land. I am proud to have been given nothing and earned all I have.
Ow,ow,ouch!!
Posted on 06-02-2014 10:26 | By robin bell
We have "hardworking,educated role models"at last.Youv'e got it all wrong Ow!compensation for stolen land,is not'free" money,stolen land returned is not "free"land.Your'e way behind the eight-ball old chap.I'm pleased that you are proud.Apart from justice,I believe that is what Maori want.Very complex issues,take off your blinkers,look around and "enjoy"Robin Bell.
Robin
Posted on 06-02-2014 11:00 | By YOGI BEAR
You just can not help yourself now can you, look at it same as last time and the obvious drifts by unnoticed, or perhaps deliberately?
one in six Maori
Posted on 06-02-2014 13:13 | By crazyhorse
who lived in Australia in 2008 openly admitted that a key reason for their relocation was to escape tribalism. In a study carried out by "Te Puni Kokiri", many Maori expressed an overwhelming sense of relief of being 'free of Maori culture”, of being able to 'get away from the rigid beliefs of our elders”, of getting away from 'tikanga Maori” and 'whanau pressures”. In other words, they wanted to live their lives free from the fetters of tribalism and identity politics.[1] The issue of race has now become a defining line down through society. This is in spite of the blurring of racial boundaries that has been taking place since first settlement as each generation of New Zealanders increasingly marry and have children across racial and ethnic lines. http://www.chelsey.co.nz/power-and-inspiration/career-business-and-politics/apartheid-new-zealand
Whew!!at last a sensible comment.
Posted on 06-02-2014 13:28 | By crazyhorse
And the study done by "Te Puni Kokiri" A study on maori by maori, how you going to cope with that Bell.
Nothing new,under the sun
Posted on 06-02-2014 17:08 | By robin bell
mr bear.Your "prejudice and tito's"my persistence for truth"There aint nothing "slipping by" old bear,only the time till your next hibernation.Its all out in the open,two new settlements today,and the real biggy coming soon.Justice will be served.Robin Bell.
nelson mendela
Posted on 06-02-2014 17:22 | By crazyhorse
Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mine worker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farm workers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.(also from Nelson Mandela). 'Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.”
Brilliant comments Robin Bell
Posted on 07-02-2014 10:03 | By Peter Dey
Robin, your comments here have been spot on and enormously entertaining, a joy to read. It looks as though the 1law4all party has died and Winston Peters is carefully trying to capture that small slice of voters.
Te Puni Kokiri,
Posted on 07-02-2014 11:22 | By crazyhorse
Jobs and higher incomes are the reasons usually given for increasing numbers of New Zealanders crossing the ditch to settle in Australia. A net 40,000 moved there in the year to the end of August. While greener pastures are undoubtedly a key factor, it is highly likely that racial issues are also causing the flight of Kiwis. Weary of a political environment that encourages an aggressive mixed-race minority to make unreasonable demands against taxpayers, fed-up Kiwis have had enough!. . In a study carried out by Te Puni Kokiri, many Maori expressed an overwhelming sense of relief of being 'free of Maori culture”, of being able to 'get away from the rigid beliefs of our elders”, of getting away from 'tikanga Maori” and 'whanau pressures”. In other words, they wanted to live their lives free from the fetters of tribalism and identity politics. http://www.chelsey.co.nz/power-and-inspiration/career-business-and-politics/apartheid-new-zealand
TOW tribunal sets up Ngai Tahu
Posted on 07-02-2014 11:29 | By crazyhorse
1867 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 1 1906 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 2 1944 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 3 1973 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 4 1998 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 5 2012 — Ngai Tahu Not So Full and Final 17% Top-up. Another top up?, after ngapuhi settle for the asking price at the moment of half a "billion bucks".
