The Iwi vs. Peewee Treaty Debate | Helmut Modlik vs. David Seymour
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ต.ค. 2024
- Gravity Credit Management proudly sponsors the Working Group. For more information on Gravity click the link:
Kia Ora Aotearoa! Welcome to The Working Group, New Zealand's top political podcast not funded by NZ on Air. I'm your host, Martyn Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog.
Today is a BIG ONE - The Treaty Debate!
Joining me tonight:
Damien Grant - libertarian liquidator and Cthulhu of Capitalism.
Helmut Modlik - Ngāti Toa Leader
David Seymour - ACT Party Leader
In today's debate:
Our debaters will each provide a 3 minute opening statement on what the Treaty means to them and its place in NZ.
Next, the debate will move to a revolving quick fire question panel segment.
Finally, David, Helmut and Host Bomber Bradbury will have a 2 minute final word. (Damien will have a 1 minute final word, because no one should be forced to listen to a libertarian longer than 60 seconds)
Welcome to The Working Group, jump on in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT: Working to 3598
Check out the Social Media - bento.me/thewo...
This was a good debate but it should be on mainstream TV for all New Zealanders to have the choice to view, not hidden away on obscure channels that I didn’t know even existed before tonight
At the same time, this platform doesn’t has the same constraints to allow this debate to be more real
The less that is shown on mainstream TV the better. This debate would not have flowed like this on mainstream TV who have stupid debate hosts, ads, limited duration. Can you imagine an idiot like Jack Tame or Paddy G running this debate.
I'm not sure david would agree to do it if it was on tv
nz on air wont fund this programe too much free speech maybe take it up with broadcasting tribunal
At some point these sorts of debates "will' be on TV. However, this particular one is not a debate! The moderator was heavily biased for a start. It was all one sided. David did not have an opportunity to give his thoughts freely.
Michael Laws from the Platform made his video on this debate private, what happened to his "This country needs an open discussion on the treaty"? Guess he didn't like seeing Seymour getting a whopping so kept the discussion to his supporters. We need more debates like this, and on national television.
We are not asking the government to rewrite the treaty but to honor it
How much more money will that take
Well said!
@@HinaElkington its been honored, now its a gravy train. Time to move on.
@glennhowlett2082 It hasnt been Honoured... Look at Parihaka.. Native Schools act.... Tino Rangatiratanga...
@cyberfish6849 work out how much has been stolen and you're half way there.
The difference if refredum passes= less people being able to demand money just because they said so
How's this a debate when the so called moderator is so blatantly biased against the treaty principles bill and David Seymour. This is a joke
Yes, Very noticeable!!
That's why Damien Grant is there - a Act supporting facilitator. Bomber is clear on his bias. Everyone has a bias - some people are honest about it, and some are not.
@@kiwicalibre that host is a joke
You are aware that David Seymour chose the platform Damien grant openly admits to donating to act and Bradbury is a socialist anyone who watches this show often knows that it isn't hidden.
Boohoo@@tumbleweedlyfe
Bradbury should've handed over to an actual moderator as acting like a clown doesn't lend credibility to the whole thing
Bradbury was deliberately taking the mickey out of Seymour, with good reason. There's no credibility to his Bill.
I call for Helmut to debate David Seymour again on 'The Platform'.
The problem with that is Sean would want to yell over the top of them.I like the platform but Sean is a verbal bully.
Still wont help seymour find an answer to unsettle Helmut's arguement that Maori did not cede sovereignty.
Sean Plonker....yeah not likely.
@@Enterthetaniwha Maori did cede sovereignty. It says so in the English translation. It says so in the Maori translation. It says so in the principles. If Maori weren't under the sovereignty of the crown then they wouldn't have the freedoms and protections of their fellow citizens. It is clear today that through practise, all Maori recognise the authority of the crown to govern them.
Helme is dancing around the questions of equal rights!
Biggest problem is the mediator should be neutral. When you have more on one team it tends to be one sided.
Just remember, David Seymour chose the platform.
In this case the moderator states his bias upfront - I prefer that to the fakes on one news
Seymour wanted it to be on this platform because he knew that it would be a challenge. Props to him for not backing down (even though he couldn't be more wrong)
in my view, Helmut nailed it...its clear to me who's making it about race and whos making it about history.
@@MaggieHolt-c6k this debate highlighted how obscure the treaty is especially wen applied to a modern context, how do we actually knw wht these maori terms really mean? ther is no literary body of work to give these terms any true context? or is this not the way to look at it?
Seymour wants pakeha to flourish even more and removing the 'maori' red tape that is stopping them from doing so is what this tiriti debate is really about. If we were all born equal then why have maori 'equal rights' been stomped on historically since the tiriti was signed.
Once you start down a path of a separate parliament, judiciary, health system, justice, education ect you will end up with apartheid. There's no other way of putting it.
aparheid "a system of institutionalised racial segregation" you mean like the In 1867, the Native Schools Act where children could only speak or write in english
colonism causes aparthied how tf are maori going to cause that when all they want are you mf to stop stealing off them LOL
Says who? David Seymour? So his way of looking at things is done at the expense of Maori and dismissing the things put jn place by successive governments... how is that Apartheid? It's Apartheid when people like David Seymour doesn't agree with it.
@jamesbroughton7635 think he means Maori gave up 'kawanatanga’ (governance) of NZ and to not uphold this would lead to apartheid.
@quashmonkey
No Rangatira had Kingitanga, as they were Kings in their own rights.
Do you think they were gonna surrender sovereignty or kingitanga to a small group of white men as Helmut Modlik put in? No.
so you must think that USA and Norway have apartheid because Native American tribes in the USA have their own judiciary, health systems and schools. The Sami in Norway have their own parliament. Apartheid was a system that existed in South Africa where the minority white population considered themselves to be racially superior and controlled the black population to keep them in poverty. If anything NZ had an unofficial form of apartheid when the colonial government invaded the lands of Maori who did not want to sell their land and confiscated their land, leaving them in poverty...
Excellent debate! I would like to see David Seymour & van velden or even Luxon debate Annette Sykes & Natalie Coates on Te Tiriti Principles!
What laughable moderation from the host. This was barely watchable.
Lmao the difference in those first two questions tells you everything you need to know about the balance of the moderation lol
so helmut is denying the fact that chiefs who signed the treaty first didn't understand what ceding meant, when pakeha living amongst them and missionaries had spoken with the chiefs explaining to them what it meant, and maori in the 1840s didn't understand, all documented facts, is he denying the fact that 13 maori chiefs didn't write to king william, asking for him to come and treat with them, for reasons layed out in the letter, ?
