Theres 3 problems with all your comments one is just so manifestly wrong its hard to believe youre not 5yo -- in the order you made them . 1) An apartheid system is done by a powerful coloniser to indigenous in every case its used/referred to -Sth Africa/,Israel. USA south post 1865 . Even if you twisted its meaning to mean separate policys for Maori and British coloniser immigrants, the treatys a partnership and from Labours point of view is trying to fulfil the as per treaty as partnership in a very limited way, in a system under NZ coloniser government . You should be grateful its being done in blended limited way as opposed to the actual treaty meaning . If the treaty were actually fulfilled as written then it would be 2 separate governing systems . Notwithstanding this particular point could be debated 2) According to oxford definition there are principles in the treaty as the treatys the founding document that allowed Queen to govern in Nu Turani . Which has eventuated in the NZ Government . If there arent any principles in he treaty as basis , then the NZ government is unlawful. 1) Theres 3 articles and a preamble in the treaty and a 1835 document called He Whakaputanga, which Maori argue the treaty was subordinate to aka the child of.
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 You have lost the plot, the meaning of The Treaty and the wishes of your Ancestors Malcolm. Research apostrophe, there's a good chap.
@@gregwaghorn8496 and what about you Colonisers, you know your history pido, rapist, murdered. Lies, cheat, steal, nice Democracy. Yeah Right. Nazism is Racism.
Yes and why doesn't he speak up about this? The biased and undemocratic Waitangi tribunal needs to be abolished also, it is loaded with Maori activists who are out to serve their own agendas, they are not representative of the majority of NewZealanders. F... them
He has stated this view since Act put forward the bill. However, I think the MM are deliberately not explaining his reason for not supporting it to imply he favours the principles.
Yes all the players who need to step up are leaving the gate wide open....and not getting this finalised once and for all. We all need to move on as a nation without this minority BS
@@active160A1835 Declaration of Independence declared Maori Sovereignty. 1835 over rides The Treaty of Waitangi & any Crown racist legislation under colonial NZ Govt
1835 Declaration of Independence declared Maori Sovereignty. 1835 over rides The Treaty of Waitangi & any Crown racist legislation under colonial NZ Govt
I don’t agree, if he had principles he wouldn’t have joined Labour in coalition in 2017 where the clearest of mandates was with National and he made his grievances with members of National at the time choose to side with Labour who weren’t even close to National on votes. The aforementioned siding with Labour led us to this mess we’re in now among chief of which is energy shortage due to Labour shutting down energy sector exploration and despite this being reversed under this administration no one want to invest in exploration of energy here because of the uncertainty of any future government policies screwing them over. When it gets down to it when you’re being asked to conserve energy in the coming months and years you can go right back to Winston turning his back on the mandate given by the voter in the 2017 elections.
the thing about politicians is the same with ordinary people, your not gonna agree with a hundred percent of what they say and do, with winnie its no different, I agree with sarge in that he did pull a swifty on national and teaming up with labour had its consequences although I'm not sure we really would have been much better under national during those times from what I remember collins was hardline about shutting borders and vax passes etc
No, you are quite wrong. Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man. Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation. But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country, and then cover up his real motive for not supporting Seymour's Bill.
Great questions, Sean, we need the Coalition to come out and say they are changing the law to state that there are no longer legal or valid reasons to cite treaty principles in any instances....we voters want something done about this ...
Lange was angry with Maori for putting a stop to Rogernomics and the hocking off of state owned assets when Maori won a court injunction to the SOE Act. Had Maori not done that, this country would be wholly privatised. The fight aint over however - 40 years later those multi corporations are back in the guise of lobbysists who seem to have bought our members of this Govt!
@@John-c7i4m A country where all NZers are treated equally regardless of race. You heard Winnie describing Tuku Morgan's rant. Hes been on the Treaty gravy train forever and has every reason to keep it going. So he promotes s a victim mentality among Maori and incites anger. Rather, Maori, like all NZers are fortunate enough to live in one of the best countries that has ever existed. In the whole world, life doesn't really get any better than it is in NZ. Maori need leaders that instill positivity. We've had 30 years of treaty settlements. Is the average Maori any better off? Time to move on
The NZ Govt is not the treaty partner please get it right. How is it that the crown cannot return whatever assets they acquired unjustly back to Māori? I don’t believe any New Zealander should foot that bill. Last year I came to understand that Māori are in a partnership with a partner that shape shifts, one minute the crown then the NZ Govt. and to boot a Govt that less than half NZers voted for.
Winston is absolutely right - there are no 'Treaty principles' to re-define. The 3 Treaty clauses are absolutely clear (even in the Maori version). (1) The Crown is government in perpetuity (no 'partnership' mentioned). (2) Maori get to keep their lands (and other property) unless they decide to sell them to the Crown. (3) Maori acquire all the rights and duties of other British subjects. Thats it! The 'Treaty Principles' have been fabricated over 50 years in an attempt to extend the scope and application of the Treaty to anything and everything. Its about time the grift was stopped in its tracks.
Maori are Sovereign subjects of the United Kingdom. They have equal status as King Charles III. Don't misunderstand this important fact. Treaty's can only be made between two Sovereign people.
@@chaztawhai6090 Maori have never lost tino rangatiratanga over their retained land, property and culture (Article 2). However Maori do not have the right to exercise the function of Government over the country as a whole. This was ceded to the British Crown (Article 1), and is now practically exercised through the constitutional framework of the New Zealand Parliamentary system.
Not just policy but operating processes For example there is an organisation that does some amazing work in the social housing space - that has a real issue with keeping it's Tennants safe...due to drug usage and violence - the police and St johns are there on average once a week and the cost on the tax payers is huge. The situation became so bad that the manager of the facility put a proposal to the board to base a community constable at the facility which the board vetoed on the basis that it would impact the organisation financially. It seems offering tax payer funded housing to drug dealers and gang members and turning a profit is more important than client safety and in the words of the chair - we set this organization up to benefit our people not to aid in the imprisonment and colonisation of our people. Ya just can't make this stuff up and if luxon thinks this isn't going to cost him votes to nzf and act at the next election he's in for a very rude shock..there's a few current national ministers that won't have seats in a few years time and they won't be happy.
Me too! It was my best vote ever and while everyone laughed and said it was a wasted vote, this vote was the most meaningful vote because Winston brought National across the line.
I don't - for the very reason that Winston said. There is no point discussing and trying to define a mythical thing. There are no principles to discuss.
except the other two have done nothing, David has started a process that need support, and yes if that is to recind all modern re-interpreting the Treaty they should have stood up and said it by now, weak leadership, I hope their voters remember, I will submit that the whole lot including the Waitangi Tribunal get shut down as was promised years ago, Remember Heln Clarke promising by 2008, people have short memories when they profit! time to end it all, if thats what comes out of the bill I'm all for it!
@@MartinCraig-zt2sv They'll never get PM with all the brainwashed sheep like you in this country but im still gunna vote for them (didnt last time). They'll get more than 6% this time for sure. Shane Jones is doing really good work in the mining sector and that.
Mr Peters' said that the treaty principles, dont' exist, and the fact they are still being cited and not challenged....Mr Seymours' Bill is challenging the use of the treaty principles...so Mr Peters', Mr Luxon why are you not supporting the Bill as a challenge to the "principles" Help David Seymour draw a line under it for all our sakes.