Nothing new
Posted on 07-02-2014 15:29 | By Anbob
Robin to clarify my view, a treaty by definition is between two states. Crown and Maori = one state (NZ). The true meaning of the Treaty is not definitive and open to contextual interpretation. The Treaty Principles are Palmer & Cooke's interpretation. To have personal interpretations 'entrenched” in law would be folly at best. I appreciate rectification of injustice (by compensation) is necessary. Remedies for injustice are allowed for in current acts (eg. BOR). The present generation neither caused the injustice nor should be penalised for it. All settlements need to be full and final. Continuing settlements creates another injustice to the taxpayer. The Treaty has no place in NZ constitutional law, post settlements. Any constitutional law need to be generic and accepted by the majority to gain validity. NZ is really a Utilitarian society = greatest good for the greatest number. The treaty is divisive, time to move on
Anbob,
Posted on 07-02-2014 20:15 | By robin bell
You clarify your position well.I believe you are mistaken in your overview of the Treaty.Maori were not a State,each tribe was sovereign.Therefore it seems logical that the Crown became partners with each sovereign tribe.Palmer and Cooke considered all known copies of the Treaty.The code of ethics they work under requires them to de- personalise opinion in favour of evidence.Guided by domestic and International law.Not all present generations are innocent bystanders,in recent "Crown" thefts.The Treaty is only divisive among those who gained,from recent and historical injustice.Jeremy Bentham,father of modern Utilitarian doctrine never lived in a bi-cultural nation.His philosophy (the greatest good,for the greatest number)is far too simplistic for modern New Zealand.I believe Democracy is far more flexible than you seem to.I also strongly believe that the greater good will be best served by a dynamic Maori population.They are well on the way.Robin Bell.
de- personalise opinion in favour of evidence.
Posted on 07-02-2014 23:55 | By crazyhorse
"I believe Democracy is far more flexible than you seem to" quote from Bell.see what your dealing with Anbob. That's sad Bell even by your standards.
In reply
Posted on 12-02-2014 11:10 | By Anbob
Thank you for your reply Robin, we agree to disagree. Your argument about parties to the treaty falls short considering who the current settlements are negotiated with. (eg. Tainui did not sign) Cooke was known more as a judicial activist than a formalist. His decisions were based on 'fairness” and current social context. He was not afraid to re-define legal principles to reflect societal changes. Others required a need for order, certainty and stability in society (formalists). It was their personal guiding principles. I agree Bentham's utilitarianism is too simplistic; however, democracy cannot be flexible with founding principles. My comments were focussed on 'constitutional law” and post settlements. I agree society is better served having a dynamic Maori population, but that applies to all sectors. Debates in the media demonstrate TOW is divisive; therefore TOW should not feature in any constitution, which I maintain must be generalist in nature.
Anbob,
Posted on 12-02-2014 21:25 | By robin bell
I think you will agree the Treaty has many shortfalls.Not least of all the amateur nature and rushed content.The British,and by definition,those that followed must take responsibility for that.By all the "laws"germane to Treaties the onus is on the major power to protect and ensure the rights of the minor party.Justice Cooke was no activist,that is a slander levelled by anti Treatyists.Cooke was considered N.Zs greatest jurists by his peers.He was the only judge to sit in the British House of Lords.He did not coin the phrase "Principles of the treaty"He was one of "five"independent judges who established,in law the Treaty principles.Using terms such as partnership,fiduciary duty,active protection,fair and "reasonable"recompense.To suggest the Treaty is no longer relevent is naive.I have yet to hear any anti treatyist prepared to give up their rights,whilst expecting Maori to do just that.Robin Bell.
MAORI ASKED FOR TREATY, NOT ENGLISH
Posted on 12-02-2014 21:44 | By crazyhorse
Wi Kuki Kaa in Te Putatara 5/90 of 21st May 1990: 'I resent the implication that the Kahui Ariki at Waitangi 1840 didn‘t quite know what they were about. E hika ma! They weren‘t dumb; they were learned men, products of missionary education. They wanted, because they needed it, a document to create some form of law and order: to protect themselves from the rapaciousness of the re-settlers whose material goods had helped to improve their standard of living; but also from those of us in the Tai Rawhiti and elsewhere still smarting from the humiliations inflicted on us by Cyclone Hongi, Cyclone Pomare or Cyclone Patuone. 'The Tai Tokerau people were becoming prosperous - a situation which only thrives in a climate of "PEACE"
Robin
Posted on 13-02-2014 09:40 | By Anbob
I think you misunderstood my terms. Judicial activism is a political term used to describe judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and political considerations other than existing law. Formalism seeks to maintain that separation and is a theory that law is a set of rules and principles independent of other political and social institutions. Maybe, liberal as opposed to conservative would have been better terminology for Cooke's style. Cooke was a great man no doubt. I was merely saying his decisions (like all judges) were based on a personal ideology and their position on that continuum. The 'amateur nature & rushed content” of the treaty are why it shouldn't be entrenched in a constitution. Everybody has different beliefs. A constitution has to treat all people equally. Our debate show the divisiveness of arguing interpretation of a document open to misinterpretation. Thank you for the debate
JUDICIAL ACTIVIST, SIAN ELIAS
Posted on 13-02-2014 14:48 | By crazyhorse
"OUR" chief justice and "MAORI ACTIVIST". In 1984, Elias helped Nganeko Minhinnick's Manukau Harbour claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. This led to work on other treaty cases, including a claim to prevent the Government selling radio frequencies, and the case challenging the 1994 Maori electoral option. This work gave her an appreciation of Maori custom and aspirations that she still fosters among the judiciary and in her private life. In June 2003 she was involved in a landmark case which allowed for the possibility that the Maori Land Court could issue freehold title over the foreshore and seabed. The subsequent legal uncertainties and upheavals in Maoridom dominated the political agenda for the next 18 months. {This chief justice has said she considers it her right to strike down any law she does not agree with}.