During Queen Victoria's reign she oversaw the largest expansion to the British empire. As well as New Zealand she colonized; British Guiana, Brunei, Canada, Falkland Islands, Gold Coast, Kenya, Kuwait, Newfoundland, Rhodesia, St. Lucia, and Uganda among others. Why would she allow Maori to keep their sovereignty, when her focus on EVERY other country was to gain supreme power?
If it was Queen Victoria's aim for Maori to keep their sovereignty, why did she send soldiers and armaments to New Zealand after the treaty of Waitangi during the land wars when her sovereignty was challenged?
Really great questions. Maybe some will answer these great questions.
What an ignorant comment. Many of the territories cited had treaties with Britain, many were protectorates, there were bespoke clauses covering how sovereignty and local governance would operate.
she lied
You make very good points Elton. Well done mate. So true.
do your research
This is NOT a world veiw issue. It is an historically, academic, researched and legal accepted FACT that Maori did NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY. No matter how plausible Seymour's lies sound. That is why he doesn't want historians or academic experts or the legal experts to be part of the conversation because they will show him to be the dangerous liar he is. What happens when people disagree in a democracy. They take the matter to court, who listen to all the facts (no made up stuff sorry Seymour) and they rule on who is the most right and time and time again they have ruled in favour of maori. THAT'S a big part of your so called democracy Seymour. A functioning judiciary that is not swayed by self serving psychopathic politicians who got the votes of approximately 2% of the population. Maori account for 20% of the population. If you're so committed to majority rule we shouldn't have MMP and you wouldn't be in parliament.
We all came here on boats. What’s relevant is the people of New Zealand want to live in a safe nation, governed by laws. Helmut wants all the privileges & benefits of living in modern NZ, without having to abide by any common laws. Yeah, nah. Professor Paul Moon is an excellent NZ Historian/ Academic. Seymour touches on very valid points here if you listen. If Helmut could focus on enhancing New Zealand’s Mana, not just his personal Mana or a small group of Māori… he would probably have more value to the conversation.
Watching this just goes to show that the principles od the treaty do need to be discussed as nothing can be agreed between David and Helmut. If Helmut interpretation is practically implemented and maori didn't agree to be governed by the crown, then does that mean there should be seperate tax systems for example ? How do you fit in if you have 30 % maori heritage and 70 % something else, none of this is any clearer now than before the debate.....
It will never work....more division will be created and very little money will be generated for hand outs, imo the debate was not good from a point of view real facts weren't mentioned and most of NZ didn't have a say. So nothing has been gained other than there being even more reason to go back to the original treaty document and scrub everything else
Notice Helmut seemed very happy to get money..
The Idea of co-governance is racist in itself. Why should governance be based on race and ancestry alone? Aren't we at the end of the day all kiwis with a mixture of cultures?
Spot on
his debate highlighted how obscure the treaty is especially wen applied to a modern context, how do we actually knw wht these maori terms really mean? ther is no literary body of work to give these terms any true context? or is this not the way to look at it?
Reply
@JamesGuarmillo the idea of co governance is a new concept. Maori get to govern Maori, pakeha govern pakeha.
That is the truth of the treaty and should be the premise of any conversation moving forward.
Just honour the Treaty. It's not hard.
Which means 1 people and a country of many cultures. Everyone with equal rights, no apartheid like parliament or co-governance.
his debate highlighted how obscure the treaty is especially wen applied to a modern context, how do we actually knw wht these maori terms really mean? ther is no literary body of work to give these terms any true context? or is this not the way to look at it?
Reply
Sorry Its been so twisted and mis construed over the last 50 years it now needs a revisit to clear the air!
Yes, if you mean the final English draft from which the Treaty in Maori was constructed. One is a mirror image of the other. So if you want to know what the Treaty in Maori says, read the final English draft. Here is a video about the two versions and how they sync. th-cam.com/video/mWRByzSsYfU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ZksJcPn18sHplH0v
We can honour it by accepting Maori accepted British rule in exchange for becoming British subjects and citizens, which means equal rights and duties
Edited: [Sorry links got removed, edited in references for futher reading]
As an immigrant here i will make this point as an objective outsider that may help David Seymour understand this from another nation that was colonized
David Seymour misses some fundamentals in surrendering sovereignty to another nation, the King or Queen of the time would not allow another King (Maori here or otherwise in another country, see Africa) to maintain consecutive rule alongside the reigning monarch in a situation where they had overthrown the ruling government, tribe or peoples of an unclaimed land (sic); a juxtaposed royalty that might otherwise seek to overthrow or undermine rule; if at some level, some form of agreement hadn't been reached to ensure a consensus of law.
At the time all of this is going on, the British ships where in early stages of abolishing slavery (see blackbirding), dissolving long standing monarch rules in many countries after revolt and allowing republics to form under the monarchs previous reign in a way to make "free" and democratic people that fell under the protection of the King or Queen.
The part that David Seymour seems to miss, is the entire other side of the history (British) that he's chosen to ignore. By the time the British had reached the shores of New Zealand (sic) they had already begun to undergo a governance revolution to seek governance not by overthrowing nation states, but by unifying those countries under it's flag instead.
Whilst mistakes where made by overzealous war mongering military powers who where at times stretched thin and in over their heads, abolish slavery and maintain order whilst also trying to lay as many land claims and flagships as possible; trying to beat the Spanish, French and Americans; one could see that perhaps in a bout of desperation to avoid further conflict and complete the transition much faster, the government may have sought a new or different tactic.
Since New Zealand is fairly new in the colonization race (sic, blackbirding); New Zealand would have seen vastly different and more progressive view on consolidation and reconciliation with native peoples rather than attempting to completely wipe the population out in an attempt to grab land or relegate them to a specific geographical location as the Americans had done.
Evidence of this is simply that they bothered at all to learn the language and bring the people into a dialog with diplomatic approaches rather than simply as you say "going at it with muskets". Given their "superior fighting ability", why not simply annihilate the locals ? Well the answer is simple, if you leave with your army, the people revolt or seize control and you lose the lands to say the Americans, well then that's a bad look for the British. But if you negotiate a treaty and say "we'll leave some of our people here and you are now under our protection, there are other white faces (sic; historical) that will come here and take your land and strike you from them, but we offer you protection" (source `paraphrased` : Captain Cook in New Zealand. Extracts from the journals of Captain James Cook giving a full account in his own words of his adventures and discoveries in New Zealand), you eliminate any and all conflict, sadly a lesson from history you haven't learned.