Well said, couldn't agree more. 👏 especially Luxon, without Act and NZ first this man would be struggling to run this country, he would be getting more crap thrown at him than he does now, without Winnie and David there that's for sure, he would be more of a sitting duck for this tpm larrickin racist party. Luxon should definitely be supporting David Seymour, he's a coward in my opinion, he won't get my vote next time, David will.
Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man. Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation. But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
Problem became apparent when Labour began writing the Treaty into Government Department and inclusively Local Government allowed Iwi to have unelective seat.
Yep - I agree with both Seymour and Winnie - either state legally there are no principles (Winnie) or define them so agree on what they say (David Seymour).
He's right, there are no imaginary principles. The treaty is a historical document and should be historicized. Attempting to make it central or constitutional, where our politics are somehow supposed to be treaty-centric, is a huge mistake... and would turn this country into a banana republic.
I will express Article 1,2,3 In simple laymen terms. Article 1: We welcome you (pakeha) to our land (Aotearoa) and we will look after you. But you have to bring order and governance to your own people. Simple right? We already had complete Authority and sovereignty (Tino Rangatiratanga status) over ourselves. We didnt need you or your foreign Authourity over our culture land wealth and resources. Your thinking is utter nonsense. Article 2: Do not touch our land, language, culture or any of our belongings. Your welcome to set yourselves up. But these things belong to us. Dont touch our shit!? Dont touch any of it! Simple right? But you stole everything! Article 3: Your Queen has sent people over here because your people have been unrulely bastards! Playing up like drunk whalers who cant sort themselves out. This treaty is about yous sorting your shit out to govern your own. Not us! Simple right. It doesnt need to be over complicated. So where did it all go wrong?? It all went wrong when you tried to make us british subjects or equal too. Huh? We are the land lords of our land and we invited you here you dumb gunts. We are not equal. You pay us rent. Your here on our terms and conditions. Simple right!?
yeah, The New Zealand Constitution Act 1853 is a historic document too, lets historicize that and get rid of the Government assembly and just go back to the Lieutenant Governor negotiating with the Tribes
NZF is not doing anything about it, he should be campaigning to get rid of waitangi treaty principles from parliament now, as ACT is highlighting it now and if NZF don't do anything now they will lose some of their votes to ACT
He has been stating this since Act put forward their bill. But it gets no reporting in MM, and I am surprised Sean can’t remember his view, as it was on the Platform that he first explained NZF’s stance.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a three sentence document, signed by one representative of Queen Victoria and SOME (not all) of the Maori chiefs who were active in 1840. It says first of all that NZ citizens are all equal subjects of Queen Victoria. And secondly, it explicitly upholds existing property rights. Mr Peters is quite right that it's ridiculous to have references to "principles of the treaty" in NZ laws written in the 20th and 21st centures. But it IS sensible to uphold (1) the equality of all citizens and (2) **the inviolability of property rights**. We are now being told (by a globalist cabal that wants to destroy all nation states, largely by upsetting everyone so much that they will WANT a global government) that we're NOT all equal and that property rights no longer exist. Sections of land owned by individuals can be designated BY FIAT inaccessible to the owners, they say -- and this is being enforced IN NZ by paid bureaucratic shills of said globalists. This latter abolition of property rights is happening all over the world. Therefore the current Treaty Principles Bill IS useful, inasmuch as it explicitly upholds the two principles of (1) equality of all citizens (which some Maori radicals are loudly disputing, claiming that they are more equal than everyone else) AND (2) PROPERTY RIGHTS (which the paid globalists among us are simply doing away with, because the UN and the WEF are paying them to do so). In other words, it seems to me obvious that The Treaty of Waitangi is being USED to push a blatant power grab by the United Nations. And I think it would be very sensible to view this legislation in that light.
Well said, Winston - if we have to define the treaty through courts and accedemia, then something is very wrong. This will be a nightmare. This treaty is meant to unite people and should be understood by the common man and not by inuendo and clever legal acrobatics. There are 3 articles, plain and simple, as per Sir Apirana Ngata!
Luxon is an empty shell and only sees his position in government as an additition to his CV. Then he'll move on without a care for New Zealand or us ordinary citizens to continue to grow his CV. He's a driver by personality. Drivers do not care about anyone except for themselves.
Winston has made me change my mind. I was fully behind Seymour's bill until I heard Winston's very cogent argument. Makes a lot of sense. Why acknowledge something that doesn't exist! Great commonsense!
Winston's argument is pervasive but like a lawyer said to me this morning unless the principals are set in stone the child death rate in nz will continue to grow because OT have the principals written into there operating procedure and in legislative documents - removing them without defining them will cost billions in legal challenges and we end up back where we started.
Absolutely there are no principles in the Treaty. But the trouble is Mr Peters, many many people seem to think there are, including the organisations Sean mentioned. And the principles have been mentioned in various documents. I'm afraid it will continue. Can you be so sure that your National partners won't defer to it? And who's going to oversee the removal of references to the principles in all the many government and other documents?
Isn't that what David Seymour is trying to do. He categorically states there are only three articles. He wants them alone written into law. There needs to be a referendum.
David's idea is clever considering the already entrenched 1000s of principles and obligations the Maoris have concocted and disseminated like a cancer. 3 simple statements basically a repeat of the 3 Treaty articles for dummies, I sincerely hope he places a ban on translation to Te Reo!
We need a Citizens' Initiated referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill. If Luxon and Peters won't stand up for equality before the law and democracy for all NZers then the citizens of the country should take things into their own hands. The voice of the majority should be heard.
@@bert454 where you from settler? I'm from new Zealand i was born here and its the only country i have, i have no other. once again it should not be Māori and non-Māori it should be we are all humans and all new Zealanders and we deserve to have the same rights. you speak as if we are to different peoples and not all kiwis, one day god forbid we are viewed as all the same.
If you want a CIR, then get on with it. Or do you want someone else to do all the work? But also understand a CIR is not binding on any government to enact.
I agree with Winston that the Treaty is a document with 3 Articles. There are no principles in the treaty, they are a revisionist social construct. The references to principals must be removed from NZ legislation.
There are No principles in the Treaty of Waitangi. You need to read it correctly. Ask yourself what a principle is? Everything written in the Treaty of Waitangi is Sovereign Law. This is Fact. Sovereign Law cannot be changed by any one, Government or Politician, or Head of State or Head of a Movement, or any Law of the Land. Sovereign Law remains for all eternity. Hextoken, is merely a Media platform to communicate across a spectrum. It holds No Sovereign Right at all. It's a Media platform and it fuels those that have no exact idea of the Treaty of Waitangi. Including Sean himself. Thats why he is asking the questions. And that's why everyone has given their own opinions.
The Treaty Principles were created in 1975. The Treaty Pinciples don't exist in the original Treaty of Waitangi. For example, there is no mention of the word "partnership" in the treaty. Other terms like "good-faith" or "redress" might exist in your employment contract but they don't exist in the treaty.
No mention of Maori either cos they were a new creation baptised into Tikanga Christianity to lead a civil, respectful prosperous life we all should be helped out of those barbaric situations I think the former natives made the right choice I honour those Treaty Chiefs and the relic document of the past.
Good on you Winston. If that is what he believes, why doesn't his party move to have the so called "principles" removed from ALL NZ laws and legislation retrospectively. I'm sure that would stop ACT's Bill and all the BS from Maori and TVNZ and RNZ for next 1000 years.