Before you go Anbob
Posted on 13-02-2014 20:23 | By robin bell
perhaps you could share your source of information,regarding Justice Cooke.All of my reading puts him at the vanguard of legal thinking in N.Z.and to some degree the U.K.Formalism in law is fine,regarding behavioural activity of a nations day to day activity.A constitution is generally accepted as a "body of written laws,and "unwritten" customs,embodying the principles which underly and determine the mode of government of a nation".Cooke and his fellow judges knew this when determining Maori rights under the T.O.W.All people in N.Z.are equal under the law,to claim otherwise is incorrect and unhelpful.As I said before Anbob,the only people who claim the treaty is divisive,are those who oppose it.Robin Bell.
JUSTICE ROBIN COOKE
Posted on 13-02-2014 23:06 | By crazyhorse
Bell writes Cooke was considered one of N.Zs greatest jurists by his peers. ""Waitangi Tribunal hearings do not use cross-examinations"", a move criticised by London Privy Councillor Lord Robin Cooke for” making it impossible to test adequately some of the material, as in history,"evidence" used to settle claims, that the Cooke your talking about???.
He,the man Crazy,
Posted on 14-02-2014 11:26 | By robin bell
It "may"be true that Justice Cooke said those words.He merely states the obvious,cross examination is often impossible a 100yrs or so after an offence.I think it could be because the complainants have passed on.What do you think Crazy?Cooke was a pragmatic man(unlike you)who saw both sides of an argument.He also said "it is obvious,that from the point of view of the future of our country,non Maori have to adjust to an understanding that does not come easily to all"Thats you Crazy!!He also said"reperation has to be paid to the Maori people,for "past" and continuing breaches of the Treaty by which they(Maori)agreed to yield government.An obligation has to be seen to be honoured"I think most "reasonable"people would agree.Robin Bell.
Cross examination
Posted on 14-02-2014 13:08 | By crazyhorse
Is often impossible a 100yrs or so after an offence.I think it could be because the complainants have passed on. You hit the nail on the head princess. ""ALL THE COMPLAINANTS ARE DEAD", so what are you whining about, we have no one involved with this left, let's move on, well said Bell.
Reference
Posted on 14-02-2014 16:51 | By Anbob
Paul Heath 'Hard Cases and Bad Law” (2008. Judicial activism and formalism are just metaphors. Neither good nor bad. Cooke was a great man as I said earlier. Another preeminent judge of his day was Chief Justice Pendergrast, who had totally different views of the Treaty (a formalist). I not saying either judge is right or wrong, they had greater minds than me. Their decisions depended where they sat on that continuum and on the thinking of the day. A written constitution has to be beyond the thinking of the day (enduring) and be general in nature (apolitical). That is all I was trying to say. I didn't understand your last comment 'only people who claim the treaty is divisive, are those who oppose it”. As you said TOW was of 'amateur nature & rushed content” open to misinterpretation. We know there are opposing views which = divisive.
Anbob,
Posted on 14-02-2014 21:14 | By robin bell
To enlarge on my statement"only people who claim the Treaty is divisive,are those who oppose it"Before the series of events that gave opportunity for Maori to seek redress for injustice,the treaty was largely ignored by most N.Zers.The division we currently witness is primarily the "backlash"from those who resent Maori seeking justice.I agree the Treaty is in part ambiguous,but it is stll a Treaty(contract)entered into in good faith by all parties to it.The main points have been thoroughly debated in law and in Parliament.I agree and include myself in your comment"they had greater minds than me(us)"Cooke certainly was a great man,Pendergrast was not.His attempt to nullify the Treaty was soundly overuled by the Privy Council.Yes,a written Constitution has to be "enduring"however,taking the U.S.Constitution as an example,It is constantly under review and amendments made when agreed.Robin Bell.
