- The fundamental purpose of the NZ Government is to uphold the interests of the Crown. That is why MPs swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs, and not to the people of NZ or the Treaty of Waitangi. That would mean becoming a republic. - Nandor Tanczos
- Vita Black But some Maori themselves say they don't want to be a republic because they treaty is with the crown. So if we become a republic no more treaty. NO more treaty claims. It is the same reason they want to maintain our current flag.l
- Vita Black I'm referring to the Maori version.
- Nandor Tanczos The current constitutional framework does not allow Te Tiriti to be given effect because it only recognises one sovereign power - the Crown. That is why the current system is incapable of recognising the tino rangatiratanga of hapu (and why the Government ties itself in knots when anyone raises the issue)
- Nandor Tanczos also - the Crown was happy to ditch the Treaty decades ago. Have a look at the Prendergast decision, also the Privy Council decision in Te Heu Heu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board (1941). The authority of the treaty does not come from the Crown, but from the refusal of Maori to give it up. Why would that change under a republic?
- Vita Black My understanding of this and this is from Maori primarily is because the agreement is with the crown. It is being given effect to some extent by the Waitangi Tribunal. And you must know this Nandor. Because there would be no one to have an agreement with effectively. Whether they like it or not the crown signed up for this. Maori are holding them to account. Who will they hold to account if there is no crown.
- Wells Tao Thanks Nandor Tanczos, I've been missing that info in my schema
- Wells Tao "On the issue of the nature of the Treaty of Waitangi (obiter), Prendergast argued that the Treaty was not one of cession, "[n]o body politic existed capable of making cession of sovereignty."59 Cession of sovereignty can only be made by a body that has sovereignty and Prendergast decided that "savages" did not have this vital power. Therefore the Treaty, as a legal instrument ceding sovereignty, was a nullity."
- Vita Black i dont agree. They wouldn't have needed a treaty an agreement in the first place if there was no crown.
- Vita Black Remember ing too they had no written language before the crown came. over here
- Wells Tao In 1941 the Privy Council heard his case - Te Heuheu Tūkino v Aotea District Maori Land Board. The Law Lords ruled that unless it was incorporated into New Zealand statutes the Treaty was not legally binding. This remains the current position in New Zealand law. Hoani Te Heuheu died of tuberculosis in 1944 http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/hoani-te-heuheu-tukino-vi
- Nandor Tanczos Vita, Wells' comment is on point. The Treaty actually gave Maori very little - it simply affirmed what they already had. If the Treaty didn't exist, they would still have a right to claim their tino rangatiratanga and justice for lands taken and lives lost.
The (toothless) tribunal was set up in response to Maori demands. It doesn't actually protect Maori because all it has are advisory powers. The Government basically decides what it will do about any past injustice - based on what it thinks it can get away with. The Queen looks the other way. - Vita Black You are missing the point I was trying to make. I'll get back to you on this.
- Nandor Tanczos ok.
- Nandor Tanczos Interesting discussion, thanks Vita and Wells. Just wanted to add that the tribunal doesn't actually give effect to Te Tiriti - it simply investigates breaches and makes recommendations. Giving effect to Te Tiriti would mean changing the constitution.
Wells Tao gives some ideas about reasons going into the treaty... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOx3QyjxIs
Like · Remove Preview · 3 mins
No comments:
Post a Comment