Wondering how treaty has been of any benefit in my life till now. Nope can’t think how ha ha got more benefit out of reading personal development and financial management books
Let's be real, we are officially divided by ethnicity in this country ffs! Why am I recorded as Māori, while being 90/% European??? Clowns like Winston know why.... successive governments have been the same. Whenever he says 'Māori' in a general sense, hes dividing us. Someone should ask him, "Are you European? Māori? Or both?.. and "What are you recorded as by the government??? Then ask why are we still divided by ethnicity, in 2024?? 'Divide and conquer'
Let’s see what happens when the Bill goes to the first reading …… Seymour will be more than happy with this interpretation. Imagine the debate ….. Hipkins: “The principles in this Bill …. bla, bla, bla …..do not do justice to the Treaty principles!”. Seymour: “Honourable H, can you please name the principles of the Treaty?” Hipkins”Whaaaaat!” Peters “I told you so!”😂😂
If the Govt doesn't eradicate all references to phantom principles then there's going to be escalating tension because you left it too long its got entrenched now we have a crisis you gotta be ruthless get rid of the terror today!
In legal contexts, the document's text, signatures, and date are what matter, not the unwritten principles or understandings that may have evolved over time. The signed document is the primary source of its legal authority and obligations.
Winston has been in parliament for a very long time and has been the King maker in many governments. Yet he still does nothing but talk tuff. It is Time he showed he is more than just talk!
Winston and David Seymour seem to be on the same page regarding the Treaty's "Principles" or non-principles, but what is Winston proposing to do about removing any reference to the "Principles." I agree, they were cooked up in elite academic circles and were made deliberately vague and open to a confusing array of interpretations to suit a privileged few. Get together and sort it out because Luxon seems to be dragging his heels on this one.
Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man. Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation. But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
National's unwillingness to correct the racist discrimination caused by the principles of the treaty, just delays the inevitable when physical action will be necessary.
Excellent interviewing Sean. Peters is duplicituous and self serving. Peters maintains there are no Treaty principles. That is all Seymour is asking for. For God's sake Peters - grow a spine.
No it is not what Seymour is asking for - He wants to work on defining something that is fiction. The fiction must be removed from all legislation and government department directives.
It goes against Winstons principles to pretend there are principles. You can't back something that doesn't exist to start with. Seymours bill is actually going to bring legitimacy to non existent principles so counter productive. So many people haven't understood and think he is reneging and backing Luxons stance , faaar from the truth. He has a much harder line on the Treaty than Seymour actually and a much simpler way of achieving it than all the fanfare of Acts bill.
He means we don't need to have a meeting, debate or whatever about the mythical principles. They are clauses which don't need changing but we all need to move on .
Let me try to explain to you for my own understanding as well. Winston is saying that there are no 'principles'. He refers to prominent scholarly Maori politicians of the last century who did not mention anything about so-called principles being in the ToW. So, he is saying that Seymour need not press for a debate in Parliament where he wants to introduce the Treaty Principles' Bill. This principles nonsense has been cooked up by certain university academics and politicians with socialist leanings, which Maori activist groups have latched on to. To put a stop to this nonsense, Shane Jones wants to do away with the Waitangi Tribunal which is perpetuating this nonsense. Anyone else want to improve on this, go ahead.
@@francisheperi4180that was well put for us that didn't quite get the whole bs. My understanding of the treaty is It was signed by tribal leaders and a few pakeha so nz was a one nation with equal rights. That's my understanding of it. No principles in it that i know of
@@francisheperi4180 thats ok…so what is nz firsts stance on various authorities making the rules as they go…that is the whole problem…if there are no rules its open to rorting ..as we are seeing at present…how will nz first stop it?
Well, well the problem of those (constructed) principles of the Treaty (a real document) was laid bare in the interview. Good to hear the old warhorse put it so clearly.
Pity he has chosen to do nothing to fix the re-interpritaions all the same, lack of leadership by Winston, never vote for him again, do not trust him either! go David
The treaty principles aren't the Treaty articles. Definitely need defining as nobody can argue their interpretations aren't slanted and changed as necessary to mitigate what the treaty actually intended. All to the detriment of New Zealanders.
I will express Article 1,2,3 In simple laymen terms. Article 1: We welcome you (pakeha) to our land (Aotearoa) and we will look after you. But you have to bring order and governance to your own people. Simple right? We already had complete Authority and sovereignty (Tino Rangatiratanga status) over ourselves. We didnt need you or your foreign Authourity over our culture land wealth and resources. Your thinking is utter nonsense. Article 2: Do not touch our land, language, culture or any of our belongings. Your welcome to set yourselves up. But these things belong to us. Dont touch our shit!? Dont touch any of it! Simple right? But you stole everything! Article 3: Your Queen has sent people over here because your people have been unrulely bastards! Playing up like drunk whalers who cant sort themselves out. This treaty is about yous sorting your shit out to govern your own. Not us! Simple right. It doesnt need to be over complicated. So where did it all go wrong?? It all went wrong when you tried to make us british subjects or equal too. Huh? We are the land lords of our land and we invited you here you dumb gunts. We are not equal. You pay us rent. Your here on our terms and conditions. Simple right!?
David Seymour and ACT seem (because we haven't seen the actual legislation yet) to be going down the path of defining principles in legislation that align with the articles of the 1840 treaty. Winston and NZ First have in their coalition agreement the stated objective that references to treaty principles should be removed from legislation and policy statements by government funded entities. As far as I am aware we are yet to see any amendments introduced to Parliament by NZ First to make this happen. David Seymour and ACT's approach seems to me to be a simpler and more pragmatic way to achieve this objective whereas NZ First has yet to put their coalition agreement objective into action.
WP has had decades to get rid of any reference to the "principles". Instead he put into power the last Labour govt that turbocharged them. He seems to be reluctant to support the TPB because it's ACT's. So what? This govt has a chance to set out a road map for a NZ where your rights don't depend on your ancestry. Let's seize the chance.
The trouble with "defining the Treaty Principles " as Act wants to do is that it makes room for lawyers to get in and create mayhem. I recently read this comment that was along the lines of; "good ideas are killed by legislation".
surely both sides must agree. After all its a treaty. Not a crown government document and the treaty is exactly for that reason, no one side can decided change alone.
The reason why Winston is maze talking his way around the question is because there are alot of people making tons of money out of this, which I believe have over the years become institutions.
including Politicians and ex-Politicians, Tax Payer getting Screwed by them all, including Winston........go David, open this rot up indeed, will get my vote!
@@NevAdrienneAugust Except Seymour will open the country to exploitation by multi national corporations regarding our mineral wealth. National will happily sell anything to please the billionaires("Hey Larry Fink, did I do good Larry, huh, I did good didn't I Larry huh"(Luxon kissing Billioniare a$$). So walking tracks will no longer be availible to the public because mining operations will own the land and thats just the beginning. So the Treaty saves us from this happening, sadly thats changing.
Well National, NZ First have lost my vote……I can only vote ACT! …….Let’s get rid of the bull shit…..Winston, you have tossed the towel in! Bang my vote has gone!
Good job getting to NZF's solution, Sean. Why can't they just state that in their first sentence? 1) We don't like the TPB as we have a better solution.
Because Winston was all talk......now he is in..............at the trough, for a good time, not to get this done, shut it all down........go David, its a start!