Thanks Robin,
Posted on 16-02-2014 22:33 | By Anbob
From our discussion I understand you agree the Treaty is amateur in content, ambiguous (at least in part) and divisive. 'Entrenching” means it is (all but) impossible to 'amend” or repeal, (unlike U.S). A written constitution is just that 'written”, it does not include unwritten customs. The TOW principles discussed are also ambiguous, for example was the partnership intended to be 50/50 in outcome, who really knows. Contracts must have clear terms (clarity). A constitution has to be adopted by the people to gain acceptance. If there is doubt the population will accept it, have a referendum. The issues of correcting injustices which you allude to can be addressed in general law (not entrenched in constitutional law forever!). You must agree you cannot have an ambiguous, divisive, and amateur in content document 'entrenched” in our written constitution. Which was all I was saying in the beginning of this debate
Anbob,
Posted on 17-02-2014 11:46 | By robin bell
Websters Universal-Constitution-The body of"written"Laws and "Unwritten"customs embodying the principles which underlie the mode of gov't of a nation.You and I can trade semantics forever,but the"principles"of the Treaty have already been agreed between the Crown and Maori.The poor state of the Treaty lies squarley with the Crown,who drew it up.It seems far more likely,the rushed nature was the threat from the French,rather than Maori "begging"for it.In any event,it is the"principles"that have to be entrenched in any written Constitution.The survival of the Maori people and thier"human rights"and the Integrity of the rest of N.Z.is at stake.The "melting pot"mantra has not worked and probably never will.There wil be no perfect solution,but the answer is not in denial and or disrespect.Robin Bell.
Anbob
Posted on 17-02-2014 11:46 | By YOGI BEAR
Couldn't agree more, the TOW would best be viewed as an "equal" partnership, that means all persons in NZ at that time would be a party to it and enjoy the benefits of what it conferred. If one party is no longer "a party" to it then that surely must mean that it is at an end. Can't have it both ways?
Mr bear,
Posted on 17-02-2014 15:46 | By robin bell
after arguing for two years or more,that NO partnership exists,our contrary bear now concedes the Treaty is indeed a partnership.Problem is it was "never" viewed as an "equal" partnership by those now trying to nullify it.Thats "you"I agree on one point"you"can't have it both ways."You" stuffed it up."you"now live with the consequencies.
Robin
Posted on 18-02-2014 08:57 | By Anbob
I have never been 'in denial” and or been disrespectful; my views of the Treaty are just different to yours. Crown & Maori's view of the principles have changed, (Pendegrast was my example of that) and there is every likelihood that they will change again in the future (evolve). Despite who wrote the Treaty, it is still open to misinterpretation and semantics by its amateur content. "Unwritten" customs embodying the principles which underlie the mode of gov't of a nation” is NZ's current situation with its written and unwritten constitution. Maybe it is best not to have a written constitution and leave things as they are! We agree to disagree. Thank you.
Anbob,
Posted on 19-02-2014 12:00 | By robin bell
my comment regarding"denial and disrespect"was not aimed at you.However it is true to say,you did join this "conversation"in support of one of the most disrespectful contributors.'Denial"is in respect of the responsibility we all have to find a"peaceful and respectful"way through this mess.I attended the meetings held by Ansell and Round.I also listened to the attempt by Sir Michael Cullen,to explain the purpose of the Review.All of these meetings were marred by a total lack of respect for Maori.I was ashamed of the behaviour of my race.Extreme minorities always try to spread thier passion to the more reasonable majority,by using insult and misrepresentation of the truth.It was Jean Paul Satre who said,"Like all dreamers,I often confuse misconception with truth."We are all dreamers Anbob,I just hope your"dream"doesn't destroy mine.Perhaps the"status quo"is best for all.Robin Bell.
.Denialist apologist Anbob
Posted on 19-02-2014 13:32 | By crazyhorse
Is what you are dealing with here. It's a waste of time reasoning with Bell, he only listens to his small group of "revisionist" historian's and doesn't even agree with a lot maori them selves have to say, thanks for making it so plain and clear the reasons for not "entrenching" the treaty in a written constitution. A good examlpe of Bell's bull #### is now saying maori did not beg for the treaty, anyone who has read any New Zealand history knows for a fact maori wanted and needed the treaty for protection from them selves and the French, imagine if there had been no treaty signed and the Pom's left the Frog's to it , we would not be having this conversation and the food would certainly be of a much higher standard
Robin
Posted on 19-02-2014 13:59 | By Anbob
Fair enough and kind regards
Thank you Anbob,
Posted on 22-02-2014 12:00 | By robin bell
and the same wishes to you.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.