** Since some people don't seem to understand maritime language, "land" referred to an island, region or territory, whilst property referred to legal occupation. In this context re-reading this i made clear that this was ships looking for new lands at a time when slavery was being blocked and any new source of manpower was being sought. The treaty in this context where we talk about governance could be interpreted as literal governance of the lands not necessarily the people which is the context for a treaty being signed with the language distinction between property and land. Read things through the time lens and now you can better understand the document. In this context, understand this, proclamations of this time period where "i claim this land on behalf of her majesty the queen" referring not to a singular parcel of land but the landmass overall.
Well said. Truly insightful history of British empire. I actually think Britain saw this country as high maintenance baggage, that wasn't very productive for them.
Regardless of the past, we are here now, all races. We need to forge a better future together and not get hung up in the past.
What do you mean by 'take' your land? Many chiefs were keen to sell land. 1/3 of NZ was sold prior to the signing of the treaty. The British set up a Land Claims Commission which investigated land sales prior to the signing of the Treaty and some sales were invalidated or made smaller. The chiefs who sold the same plot of land several times over to different settlers were unpunished. You are making a lot of assumptions perhaps read the book 'The Treaty of Waitangi by TL Buick'
@@SpeedWeed-sg2mk okay, based on where seymour is coming from having read the book you just recommended, sighting it last week on this very show; i think oversimplification is merited. Perhaps looks at the subject matter in context, the american samoas had just been claimed; in this time period they where blocking new sources of slaves since the americans where still buying, and given their apparent voyages in the area and on the basis that american ships are noted in the maritime area; one can assume that fear was a motivator in negotiations. And given neither of us was there perhaps lets not get to matter of fact about specifics and point out this was a race to lay claims and get slaves. Anything beyond that is narrative based on a bias of the writer of the time. My point here is in context to what was happening at the time that perhaps saying the British wouldn't settle for a treaty claim given the circumstances at the time is more important than minor details that don't explain British motivations to sign a treaty at all
@@SpeedWeed-sg2mk i would also point out that i was not referring to british taking land which is why i was clear to put "other white faces" (sic, historical) sighting British fighting over French Polynesia
@@SpeedWeed-sg2mk also not to put too fine a point on distinction, in this time period property was land purchase and land claim was literally "i claim this land on behalf of her majesty the queen" as in island, territory, region
Everyone does not have there basic rights protected, many of the deliberately impoverished, homeless and life sentence wage/rent slaves know this for a fact, there is no hope and New Zealanders love kicking down on the vulnerable.
The title of this debate is disrespectful and shows up the mentality of the writers.
c'mon u gotta admit, he is a lil bit like Pee wee Herman...😂😂😂
You act like as if objectivity means false dichotomy. To be objective is not to to portray two unequally valid sides in a way that suggests they're equally viable.
Geez there’s a lot of Act voters in these comments
and more to cam
Add me to that list after that debate. Round 1 to David.
Yes because he talks unity and common sense - not Helmuts tribal division and hatred = as exemplified by Martyns appalling story of hatred towards politicians.
He uses ATLAS group talking points to sound reasonable, so perfectly normal people buy into it. He even uses progressive values at face value in order to sound moderate.
They are well organised.
Bomber , you gave me a good laugh at the end when you gave your speech. Nothing like a woke pakeha wishing he was Māori 😂
he was just embracing the indigenous culture better than being a racist pakeha how was he woke? david seymour is woke mf thinks he can decide what the treaty is like our ancestor didn't die because of that. the government killed maori don't forget that. the treaty is the only reason we can protect what we hold dear otherwise that mountain that has 800 years signficance to us a burial place for our dead? pakeha wants it gonna build a resort............
It is vomit worthy
@@asha6822 Bomber is a complete waste of time and has nothing to offer. Why he gets on these things beats me. Does not cut the mustard
It would be great to hear what Helmet would do if he was in charge and could implement the Treaty from now on
First rule of moderating is to be independent. The outright bias of Bommer was clear to see. Good on David for his continued facts and decorum
Bomber is really clear about his bias. David Seymour is not.
@OldSkoolKelly what bias is David not clear on please and again, 1st rule of a moderator is to moderate and not take sides
When Seymour says a tiny group of people is he talking about Act?
Exactly. Why does a party representing 2% of the population dictate what happens to Maori who account for 20% of the population. If we applied Seymour's version of a democracy (where the majority rule), Act wouldn't even be part of the government.
When Seymore said "You've said that accept Māori ceded sovereignty" Helmut " No I didn't " Seymore " oh well we're back to square one then..." what a gas lighter trying to put words in his mouth.
Yeah, I noticed he tried to say Helmut agreed with him, but in fact, Helmut believed in the values that David was using superficially as a slogan.
The problem is Helmut knows Maori ceded sovereignty. It is the whole point of the treaty. Only a moron thinks otherwise. Helmut just thinks if he lies enough and claims it is fact that the morons will accept it.
@@dragonrings14 There is overwhelming evidence that Sovereignty was not ceded. The Crown wants to claim otherwise because they know that they have to then adjust the way they behave and make arrangements to actually uphold the agreement they signed in 1840. Seymour isn't the first politician to lie for personal gain and power, and he won't be the last.
Thanks to the chat for mostly staying classy tonight.
Sir Apirana Ngata views the first article of the Treaty as a “complete cession” of governmental authority to the British Crown. “The main purport was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws for their respective tribes and sub-tribes under the Treaty of Waitangi to the Queen of England for ever.”
Ngata swore an oath to the Queen. All lawyers do. Thats why hes on the $50 bill. Pakeha need Maori to sell out all the rest. Old trick. Look at Winston and Shane always bashing Maori for whitey
Who cares what a solider thinks of diplomacy? Would you call a plumber for your heart surgery?
Good one!
Before it even started I could see how it was going to go, this was an extremely important debate, but straight away was a mockery "Iwi vs Peewee" what the F is that S?
In your opinion, did David prove he wasn't a PeeWee?
@@NattyBeGood I thought he was by far the most composed person in the room so yes
@@NattyBeGoodgrow up
@@schlookie Boomer was a straight out dick,he tried to spoil the whole show.
That's his nick name...does the truth hurt your feelings.....
So Maori get to be part of the largest empire in history, and protection from the French and other coloniser, and access to thousands of years of technology advancement for the price of allowing a few British people to live in NZ. Seems a little unbelievable. Remember it takes two to agree. I do not believe the largest empire in the world would of agreed to the Maori version.