Peter's position is a fail dose not answer the BIG question. 1 Do NZ Citizens want a country where there are 2 classes of citizens, where 1class is valued more because of their RACE. or A country where ALL people are treated EQUAL regardless of RACE
The Treaty has multiple meanings except the truth which only they lived not us, don't speak for the dead or try to alter the course of history both races agreed together we have no right to interfere
I am losing trust in our media and government. Who fricken cares about the word "principle"?! It isn't a bluidy instruction. It's a standard and quality that one chooses to live by, closely followed by integrity and honesty.
Why do my representatives turn up there to be abused? It's OK for childish iwi leaders to walk out on a Luxon meeting? I'm sick of the endless koreo, like this. Where's the action?
I will believe Winston when he states his position in the mainstream media. Until then, it looks and smells like Luxton's apathetic approach to the #1 issue in NZ.
It goes against Winstons principles to pretend there are principles. You can't back something that doesn't exist to start with. Seymours bill is actually going to bring legitimacy to non existent principles so counter productive. So many people haven't understood and think he is reneging and backing Luxons stance , faaar from the truth. He has a much harder line on the Treaty than Seymour actually and a much simpler way of achieving it than all the fanfare of Acts bill.
@@MartinCraig-zt2sv Thats the whole problem with locking an ancient document in terms of a literal interpretation into current circumstances. Time moves on. The second clause clearly specified that Maori retained land held in native title, OR they could sell to the Crown. Back then most land was in native title. Today almost all is in crown derived title- so taking it literally the second clause is defunct. Further today NZ is a democracy with an elected government not a Crown colony with an authoritarian governor- which changes it again, as you cant have one subset of the electors in partnership with the whole set, it is a legal fiction. It would be like trying to apply the Magna Carta of Britain in literal terms to the British Constitution- the situation has changed so much that most of it is obsolete. However the fundamental principles remain. Which is what, I think, Seymour is trying to do with the second clause- under the present arrangements all holders of Crown derived titles have an equal right of protection- but trying to fit the wording of an ancient document into that context is like trying to fit Cinderellas glass slipper to an elephant.
We need to remove Labours apartheid setup in New Zealand. There were no principles. Only Articles.
Theres 3 problems with all your comments one is just so manifestly wrong its hard to believe youre not 5yo -- in the order you made them .
1) An apartheid system is done by a powerful coloniser to indigenous in every case its used/referred to -Sth Africa/,Israel. USA south post 1865 . Even if you twisted its meaning to mean separate policys for Maori and British coloniser immigrants, the treatys a partnership and from Labours point of view is trying to fulfil the as per treaty as partnership in a very limited way, in a system under NZ coloniser government . You should be grateful its being done in blended limited way as opposed to the actual treaty meaning . If the treaty were actually fulfilled as written then it would be 2 separate governing systems . Notwithstanding this particular point could be debated
2) According to oxford definition there are principles in the treaty as the treatys the founding document that allowed Queen to govern in Nu Turani . Which has eventuated in the NZ Government . If there arent any principles in he treaty as basis , then the NZ government is unlawful.
1) Theres 3 articles and a preamble in the treaty and a 1835 document called He Whakaputanga, which Maori argue the treaty was subordinate to aka the child of.
Apartheid, means the separation of people by race/ethnicity.
Which 'crown' government ethnicity box do you tick?
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940hi. The treaty is invalid
There was only waring tribes of Maori who were never indigenous
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 You have lost the plot, the meaning of The Treaty and the wishes of your Ancestors Malcolm. Research apostrophe, there's a good chap.
Apartheid Israel if you got balls.
Time to close down the Waitangi Tribunal
Tauiwi.
Everything Msori is racism and Separatism
@@gregwaghorn8496 and what about you Colonisers, you know your history pido, rapist, murdered. Lies, cheat, steal, nice Democracy. Yeah Right. Nazism is Racism.
@@gregwaghorn8496 Anglo-Saxon Colonisers spread their Filth, everywhere. Ew
@@jonathanbuck6526 ban the cheaty
Mr Peters needs to say this to the tax payer media
Yes and why doesn't he speak up about this? The biased and undemocratic Waitangi tribunal needs to be abolished also, it is loaded with Maori activists who are out to serve their own agendas, they are not representative of the majority of NewZealanders. F... them
😅
Thay will not listen
Plunet is a waste of time he is a lefty.
He has stated this view since Act put forward the bill. However, I think the MM are deliberately not explaining his reason for not supporting it to imply he favours the principles.
Come on Winston. If there are no principles then take them out of all legislation.
Yes all the players who need to step up are leaving the gate wide open....and not getting this finalised once and for all. We all need to move on as a nation without this minority BS
@ObiePaddles yep, Winston and Shane Jones seem happy to let the gravy keep flowing, just trying to do it a little more on the downlow.
@@active160A1835 Declaration of Independence declared Maori Sovereignty. 1835 over rides The Treaty of Waitangi & any Crown racist legislation under colonial NZ Govt
1835 Declaration of Independence declared Maori Sovereignty. 1835 over rides The Treaty of Waitangi & any Crown racist legislation under colonial NZ Govt
@@julietomana3937 1840 is later than 1835.
Good ole Winston... a man of principle.... knows his stuff....
I've come round to his position on this
I don’t agree, if he had principles he wouldn’t have joined Labour in coalition in 2017 where the clearest of mandates was with National and he made his grievances with members of National at the time choose to side with Labour who weren’t even close to National on votes.
The aforementioned siding with Labour led us to this mess we’re in now among chief of which is energy shortage due to Labour shutting down energy sector exploration and despite this being reversed under this administration no one want to invest in exploration of energy here because of the uncertainty of any future government policies screwing them over.
When it gets down to it when you’re being asked to conserve energy in the coming months and years you can go right back to Winston turning his back on the mandate given by the voter in the 2017 elections.
except he was part of the first Ardern Government, he should know very well why we need this conversation
the thing about politicians is the same with ordinary people, your not gonna agree with a hundred percent of what they say and do, with winnie its no different, I agree with sarge in that he did pull a swifty on national and teaming up with labour had its consequences although I'm not sure we really would have been much better under national during those times from what I remember collins was hardline about shutting borders and vax passes etc
No, you are quite wrong. Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air.
Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man.
Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level.
So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour.
It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out.
The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting.
Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation.
But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy.
Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country, and then cover up his real motive for not supporting Seymour's Bill.
Great questions, Sean, we need the Coalition to come out and say they are changing the law to state that there are no longer legal or valid reasons to cite treaty principles in any instances....we voters want something done about this ...
You are misinformed
@@andreatodd3095 woke mindedness.
Is better than being a brainwashed puppet
@@rikimackey7984 I thought all the brainwashed puppets all just walked down to Wellington, including the school kids.
@@rikimackey7984 The miss informed are brain washed Muppets
To quote David Lange,
“ Queen Victoria was not in the habit of entering into partnership with a whole lot of thumbprints”.
Tee hee hee.
Hence the treaty is a fraudulent false lie to steal Maori land wealth and resources. THIEVING RACIST THIEVING BASTARDS!!!!
Lange was angry with Maori for putting a stop to Rogernomics and the hocking off of state owned assets when Maori won a court injunction to the SOE Act. Had Maori not done that, this country would be wholly privatised. The fight aint over however - 40 years later those multi corporations are back in the guise of lobbysists who seem to have bought our members of this Govt!
And yet ,she did..
Fortunately New Zealand never was her nation. The types of people that are opposed to Maori are tge ones with no ancestral history like Seymour.
HOOORRRRAAHH!...At Last....thank god winston...make it KNOWN to NZ.. GET RID OF THE NON EXSISTANT PRINCIPLES
@@roslynhita6149 so…what is the outcome you foresee as a result?
@@John-c7i4m A country where all NZers are treated equally regardless of race. You heard Winnie describing Tuku Morgan's rant. Hes been on the Treaty gravy train forever and has every reason to keep it going. So he promotes s a victim mentality among Maori and incites anger. Rather, Maori, like all NZers are fortunate enough to live in one of the best countries that has ever existed. In the whole world, life doesn't really get any better than it is in NZ. Maori need leaders that instill positivity. We've had 30 years of treaty settlements. Is the average Maori any better off? Time to move on
@@roslynhita6149 does that mean all equal..no racism?
@@John-c7i4m yes it does user
The NZ Govt is not the treaty partner please get it right. How is it that the crown cannot return whatever assets they acquired unjustly back to Māori? I don’t believe any New Zealander should foot that bill. Last year I came to understand that Māori are in a partnership with a partner that shape shifts, one minute the crown then the NZ Govt. and to boot a Govt that less than half NZers voted for.
Abolish the Waitangi tribunal
Tauiwi
Well said 👏
Absolutely right ✅️
Dreamer
@@scwarrior7347 so are you loser to God Kingdom..
Winston is absolutely right - there are no 'Treaty principles' to re-define. The 3 Treaty clauses are absolutely clear (even in the Maori version). (1) The Crown is government in perpetuity (no 'partnership' mentioned). (2) Maori get to keep their lands (and other property) unless they decide to sell them to the Crown. (3) Maori acquire all the rights and duties of other British subjects. Thats it! The 'Treaty Principles' have been fabricated over 50 years in an attempt to extend the scope and application of the Treaty to anything and everything. Its about time the grift was stopped in its tracks.
Maori are Sovereign subjects of the United Kingdom. They have equal status as King Charles III. Don't misunderstand this important fact. Treaty's can only be made between two Sovereign people.
@@chaztawhai6090 Maori have never lost tino rangatiratanga over their retained land, property and culture (Article 2). However Maori do not have the right to exercise the function of Government over the country as a whole. This was ceded to the British Crown (Article 1), and is now practically exercised through the constitutional framework of the New Zealand Parliamentary system.
@@chaztawhai6090Maori bent the knee to their superiors
@@tHoM0r Don't be that guy
@@tHoM0rtēnā koe Tuhinga o mua whai i te crap
Winnie is right but the mythical principles are being added to policy etc, so mythical or not they are being acted upon.
Not just policy but operating processes
For example there is an organisation that does some amazing work in the social housing space - that has a real issue with keeping it's Tennants safe...due to drug usage and violence - the police and St johns are there on average once a week and the cost on the tax payers is huge.
The situation became so bad that the manager of the facility put a proposal to the board to base a community constable at the facility which the board vetoed on the basis that it would impact the organisation financially.
It seems offering tax payer funded housing to drug dealers and gang members and turning a profit is more important than client safety and in the words of the chair - we set this organization up to benefit our people not to aid in the imprisonment and colonisation of our people.
Ya just can't make this stuff up and if luxon thinks this isn't going to cost him votes to nzf and act at the next election he's in for a very rude shock..there's a few current national ministers that won't have seats in a few years time and they won't be happy.
I'm so glad I voted for this man 😊
@@ZaneLike great..so can you please explain his policy about this..i dont understand it?
Me too! It was my best vote ever and while everyone laughed and said it was a wasted vote, this vote was the most meaningful vote because Winston brought National across the line.
You are allowed one mistake
There is one principle, we are one people. No need for interpretation
Look around. We ain't one people 😅
We are not one people or british subject PEASANTS!! WAKE UP!!!!
We're not one people anymore We are seriously divided .And if you're a white No one cares what you say or think anymore
No we are not
@@Vara169 No we're not one people anymore. They have successfully divided us And everything is based on race now
I support ACT and it's treaty principles bill.
I dont
I dont
@@roslynhita6149 Okay, If you could explain why from your perspective?.
I don't - for the very reason that Winston said. There is no point discussing and trying to define a mythical thing. There are no principles to discuss.
@marksvideochannel3592 because there's no need. Waste of money and time. Nothing will come from it. Nice try seymour
If the intention of all 3 coalition govt. partners is to disallow/remove all references to the Treaty principles in legal documents - that's OK by me!
except the other two have done nothing, David has started a process that need support, and yes if that is to recind all modern re-interpreting the Treaty they should have stood up and said it by now, weak leadership, I hope their voters remember, I will submit that the whole lot including the Waitangi Tribunal get shut down as was promised years ago, Remember Heln Clarke promising by 2008, people have short memories when they profit! time to end it all, if thats what comes out of the bill I'm all for it!
Winston is the MAN. By God he knows his stuff He must become our PM
He shouldnt of gone to that marae yesterday.
Too old ...one trick pony
To become PM you need more than 6% of the vote
@@brianrassie3526 Shane Jones will be leading that party within the next two election cycles.
@@MartinCraig-zt2sv They'll never get PM with all the brainwashed sheep like you in this country but im still gunna vote for them (didnt last time). They'll get more than 6% this time for sure. Shane Jones is doing really good work in the mining sector and that.
Some people want to return to the stone age.
And drag the Nation down the drain 😢
Your more than welcome to fly back to your own land back in england where you come from you PEASANTS!!!!
Yes it was a much nicer place in the Stone age
Well this new age crap isn't working !!.😂😂😂 NZ
@@kw267 No it's not
Mr Peters' said that the treaty principles, dont' exist, and the fact they are still being cited and not challenged....Mr Seymours' Bill is challenging the use of the treaty principles...so Mr Peters', Mr Luxon why are you not supporting the Bill as a challenge to the "principles" Help David Seymour draw a line under it for all our sakes.
Well said, couldn't agree more. 👏 especially Luxon, without Act and NZ first this man would be struggling to run this country, he would be getting more crap thrown at him than he does now, without Winnie and David there that's for sure, he would be more of a sitting duck for this tpm larrickin racist party. Luxon should definitely be supporting David Seymour, he's a coward in my opinion, he won't get my vote next time, David will.
Referendum oon the whole lot this bs gone on long enough
That's not goin to happen bro
Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air.
Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man.
Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level.
So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour.
It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out.
The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting.
Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation.
But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy.
Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
@@stopcogovernance OH for goodness sake stop with the crap, we get so sick of hearing this propaganda. Its total bull dust.
Again Public vote problem solved it's called Democracy???
Problem became apparent when Labour began writing the Treaty into Government Department and inclusively Local Government allowed Iwi to have unelective seat.
Yep - I agree with both Seymour and Winnie - either state legally there are no principles (Winnie) or define them so agree on what they say (David Seymour).
He's right, there are no imaginary principles. The treaty is a historical document and should be historicized. Attempting to make it central or constitutional, where our politics are somehow supposed to be treaty-centric, is a huge mistake... and would turn this country into a banana republic.
I will express Article 1,2,3 In simple laymen terms.
Article 1: We welcome you (pakeha) to our land (Aotearoa) and we will look after you. But you have to bring order and governance to your own people.