Its Maori and the swelling of their heads
Yes because advanced technology can only be achieved by colonisation 🙄 not a fair trade off when you consider the billions of dollars worth of land lost for Māori, but I guess we should all be grateful!
neither do we believe that our tupuna would've rolled over and said, yeah take our whenua, rip us off as much as you can and stop us from speaking our reo...that's even more unlikely...maori only agreed becos they were guaranteed that they would retain tino rangatiratanga and sovereignty over their whenua, but they were deliberately duped by your so-called colonial empire! colonisation bought wicked decimation to all indigenous cultures...that's empirical isn't it?
Absolutely Maori and the crown are treaty partners. Not Maori and the NZ goverment! That treaty hasn't been upheld since its exception!
We don't blame the outside world who know nothing about the truth.
The clarion call of all colonisers. We know the generational trauma that accompanies colonisation because the same dysfunctional effects are echoed throughout the world . Its not for the those who benefitted from the colonisation process to tell those who were colonised how "good they have it now" when they have'nt endured the consequences.
Good debate , way better than the numpites who run around with sign only half understanding the arguement taking place. This is what modern democracy is about. Listen, speak , listen , learn.
Really Seymour!! What is your hidin bullshit!
Lord Normanby's brief from the Colonial Office on 14th August 1839 England wrote to Governor Hobson that if certain conditions were not met with the main one being the Natives MUST cede sovereignty then walk away and NZ could not become a British Colony. Maori were afraid of UTU by the French from the massacre in 1772 and tired of intertribal fighting plus lawlessness of whalers and sealers. A letter was written by Thomas Kendall to King William Fourth on behalf of 13 Chiefs pleading with the British to colonise NZ in 1831. Eru Patuone and his brother Tamiti Waka Nene lead the charge on this. They were also scared of UTU from the East Coast tribes who had recently acquired superior German mauser rifles. That is why they were so quick to sign the Treaty!
They wanted the crown to sort out the 2000 odd unruly pakeha in the country at the time, so they gave the crown the ability to come and do so, without having a fight. Settlers and others changed that into ceding sovereignty which Maori rubbished and took up arms.
Pretty average debate. Seymour - even keeled and solid points. The rest of them, especially the host, not so much.
For a debate that promised to be discussing the Treaty Principles Bill it didn't. That was a shame because it didn't answer any of the questions I had. It didn't satisfy my curiosity as to why so many are opposed to it especially when the Principles of the Treaty are mentioned in legislation but are no where defined. That seems to me to be a fundamental problem and I do not think we are any closer to resolving that.
The principles are defined in the jurisprudence. It is completely normal for legislation to refer to something without defining it in fixed terms, and for the judicial system to interpret and define that 'something' in subsequent decisions. In fact, that's the main purpose of the judiciary - interpreting Parliament's laws.
@@l.johnson536 right, I'm sure you are all for one racial group to get preference over another too bc of some tiny portion of their distant ancestry... 🙄
@@zweed69 I'm not commenting on that. I'm not even sure how your comment relates to my own. I'm just saying that the principles are, in fact, defined. Any law student worth their salt learns this in LAWS101.
With all respect, I don't think you're informed enough to have this conversation.
@@l.johnson536 lmao if that was the case then perhaps tell david you 🤡 talk about delusions of grandeur 🤦♂
@@l.johnson536 oh and with all _due_ respect, this was never a conversation to begin with. This is YT comments, you would have to be serious desperate loser to factor this as a convo 😂
Bomber let out a whole lotta estrogen at the end there.
David just wishes that Te Tiriti means all what he says. I hope we see more debates
Yes. Originally equality was offered by the Crown to Maori.
Helmut Modlik's interpretation is just his wishful thinking.
Well done david.
I do wonder, what would have happened to this country and Maori people if the British didn't sign the treaty...Does anyone think this country would have been independent???
If the British didn't sign the treaty, we wouldn't be having this argument because there would be no Maori as they would've been ERADICATED.
Yep, by the French who were preparing to absolutely destroy all inhabitants and take the land as their own
Māori were already independent, before the crown came. Trade, economy, enterprise was already happening. It wasn’t a primitive country that history tries to encourage.
@jessicapratt8310 the white saviour complex is strong in you isn't it? If English had honored the treaty we wouldn't have to put up with BS answers like this
@@AtamaMoore What killing each and eating do you call that trading,wiping out the Moa was that there economy,Enterprise was that working with the seal traders to get muskets to wipe out other tribes quicker ?
If this is Nzs greatest political broadcast, we are cooked.
David seymour makes pure common sense for a modern society
If you're a white taxpayer he makes sense. If you're a Maori, in prison, have family in prison, have 6 kids you can't feed and mostly if your on the benefit he doesn't.
That other dude was a wafflier just like Jilly Wackson.
😂😂😂 your a joker aren't you 😂
A racist society😂😂😂😂
@@hailzreignmanga not racist at all, unless you are talking about those who want different treatment based on race....
It's not the role of government to decide or decipher a founding document. Peewee needs to stay in his lane.
And it certainly ain't the role of woke courts (eg Roe vs Wade) and Treaty Of W Tribunal.
@@bruceingram6014 agree about Courts and TOW. These decisions will be expunged
If there is real disagreement about the Treaty to the point where people don't even agree that there is one version of it, then it might be the role of the Government to help clarify it. This debate highlighted that there are some Maori (and non-Maori for that matter) in this nation spreading a lot of misinformation about the treaty. There is only one document. The document very much says Maori cede sovereignty. It says nothing of a partnership or co-governance (it actually says the exact opposite). Until both sides agree with these basics we will never have a real talk about the Treaty.
Seymour was the clear winner in this debate! Thank goodness sense is beginning to prevail.
I think the Ngai Tahu chief is just a cleaner version of Hone Harawira. Not quite as Vulgar tho. Bit more Educated .
About time the Treaty principals written up by Labour and then thrown in the Too hard to do basket had some Discussion happening by Iwi and The Government.
The real Tiriti has no principles....you just don't want to honour the actual text.
@@jwatstom
I know that. The Principals were writen up by LABOUR originaly and then they had no guts to put them up for Discussion. Thats what Davids Doing. Bringing those principals wich he Didnt originally pen up for Discussion and every thick as a plank Maori and Pakeha supporters think he is the Bloody instigator of the TREATY PRINCIPALS ffs
Trash debate. Opening statements and then leave the floor open for a back and forth between David and Helmut. Damien and bomber eating up time with their biased cheerleading and irrelevant questions, just shut up and moderate. This is an important discussion that needed to be had and they barely got into the crux of it. The only point Helmut made was the common view of "Maori never ceded sovereignty" which is a weak point but they didn't even get to flesh that out. Other then that every other point he made was a false comparison.