Simple right? We already had complete Authority and sovereignty (Tino Rangatiratanga status) over ourselves. We didnt need you or your foreign Authourity over our culture land wealth and resources. Your thinking is utter nonsense.
Article 2: Do not touch our land, language, culture or any of our belongings. Your welcome to set yourselves up. But these things belong to us. Dont touch our shit!? Dont touch any of it!
Simple right? But you stole everything!
Article 3: Your Queen has sent people over here because your people have been unrulely bastards! Playing up like drunk whalers who cant sort themselves out. This treaty is about yous sorting your shit out to govern your own. Not us!
Simple right. It doesnt need to be over complicated. So where did it all go wrong?? It all went wrong when you tried to make us british subjects or equal too. Huh?
We are the land lords of our land and we invited you here you dumb gunts. We are not equal. You pay us rent. Your here on our terms and conditions.
Simple right!?
Well some people really like bananas 😂
Some people say we are already there
@@davethewave7248 Too many two faces on here lol
yeah, The New Zealand Constitution Act 1853 is a historic document too, lets historicize that and get rid of the Government assembly and just go back to the Lieutenant Governor negotiating with the Tribes
NZF is not doing anything about it, he should be campaigning to get rid of waitangi treaty principles from parliament now, as ACT is highlighting it now and if NZF don't do anything now they will lose some of their votes to ACT
He has been stating this since Act put forward their bill. But it gets no reporting in MM, and I am surprised Sean can’t remember his view, as it was on the Platform that he first explained NZF’s stance.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a three sentence document, signed by one representative of Queen Victoria and SOME (not all) of the Maori chiefs who were active in 1840. It says first of all that NZ citizens are all equal subjects of Queen Victoria. And secondly, it explicitly upholds existing property rights. Mr Peters is quite right that it's ridiculous to have references to "principles of the treaty" in NZ laws written in the 20th and 21st centures. But it IS sensible to uphold (1) the equality of all citizens and (2) **the inviolability of property rights**. We are now being told (by a globalist cabal that wants to destroy all nation states, largely by upsetting everyone so much that they will WANT a global government) that we're NOT all equal and that property rights no longer exist. Sections of land owned by individuals can be designated BY FIAT inaccessible to the owners, they say -- and this is being enforced IN NZ by paid bureaucratic shills of said globalists. This latter abolition of property rights is happening all over the world. Therefore the current Treaty Principles Bill IS useful, inasmuch as it explicitly upholds the two principles of (1) equality of all citizens (which some Maori radicals are loudly disputing, claiming that they are more equal than everyone else) AND (2) PROPERTY RIGHTS (which the paid globalists among us are simply doing away with, because the UN and the WEF are paying them to do so). In other words, it seems to me obvious that The Treaty of Waitangi is being USED to push a blatant power grab by the United Nations. And I think it would be very sensible to view this legislation in that light.
@susanpockett4314 100% The most important comment written here. Pay attention NZ as the globalists are coming for our land and rights to it.
Well said, Winston - if we have to define the treaty through courts and accedemia, then something is very wrong. This will be a nightmare. This treaty is meant to unite people and should be understood by the common man and not by inuendo and clever legal acrobatics. There are 3 articles, plain and simple, as per Sir Apirana Ngata!
I agree with Winston and support david they will sort this out but get no help from luxon
Luxon is an empty shell and only sees his position in government as an additition to his CV. Then he'll move on without a care for New Zealand or us ordinary citizens to continue to grow his CV. He's a driver by personality. Drivers do not care about anyone except for themselves.
So with out Luxton PLEASE tell us ALL how David & Winston will sort it out
@@alistermacpherson7120 through a proper process it may take time.......
Sellout!! The treaty must be clarified once and for all to unite NZ and stop the gravy train
Winston has made me change my mind. I was fully behind Seymour's bill until I heard Winston's very cogent argument. Makes a lot of sense. Why acknowledge something that doesn't exist! Great commonsense!
Winston's argument is pervasive but like a lawyer said to me this morning unless the principals are set in stone the child death rate in nz will continue to grow because OT have the principals written into there operating procedure and in legislative documents - removing them without defining them will cost billions in legal challenges and we end up back where we started.
So why has he not fixed the mess then?
A real solution from Winston then?
Absolutely there are no principles in the Treaty. But the trouble is Mr Peters, many many people seem to think there are, including the organisations Sean mentioned. And the principles have been mentioned in various documents. I'm afraid it will continue. Can you be so sure that your National partners won't defer to it? And who's going to oversee the removal of references to the principles in all the many government and other documents?
Of course there aren’t, but if you believe there are and say it often enough then it becomes fact. That’s what’s happened.
i agree we are screwed
Its a terminal cancer now.
A united front with Seymour on this would have been a better way to go
Isn't that what David Seymour is trying to do.
He categorically states there are only three articles.
He wants them alone written into law.
There needs to be a referendum.
David's idea is clever considering the already entrenched 1000s of principles and obligations the Maoris have concocted and disseminated like a cancer. 3 simple statements basically a repeat of the 3 Treaty articles for dummies, I sincerely hope he places a ban on translation to Te Reo!
We need a Citizens' Initiated referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill. If Luxon and Peters won't stand up for equality before the law and democracy for all NZers then the citizens of the country should take things into their own hands. The voice of the majority should be heard.
@@bert454 where you from settler? I'm from new Zealand i was born here and its the only country i have, i have no other. once again it should not be Māori and non-Māori it should be we are all humans and all new Zealanders and we deserve to have the same rights. you speak as if we are to different peoples and not all kiwis, one day god forbid we are viewed as all the same.
I agree, the people need to have their say about this treaty, it's held the country at ransome for far to long.
If you want a CIR, then get on with it. Or do you want someone else to do all the work?
But also understand a CIR is not binding on any government to enact.
I agree with Winston that the Treaty is a document with 3 Articles. There are no principles in the treaty, they are a revisionist social construct. The references to principals must be removed from NZ legislation.
I agree with hextoken. The "principles" are legal inventions What counts are the Articles. The Articles.
There are No principles in the Treaty of Waitangi. You need to read it correctly. Ask yourself what a principle is? Everything written in the Treaty of Waitangi is Sovereign Law. This is Fact. Sovereign Law cannot be changed by any one, Government or Politician, or Head of State or Head of a Movement, or any Law of the Land. Sovereign Law remains for all eternity. Hextoken, is merely a Media platform to communicate across a spectrum. It holds No Sovereign Right at all. It's a Media platform and it fuels those that have no exact idea of the Treaty of Waitangi. Including Sean himself. Thats why he is asking the questions. And that's why everyone has given their own opinions.
The Treaty Principles were created in 1975. The Treaty Pinciples don't exist in the original Treaty of Waitangi. For example, there is no mention of the word "partnership" in the treaty. Other terms like "good-faith" or "redress" might exist in your employment contract but they don't exist in the treaty.
No mention of Maori either cos they were a new creation baptised into Tikanga Christianity to lead a civil, respectful prosperous life we all should be helped out of those barbaric situations I think the former natives made the right choice I honour those Treaty Chiefs and the relic document of the past.
Good on you Winston. If that is what he believes, why doesn't his party move to have the so called "principles" removed from ALL NZ laws and legislation retrospectively. I'm sure that would stop ACT's Bill and all the BS from Maori and TVNZ and RNZ for next 1000 years.
Wondering how treaty has been of any benefit in my life till now. Nope can’t think how ha ha got more benefit out of reading personal development and financial management books
It's for the benefit of a class of Maori lawyers. I know them. They fast track their children through law school to perpetuate the grift.
So why didnt Shane Jones state that there are no principles of the treaty at the Marae instead of just saying they won't support the bill.
Let's be real, we are officially divided by ethnicity in this country ffs!
Why am I recorded as Māori, while being 90/% European???
Clowns like Winston know why.... successive governments have been the same.
Whenever he says 'Māori' in a general sense, hes dividing us.
Someone should ask him, "Are you European? Māori? Or both?.. and "What are you recorded as by the government???
Then ask why are we still divided by ethnicity, in 2024??
'Divide and conquer'
That’s your choice to be recorded as Māori surely?
@@johnr3150 Mate, I tick two boxes 'European/Māori'... which one do you think they use?
He's a Whitemans house nigga was well trained as lawyer and knows how to use the Inglish language to his and his slave bosses advantage
@@user-bw5ncwhy would you tick Maori if you’re 90% European?
@@MDL.720 Because I'm part Māori.
You miss the point, 'Why are we ticking ethnicity boxes at all ' ?
Isn't that the definition of apartheid??
And yet there is a statute that create "the pinciples" and activist judiciary that interpret what they are.
Winston says all this but nothing is happening
The fight is happening
❤ Thank you Winston. On point again.
Let’s see what happens when the Bill goes to the first reading ……
Seymour will be more than happy with this interpretation.
Imagine the debate …..
Hipkins: “The principles in this Bill …. bla, bla, bla …..do not do justice to the Treaty principles!”.
Seymour: “Honourable H, can you please name the principles of the Treaty?”
Hipkins”Whaaaaat!”
Peters “I told you so!”😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
Remove the Waitangi Tribunal on the basis of the "Principles of No More Corruption".
If the Govt doesn't eradicate all references to phantom principles then there's going to be escalating tension because you left it too long its got entrenched now we have a crisis you gotta be ruthless get rid of the terror today!
As I understand...a law is a law, a principle is an idea of ideals. Oil and water??
Doesn't mix! 🤷
In legal contexts, the document's text, signatures, and date are what matter, not the unwritten principles or understandings that may have evolved over time. The signed document is the primary source of its legal authority and obligations.
And that's also why Law students next year should study the law and not some irrelevance
Winston has been in parliament for a very long time and has been the King maker in many governments. Yet he still does nothing but talk tuff. It is Time he showed he is more than just talk!
Good, Winston, then take these principals out if the treaty NOW!
Winston and David Seymour seem to be on the same page regarding the Treaty's "Principles" or non-principles, but what is Winston proposing to do about removing any reference to the "Principles." I agree, they were cooked up in elite academic circles and were made deliberately vague and open to a confusing array of interpretations to suit a privileged few. Get together and sort it out because Luxon seems to be dragging his heels on this one.
Let's think this through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air.
Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man.
Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's scuttled Seymour’s Bill. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level.
So instead of being the bigger man, and achieving a hugely important mutual goal, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. But it gets worse. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour.
It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out.
The fact that Winston cannot produce and has not produced an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting.
Winston campaigned at the last election in stripping out all the principles of the Treaty from all existing legislation.
But has he done it? No. Absolutely nothing. He has not even started. Such hypocrisy.
Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
@@stopcogovernance Exactly that, and to use one of his own favourite words - he's pretty good at spreading "bulldust" himself.
National's unwillingness to correct the racist discrimination caused by the principles of the treaty, just delays the inevitable when physical action will be necessary.
Excellent interviewing Sean. Peters is duplicituous and self serving. Peters maintains there are no Treaty principles. That is all Seymour is asking for. For God's sake Peters - grow a spine.
No it is not what Seymour is asking for - He wants to work on defining something that is fiction. The fiction must be removed from all legislation and government department directives.
It goes against Winstons principles to pretend there are principles. You can't back something that doesn't exist to start with. Seymours bill is actually going to bring legitimacy to non existent principles so counter productive. So many people haven't understood and think he is reneging and backing Luxons stance , faaar from the truth. He has a much harder line on the Treaty than Seymour actually and a much simpler way of achieving it than all the fanfare of Acts bill.
@@ccsw992 BINGO!
@dsjjvfdjkdd then we all must vote Winston for PM 2026 it's our last hope
@@StGammon77Won't happen & remember where you read it first
Sooo….what does this mean…is Winston in favour of continuing as usual?….dont really understand exactly what he means…can someone elaborate ?😳🙄
He means we don't need to have a meeting, debate or whatever about the mythical principles. They are clauses which don't need changing but we all need to move on .
Let me try to explain to you for my own understanding as well. Winston is saying that there are no 'principles'. He refers to prominent scholarly Maori politicians of the last century who did not mention anything about so-called principles being in the ToW. So, he is saying that Seymour need not press for a debate in Parliament where he wants to introduce the Treaty Principles' Bill. This principles nonsense has been cooked up by certain university academics and politicians with socialist leanings, which Maori activist groups have latched on to. To put a stop to this nonsense, Shane Jones wants to do away with the Waitangi Tribunal which is perpetuating this nonsense. Anyone else want to improve on this, go ahead.
@@francisheperi4180that was well put for us that didn't quite get the whole bs. My understanding of the treaty is It was signed by tribal leaders and a few pakeha so nz was a one nation with equal rights. That's my understanding of it. No principles in it that i know of
& also i think he implied that departments would be instructed to remove references to treaty principles (this can be done by ministers without a law)
@@francisheperi4180 thats ok…so what is nz firsts stance on various authorities making the rules as they go…that is the whole problem…if there are no rules its open to rorting ..as we are seeing at present…how will nz first stop it?
Governer Hobsons Pledge on the treaty signing....."NOW WE ARE ONE" ....
Well, well the problem of those (constructed) principles of the Treaty (a real document) was laid bare in the interview. Good to hear the old warhorse put it so clearly.
Pity he has chosen to do nothing to fix the re-interpritaions all the same, lack of leadership by Winston, never vote for him again, do not trust him either! go David
The treaty principles aren't the Treaty articles.
Definitely need defining as nobody can argue their interpretations aren't slanted and changed as necessary to mitigate what the treaty actually intended. All to the detriment of New Zealanders.
I will express Article 1,2,3 In simple laymen terms.
Article 1: We welcome you (pakeha) to our land (Aotearoa) and we will look after you. But you have to bring order and governance to your own people.
Simple right? We already had complete Authority and sovereignty (Tino Rangatiratanga status) over ourselves. We didnt need you or your foreign Authourity over our culture land wealth and resources. Your thinking is utter nonsense.
Article 2: Do not touch our land, language, culture or any of our belongings. Your welcome to set yourselves up. But these things belong to us. Dont touch our shit!? Dont touch any of it!
Simple right? But you stole everything!
Article 3: Your Queen has sent people over here because your people have been unrulely bastards! Playing up like drunk whalers who cant sort themselves out. This treaty is about yous sorting your shit out to govern your own. Not us!
Simple right. It doesnt need to be over complicated. So where did it all go wrong?? It all went wrong when you tried to make us british subjects or equal too. Huh?
We are the land lords of our land and we invited you here you dumb gunts. We are not equal. You pay us rent. Your here on our terms and conditions.