-The treaty is between two sovereign groups not race" Ok and what was that sovereign group? Maori. So regardless of how you want to put it, it ultimately filters down to race. Maori being the sovereign group. Its irrelevant.
-"Equality has never been universal" Wrong. He conflated equality with fairness. Everyone has equal rights before the law but what you do with those rights has consequences, so out of fairness we need rules in place.
-Comparing the treaty rights to "dual citizenship rights" Wrong. Can a pakeha become a german citizen and obtain german citizen rights? Yes. Can a pakeha become a Maori and obtain Maori sovereignty rights? No. Bomber saying its a great point goes to show his incoherent logic.
Everything else was just irrelevant emotional jargon. David won this debate.
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835
On 28 October 1835, at the home of British Resident James Busby in Waitangi, 34 northern chiefs signed He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (known in English as the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand).
The handwritten document consisting of four articles asserted that mana (authority) and sovereign power in New Zealand resided fully with Māori, and that foreigners would not be allowed to make laws. Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of United Tribes, was to meet at Waitangi each autumn to frame laws, and in return for their protection of British subjects in their territory, they sought King William's protection against threats to their mana. They also thanked the King for acknowledging their flag.
By July 1839, 52 chiefs had signed He Whakaputanga, including Te Hāpuku and Te Wherowhero, the first Māori King. The document was officially acknowledged by the British government. Busby saw it as a significant mark of Māori national identity and believed it would prevent other countries from making formal deals with Māori.
See our database of signatories or read more about He Whakaputanga from Archives NZ.
Transcript
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira o nga iwi o Nu Tireni i raro mai o Hauraki kua oti nei te huihui i Waitangi i Tokerau 28 o Oketopa 1835. ka wakaputa i te Rangatiratanga o to matou wenua a ka meatia ka wakaputaia e matou he Wenua Rangatira. kia huaina ‘Ko te Wakaminenga o nga Hapu o Nu Tireni’.
2. Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni ka meatia nei kei nga Tino Rangatira anake i to matou huihuinga. a ka mea hoki e kore e tukua e matou te wakarite ture ki te tahi hunga ke atu, me te tahi Kawanatanga hoki kia meatia i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni. ko nga tangata anake e meatia nei e matou e wakarite ana ki te ritenga o o matou ture e meatia nei e matou i to matou huihuinga.
3. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira ke mea nei kia huihui ki te runanga ki Waitangi a te Ngahuru i tenei tau i tenei tau ki te wakarite ture kia tika ai te wakawakanga kia mau pu te rongo kia mutu te he kia tika te hokohoko. a ka mea hoki ki nga Tauiwi o runga kia wakarerea te wawai. kia mahara ai ki te wakaoranga o to matou wenua. a kia uru ratou ki te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni.
4. Ka mea matou kia tuhituhia he pukapuka ki te ritenga o tenei o to matou wakaputanga nei ki te Kingi o Ingarani hei kawe atu i to matou aroha. nana hoki i wakaae ki te Kara mo matou. a no te mea ka atawai matou, ka tiaki i nga pakeha e noho nei i uta e rere mai ana ki te hokohoko, koia ka mea ai matou ki te Kingi kia waiho hei matua ki a matou i to matou Tamarikitanga kei wakakahoretia to matou Rangatiratanga.
Kua wakaetia katoatia e matou i tenei ra i te 28 o opketopa 1835 ki te aroaro o te Reireneti o te Kingi o Ingarani.
The Codicil
Ko matou ko nga Rangatira ahakoa kihai i tae ki te huihuinga nei no te nuinga o te Waipuke no te aha ranei - ka wakaae katoa ki te waka putanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene a ka uru ki roto ki te Wakaminenga.
A translation by Dr Mānuka Hēnare of Ngāpuhi, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Kuri
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. We, the absolute leaders of the tribes (iwi) of New Zealand (Nu Tireni) to the north of Hauraki (Thames) having assembled in the Bay of Islands (Tokerau) on 28th October 1835. [We] declare the authority and leadership of our country and say and declare them to be prosperous economy and chiefly country (Wenua Rangatira) under the title of ‘Te Wakaminenga o ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni’ (The sacred Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand).
2. The sovereignty/kingship (Kīngitanga) and the mana from the land of the Confederation of New Zealand are here declared to belong solely to the true leaders (Tino Rangatira) of our gathering, and we also declare that we will not allow (tukua) any other group to frame laws (wakarite ture), nor any Governorship (Kawanatanga) to be established in the lands of the Confederation, unless (by persons) appointed by us to carry out (wakarite) the laws (ture) we have enacted in our assembly (huihuinga).
3. We, the true leaders have agreed to meet in a formal gathering (rūnanga) at Waitangi in the autumn (Ngahuru) of each year to enact laws (wakarite ture) that justice may be done (kia tika ai te wakawakanga), so that peace may prevail and wrong-doing cease and trade (hokohoko) be fair. [We] invite the southern tribes to set aside their animosities, consider the well-being of our land and enter into the sacred Confederation of New Zealand.
4. We agree that a copy of our declaration should be written and sent to the King of England to express our appreciation (aroha) for this approval of our flag. And because we are showing friendship and care for the Pākehā who live on our shores, who have come here to trade (hokohoko), we ask the King to remain as a protector (matua) for us in our inexperienced statehood (tamarikitanga), lest our authority and leadership be ended (kei whakakahoretia tō mātou Rangatiratanga).
The Codicil
We are the rangatira who, although we did not attend the meeting due to the widespread flooding or other reasons, fully agree with He Whakaputanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene and join the sacred Confederation.
English version written by James Busby
The English text was drafted by British Resident James Busby for the 28 October 1835 signing. It was then translated into te reo Māori by Henry Williams and written out by Eruera Pare Hongi. Busby despatched the English text to both the New South Wales government and the Colonial Office in Britain.
Declaration of Independence of New Zealand
1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi, in the Bay of Islands, on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the Independence of our country, which is hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of The United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His Majesty, the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgement of their flag; and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that he will continue to be the parent of their infant State, and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.
Agreed to unanimously on this 28 day of October, 1835, in the presence of His Britannic Majesty’s Resident.
(Here follows the signatures or marks of thirty-five Hereditary chiefs or Heads of tribes, which form a fair representation of the tribes of New Zealand from the North Cape to the latitude of the River Thames.)
English witnesses:
(Signed) Henry Williams, Missionary, C.M.S.
George Clarke, C.M.S.
James R. Clendon, Merchant.
Gilbert Mair, Merchant.
I certify that the above is a correct copy of the Declaration of the Chiefs, according to the translation of Missionaries who have resided ten years and upwards in the country; and it is transmitted to His Most Gracious Majesty the King of England, at the unanimous request of the chiefs.
(Signed) JAMES BUSBY, British Resident at New Zealand.
CREDIT
Archives New Zealand - Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga
Reference: IA9-1
The downloadable copy of the Declaration was reproduced from an 1877 book of facsimile copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi.
The translation is from Archives New Zealand.
How to cite this page
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835, URL: nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/the-declaration-of-independence, (Manatū Taonga - Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 14-Sep-2021
THIS MEDIA ITEM APPEARS IN 1 ARTICLE(S):
Declaration of Independence.
© Crown Copyright.
If we are all responsible for things that our ancestors did, that means Helmut needs to take ownership of the things that happened in Germany in the 1940's.
I don't think that's the subject of the debate...
@@MaggieHolt-c6knope but to these types Maori will always be far more responsible for their European ancestors actions than European nations themselves. It's just how these type of people think, I own my ancestors actions on both sides it's not that scary, but most pakeha don't like associating themselves W negativity and will distance themselves usually via finger pointing as seen above. Nothing out of the norm.
Was his ancestors Nazis tho? And his mother is maori does that mean his other ancestors fought in the maori battalion? like other than racism what's your point lol?
@@hailzreignmanga Were his ancestors Nazis? Just because you have German ancestry doesn't automatically make you a Nazi descendent. Seems like you feel guilty about the fact that you benefit from the displacement of indigenous people from their lands. Obviously what happened in Germany was awful, but Helmut came to the table to discuss the rights of New Zealanders under the Treaty, so what's your point.
@@hailzreignmanga My point is the left wants to classify people based on their race. I get called a ''coloniser'' for having white skin despite my ancestors never colonising anyone. I'm just using his own logic against him.
Wow that final rant by Bomber was one of the most self loathing statements Ive ever heard His poor daughter will need therapy
Pretty easily He is living out his ambitions through her which is a very unhealthy position for any parent to do If he wants to embrace a Maori tribalist lifestyle he should go and do it and not use her as a proxy
i just hit the mute button the guy has a loose screw or something
You must've had a loveless childhood if you think a father expressing pride about his daughter learning and embracing another language is something to cause a need for therapy. Maybe you're projecting - might be time to go check out those therapists for yourself :)
Yes I agree with you,what a lot of dribbly not only that the debate was between two people giving there side of the argument what right did he have to put in his two bobs worth, Feel so sorry for his daughter,why did he send her there when she was five years old,he could of at least let her make up her own mind when she was older.Just trying to live his life through his daughter.
Meanwhile here you 'nice' people are, attacking a literal child in the comment section. And you wonder why real kiwi's call you all monsters...
Well I subscribed because I thought this may be a well run debate as I used to listen to you guys on Sean Plunket Magic talk, however Bradbury is useless as a host and so one eyed it's ridiculous, that spiel at the end about his daughter almost made me vomit, whatever happened to a DEMOCRATIC allowance of the right to speak, this was just a nacissistic performance beginning before the show with the profile of this character taking up the blk of the screen, needless to say I will be unsubscribing from this, initially I got a shock to see how few followers you do have, now I understand why....
Agree with this completely
His story was appalling and shows how hatred is being whipped up amongst Maori etc. The activists are driven by hate and anger and no mention EVER of unity or one people.
U should read some of the twaddle bradbury writes....is always a terrible read....very rarely finish it.
hmmm not the don brash your use to huh? it was great! I was gobbsmacked he just roasted seymour at the end and told him he won't win then ended the show. It was glorious 🤣🤣🤣
He said early on he was not going to be neutral. I'd rather media that is aware and honest of their bias than media claiming they're neutral.
Modlik is frankly delusional. The treaty is very clear...
"The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures"
Now if you read the above statement carefully it states that ALL people have unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their land... not just Maori.
He clearly hasn't actually read the document.
He also screwed up big time. He asserts that the Treaty gives the crown the right to govern non Maori only... however the treaty says...
"their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands"
Now that's interesting because it say ALL parts of this land. Not just the European parts.
Lol Helmut references Te Tiriti, the Māori text which takes precedence. You obviously don’t know what your talking about
@@EranaHeperi-pt5rq
That's funny... the quotes I just gave are from the Maori text. Not the white mans version.
That's hilarious... you are another expert who has NEVER read the document.
Lol easy to label Helmut as delusional than to actually educate yourself. Thats why he’s in the debate and not you
@@EranaHeperi-pt5rq
I am clearly more educated than both of you... I haven't been proved wrong yet!
Let me ask you a question... now that you have actually read parts of the treaty, do you agree that Helmut's interpretation doesn't agree with what the treaty actually says?
I think you’ve completely missed the point and asking the wrong question. You should go back and watch it again, get some perspective instead of hiding under your own interpretation
his debate highlighted how obscure the treaty is especially wen applied to a modern context, how do we actually knw wht these maori terms really mean? ther is no literary body of work to give these terms any true context? or is this not the way to look at it?
Reply
To me this just shows that the "actual" history of events need to be brought out into the open. Who said what and the context around the signing of the treaty,
The fact is Maori "wanted" the British to come. Why? Four reasons:
1) To stop the warring utu ridden tribes to stop killing one another to the point of feared extermination.
2) Maori wanted the British to protect and remove the threat of a French invasion.
3) Maori could see the high tech items the British had, Iron tools, Warm blankets, Tobacco and Muskets. And
4) Trade was also important to Maori. They could see how to make a profit...money. So they could pay for all the high tech they sorely wanted.
In short. As the comments of some the Chiefs said at the signing of the Treaty. "Come and be a Father to us Maori"
@DW_Kiwi There is holes all over your points. Maori cut a deal to do business not get ripped of by constantly changing laws to suit Pakeha only.
We needed a flag to trade.
How we lived and prospered was from the land. The land was taken mostly by devious design. So only Pakeha prospered . Progress Pakeha call it. Now that Maori want to equalize as it should always have been. Pakeha don't want to loose superiority. Maori didn't assimilate as hoped. We simply unskilled to take on the dishonoing.