Simple right!?
Lets start fresh, By to Treaty crap, a massive good BY,
The people will decide in the next election.
Voting makes little difference, and muppets rich! 🤷
Luxon said from the word go, that National would not support the Bill past the first reading. As per coalition agreement.
SO BE IT !!.....Nice Koro Winston ❤️❤️NZ FIRST 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿
David Seymour and ACT seem (because we haven't seen the actual legislation yet) to be going down the path of defining principles in legislation that align with the articles of the 1840 treaty. Winston and NZ First have in their coalition agreement the stated objective that references to treaty principles should be removed from legislation and policy statements by government funded entities. As far as I am aware we are yet to see any amendments introduced to Parliament by NZ First to make this happen. David Seymour and ACT's approach seems to me to be a simpler and more pragmatic way to achieve this objective whereas NZ First has yet to put their coalition agreement objective into action.
Winston caught out, all Hui no Doey.......typical of a old Lawyer.............
One way or another, get rid of it.
WP has had decades to get rid of any reference to the "principles". Instead he put into power the last Labour govt that turbocharged them. He seems to be reluctant to support the TPB because it's ACT's. So what? This govt has a chance to set out a road map for a NZ where your rights don't depend on your ancestry. Let's seize the chance.
So you're not supporting ACT but you're not doing anything about it yourself Winston. Danced around the issue more than that Aussie breakdance sheila.
He is, as the coalition agreement states. Removing all references to made up principles in all legislation. Much simpler approach but works.
@@ccsw992 Perhaps someone better tell the waitangi tribunal that, and the militant maori stirrers.
@@ccsw992 but he has not done it! all talk!
The trouble with "defining the Treaty Principles " as Act wants to do is that it makes room for lawyers to get in and create mayhem. I recently read this comment that was along the lines of; "good ideas are killed by legislation".
Scrap the treaty. By nature, it is the primary cause of devision. One law and constitution for ALL.
surely both sides must agree. After all its a treaty. Not a crown government document and the treaty is exactly for that reason, no one side can decided change alone.
Hot Potato?
'Kumura' ✊🏽🤪
The reason why Winston is maze talking his way around the question is because there are alot of people making tons of money out of this, which I believe have over the years become institutions.
including Politicians and ex-Politicians, Tax Payer getting Screwed by them all, including Winston........go David, open this rot up indeed, will get my vote!
@@NevAdrienneAugust Except Seymour will open the country to exploitation by multi national corporations regarding our mineral wealth. National will happily sell anything to please the billionaires("Hey Larry Fink, did I do good Larry, huh, I did good didn't I Larry huh"(Luxon kissing Billioniare a$$). So walking tracks will no longer be availible to the public because mining operations will own the land and thats just the beginning. So the Treaty saves us from this happening, sadly thats changing.
For no principles kiwis sure are being screwed over.
Well National, NZ First have lost my vote……I can only vote ACT! …….Let’s get rid of the bull shit…..Winston, you have tossed the towel in! Bang my vote has gone!
Im not a supporter of Winston but i agree with him on this
At least now I understand the NZF position, but it won't solve the problem of these new back-translations claiming Maori never ceded sovereignty...
The treaty should be scaped as it is out of date as everyone can't agree.what is needed is a constitution for everyone
Sean
Can you please get Buck, Ngata or Carol on please? 😅
Good job getting to NZF's solution, Sean. Why can't they just state that in their first sentence? 1) We don't like the TPB as we have a better solution.
Because Winston was all talk......now he is in..............at the trough, for a good time, not to get this done, shut it all down........go David, its a start!
May be David thought it would help him get elected.
Exactly. Cater to his 8% of voters
@@kiwikiwi223 hundred percent Seymour for PM!!!
@zweed69 good luck with that 😂
@@kiwikiwi223 Thanks go David for PM then...........
@@NevAdrienneAugust 8%
Scrap the Treaty and all the BS
Peter's position is a fail dose not answer the BIG question.
1 Do NZ Citizens want a country where there are 2 classes of citizens, where 1class is valued more because of their RACE.
or
A country where ALL people are treated EQUAL regardless of RACE
Fuxton is a coward
In the vacuum of no principles to the treaty there will be so many issues that people will just self interpret in 100 different opinions
That's what's already happened and why it's a crisis
Ban treaty principles and anything to do with separatism, in all businesses and public services and everywhere.
It will never happen the treaty will stand no matter how much crying and whinging ppl do
The Treaty has multiple meanings except the truth which only they lived not us, don't speak for the dead or try to alter the course of history both races agreed together we have no right to interfere
@@StGammon77 well said leave it alone
Turku underpants Morgan 😂😂😂
@@NA-sj9jy 😂😂😂😂😂
@@NA-sj9jyHow much Tax Payer funded porn has Shane Jones enjoyed,& all the free feeds
Multi layered myth !!! Love it
I am losing trust in our media and government. Who fricken cares about the word "principle"?! It isn't a bluidy instruction. It's a standard and quality that one chooses to live by, closely followed by integrity and honesty.
Poor Leadership of NZ has led to this...............need a fixer
Right again, Mr Peters
Go Winston.
Yeah go and actually do something, lame old dog................knows better, but nah to hard for him! go David, get something done!
Why do my representatives turn up there to be abused? It's OK for childish iwi leaders to walk out on a Luxon meeting? I'm sick of the endless koreo, like this. Where's the action?
Love the screen shot,looks like your both in a nappy filling comp,cant wait for the weigh in to see who wins😮😂😂😂😂😂
I will believe Winston when he states his position in the mainstream media. Until then, it looks and smells like Luxton's apathetic approach to the #1 issue in NZ.
Well said winston
It goes against Winstons principles to pretend there are principles. You can't back something that doesn't exist to start with. Seymours bill is actually going to bring legitimacy to non existent principles so counter productive. So many people haven't understood and think he is reneging and backing Luxons stance , faaar from the truth. He has a much harder line on the Treaty than Seymour actually and a much simpler way of achieving it than all the fanfare of Acts bill.
So why has he not already done it?
Love you Winston
Back to the drawing board 😅😂
Hasn't Winston asked the PM if he believes in 'treaty principles'?
Winston is a master of the art of being really clear…by way of a non answer😂😂
The original principles are simple. Subjection, in return for protection, and equality as subjects. Summarised cogently in the third clause.
But thats NOT what TE TIRITI says, the actual treaty.
So was the treaty breached when the UK revoked all NZer's British Subject status in 1981?
@@MartinCraig-zt2sv Thats the whole problem with locking an ancient document in terms of a literal interpretation into current circumstances. Time moves on. The second clause clearly specified that Maori retained land held in native title, OR they could sell to the Crown. Back then most land was in native title. Today almost all is in crown derived title- so taking it literally the second clause is defunct. Further today NZ is a democracy with an elected government not a Crown colony with an authoritarian governor- which changes it again, as you cant have one subset of the electors in partnership with the whole set, it is a legal fiction.
It would be like trying to apply the Magna Carta of Britain in literal terms to the British Constitution- the situation has changed so much that most of it is obsolete. However the fundamental principles remain.
Which is what, I think, Seymour is trying to do with the second clause- under the present arrangements all holders of Crown derived titles have an equal right of protection- but trying to fit the wording of an ancient document into that context is like trying to fit Cinderellas glass slipper to an elephant.