As for David stating where in the world race and ancestry has worked to benefit only one group. The royal families all over the world. The haves and the have not. The pen and sword.
Equality is a lie just like democracy.
Maori simply don't trust Pakeha. Or care what you believe because you lie so much you actually convince yourself it's the truth.
The hardest thing to do is to convince a fool he's been fooled. Especially when he fears loosing his upper hand. Even when it's really underhandedness
@@tracymichaelsen493 Well. Unfortunately. Now Pakeha simply do not trust Maori. We have an impasse. Don't we?.
I think we now need to agree to disagree before civil disruption occurs. To join the rest of the world in the belief that "equality" is important.
Is it Tracy. Can you agree with that.? We are all born equal. If you cant accept that, then we have a serious problem.
Maori are NOT the same as they were in 1840. Just stop and look at the clothes you wear, The house you live in. The car you own. The world you travel in. A romantic view of the past is a not real!! And it will not work in today's modern world.
By all means continue in your own beliefs and culture and language. But trying to get "everybody "on board with this will not work. You cant "force" people to join your Kapa haka club. Just look at the push back you are getting!!
Scrapping the Treaty is one option and become a Republic with a new constitution.
Or do you want separation and apartheid. And all that entails!! Its NOT working in South Africa or in any other place tin the world.
Like the ones that have embraced apartheid. This country will be destroyed.
@DW_Kiwi Equality? Yet are the royal family equal to the common man, regardless of race?
So equality is set up by those who deem themselves above the law.
For example ,over a 4 year period this govt has more than 14billion eartagged for the wealthiest to get tax dodge. 12 billion of that is to be borrowed.
So does that look like equality for all?
Infrastructure is in the shitter, literally the health systems stuffed and the ferries that link our country are on pause with the k-poppers yet they haven't been spoken to just ignored.
Luxon gives millions and promises more to a country we never new existed. He wants to upgrade our military and low and behold a ship sinks. They want to pimp out nz to the overseas big boys. They need 2 Maori house boys to do it. So Winston and Shane run around bashing Maori to Pakeha and then are sent in to put out the fires they started.
Oh and how ironic the pine forests the forced upon us as solid employment futures are now stuffed because they can't afford the power cost. When the govt gains the most from said power gangsters.
Then you got David stirring up the potty so the other 2 gangbangers sell us off for 50 years plus.
But don't focus on that!
It's those bloody Mareez trying to stop progress
@DW_Kiwi Well South Africa isn't Aotearoa is it?
If you carry on like the whites did there than you'll be sent packing just like them. Look at how many of them are here.
If you keep fibbing off Maori. Insulting and threatening with a republic or scrapping the Treaty . Good luck to you.
Pakeha have learnt nothing about equality ,except it sounds good to steal the high ground when your low balling
@DW_Kiwi Oh no...whatever shall we do without your clothes, houses and modern advances?
Surely we are doomed to death if we ever lose these things...let's hope we never lose cars, clothes, houses and a whole host of other modern advances, because the only ones who will survive without them will be non-Maori as they're the ONLY ones on this good green earth who have always survived without technological advances...
Hahahaha...if only that were true!!
David rearly looked Helmut in the eye, body language is important when debating, when ever Helmut said much, he couldn't bring himself to have any eye contact, so shameful, your a politician, you have ideals that are only ideal to a minority not the majority, Helmut, was a legend in this case in this debate.
That’s cause Helmut is violent and only has a 1 dimensional argument trying to undermine New Zealand’s constitution. If there’s no listening (Helmut) looking in the eye not relevant, it just becomes a primitive violence/ dominance game. Māori like Helmut perpetuate violence, no listening.
Kiingi Te Wherowhero did not sign the treaty because he had already signed He Whakaputanga
Which became void at the signing of the Treaty!!
@@DW_Kiwi NO, it still exists. It is a sleeping Treaty.
If Te Tiriti ends, the previous Treaty takes authority, and that is something Buckingham Palace has always known. David Seymour is not aware of that fact.
Considering the fate of Hong Kong, do not think for one second that the Royals would follow what is to happen here.
It's nice to see Damien being so respectful to Helmutt, that could mean he agrees somewhat, but he still knows that David is there and doesn't want to make waves as high as a tidal wave. Normally he would go all in and reek havac
Just read the Maori version of the Treaty (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu on the ToW Tribunal website). It doesn't take great knowledge of anything to understand what it means:
THE FIRST - The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
THE SECOND - The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
THE THIRD - For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
Another pakeha only taking the version those signatories couldn't read into account... how about you do the same with me? You sign one in english saying I pay you $5 everytime you say a full poem a minute, mine in te reo saying I get your house, your car and all your savings for $5. That sound good to you?
so why are you acting as stupid to think it would be agreeable to anyone?
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835
On 28 October 1835, at the home of British Resident James Busby in Waitangi, 34 northern chiefs signed He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (known in English as the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand).
The handwritten document consisting of four articles asserted that mana (authority) and sovereign power in New Zealand resided fully with Māori, and that foreigners would not be allowed to make laws. Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of United Tribes, was to meet at Waitangi each autumn to frame laws, and in return for their protection of British subjects in their territory, they sought King William's protection against threats to their mana. They also thanked the King for acknowledging their flag.
By July 1839, 52 chiefs had signed He Whakaputanga, including Te Hāpuku and Te Wherowhero, the first Māori King. The document was officially acknowledged by the British government. Busby saw it as a significant mark of Māori national identity and believed it would prevent other countries from making formal deals with Māori.
See our database of signatories or read more about He Whakaputanga from Archives NZ.
Transcript
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira o nga iwi o Nu Tireni i raro mai o Hauraki kua oti nei te huihui i Waitangi i Tokerau 28 o Oketopa 1835. ka wakaputa i te Rangatiratanga o to matou wenua a ka meatia ka wakaputaia e matou he Wenua Rangatira. kia huaina ‘Ko te Wakaminenga o nga Hapu o Nu Tireni’.
2. Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni ka meatia nei kei nga Tino Rangatira anake i to matou huihuinga. a ka mea hoki e kore e tukua e matou te wakarite ture ki te tahi hunga ke atu, me te tahi Kawanatanga hoki kia meatia i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni. ko nga tangata anake e meatia nei e matou e wakarite ana ki te ritenga o o matou ture e meatia nei e matou i to matou huihuinga.
3. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira ke mea nei kia huihui ki te runanga ki Waitangi a te Ngahuru i tenei tau i tenei tau ki te wakarite ture kia tika ai te wakawakanga kia mau pu te rongo kia mutu te he kia tika te hokohoko. a ka mea hoki ki nga Tauiwi o runga kia wakarerea te wawai. kia mahara ai ki te wakaoranga o to matou wenua. a kia uru ratou ki te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni.
4. Ka mea matou kia tuhituhia he pukapuka ki te ritenga o tenei o to matou wakaputanga nei ki te Kingi o Ingarani hei kawe atu i to matou aroha. nana hoki i wakaae ki te Kara mo matou. a no te mea ka atawai matou, ka tiaki i nga pakeha e noho nei i uta e rere mai ana ki te hokohoko, koia ka mea ai matou ki te Kingi kia waiho hei matua ki a matou i to matou Tamarikitanga kei wakakahoretia to matou Rangatiratanga.
Kua wakaetia katoatia e matou i tenei ra i te 28 o opketopa 1835 ki te aroaro o te Reireneti o te Kingi o Ingarani.
The Codicil
Ko matou ko nga Rangatira ahakoa kihai i tae ki te huihuinga nei no te nuinga o te Waipuke no te aha ranei - ka wakaae katoa ki te waka putanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene a ka uru ki roto ki te Wakaminenga.
A translation by Dr Mānuka Hēnare of Ngāpuhi, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Kuri
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. We, the absolute leaders of the tribes (iwi) of New Zealand (Nu Tireni) to the north of Hauraki (Thames) having assembled in the Bay of Islands (Tokerau) on 28th October 1835. [We] declare the authority and leadership of our country and say and declare them to be prosperous economy and chiefly country (Wenua Rangatira) under the title of ‘Te Wakaminenga o ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni’ (The sacred Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand).
2. The sovereignty/kingship (Kīngitanga) and the mana from the land of the Confederation of New Zealand are here declared to belong solely to the true leaders (Tino Rangatira) of our gathering, and we also declare that we will not allow (tukua) any other group to frame laws (wakarite ture), nor any Governorship (Kawanatanga) to be established in the lands of the Confederation, unless (by persons) appointed by us to carry out (wakarite) the laws (ture) we have enacted in our assembly (huihuinga).
3. We, the true leaders have agreed to meet in a formal gathering (rūnanga) at Waitangi in the autumn (Ngahuru) of each year to enact laws (wakarite ture) that justice may be done (kia tika ai te wakawakanga), so that peace may prevail and wrong-doing cease and trade (hokohoko) be fair. [We] invite the southern tribes to set aside their animosities, consider the well-being of our land and enter into the sacred Confederation of New Zealand.
4. We agree that a copy of our declaration should be written and sent to the King of England to express our appreciation (aroha) for this approval of our flag. And because we are showing friendship and care for the Pākehā who live on our shores, who have come here to trade (hokohoko), we ask the King to remain as a protector (matua) for us in our inexperienced statehood (tamarikitanga), lest our authority and leadership be ended (kei whakakahoretia tō mātou Rangatiratanga).
The Codicil
We are the rangatira who, although we did not attend the meeting due to the widespread flooding or other reasons, fully agree with He Whakaputanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene and join the sacred Confederation.
English version written by James Busby
The English text was drafted by British Resident James Busby for the 28 October 1835 signing. It was then translated into te reo Māori by Henry Williams and written out by Eruera Pare Hongi. Busby despatched the English text to both the New South Wales government and the Colonial Office in Britain.
Declaration of Independence of New Zealand
1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi, in the Bay of Islands, on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the Independence of our country, which is hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of The United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His Majesty, the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgement of their flag; and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that he will continue to be the parent of their infant State, and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.
Agreed to unanimously on this 28 day of October, 1835, in the presence of His Britannic Majesty’s Resident.
(Here follows the signatures or marks of thirty-five Hereditary chiefs or Heads of tribes, which form a fair representation of the tribes of New Zealand from the North Cape to the latitude of the River Thames.)
English witnesses:
(Signed) Henry Williams, Missionary, C.M.S.
George Clarke, C.M.S.
James R. Clendon, Merchant.
Gilbert Mair, Merchant.
I certify that the above is a correct copy of the Declaration of the Chiefs, according to the translation of Missionaries who have resided ten years and upwards in the country; and it is transmitted to His Most Gracious Majesty the King of England, at the unanimous request of the chiefs.
(Signed) JAMES BUSBY, British Resident at New Zealand.
CREDIT
Archives New Zealand - Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga
Reference: IA9-1
The downloadable copy of the Declaration was reproduced from an 1877 book of facsimile copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi.
The translation is from Archives New Zealand.
How to cite this page
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835, URL: nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/the-declaration-of-independence, (Manatū Taonga - Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 14-Sep-2021
THIS MEDIA ITEM APPEARS IN 1 ARTICLE(S):
Declaration of Independence.
© Crown Copyright.
Very clear. Even though its not the correct version!!
@@DW_Kiwi The Waitangi Tribunal have this translation on their website. Which alternative translation do you consider 'correct'?
There isn't even a word for confederation in te reo, try again.
I think David Seymour is brave to enter a lion's den with those he disagrees with unlike some politicians. The fact that we have two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi has led to much confusion and conflict. At heart are the issues of whether Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown and whether the Treaty is a partnership?
When people speak the truth, in jest. Seymour's response to Grant about leagalising heroine and yes the whole subject was a joke but... Seymour said to Grant, 'you haven't donated enough'.
So Seymour, what's the going rate for your support?
Helmut was out of his depth and was debating on feelings and emotions, not facts.
Because of that, Seymour wasn't challenged.
What planet are you watching from as delusional as david
Helmut sounded like another Willy Jackson.Just repetitive waffle.
I'm sure it can get emotional when people are trying to dismiss your constitutional rights!! Seymour just lied the whole time anyway.
Seymour had to lie about his position seconds after he stated it. Helmut won easily.
He spoke facts while david the divider lied and when you have to lie to have a point - you never had one to begin with
@@tanepukenga1421 how is someone a divider when they want everyone to be treated the same? maybe you need ro read the dictionary
I thought this was going to be a serious debate.. You joke about being pakeha and therefore can change the rules as a joke nor thinking that we, as Maori, experience this regularly.
I'm pretty tired of NZers arguing over rights/race/governance.......it looks to me like Maori have eyes on some kind of prize they want to the exclusion of other NZers
It's making this country unhappy.
First of all the professionalism of the crowd from the working group was appalling, the moderator clearly was not free from bias.
A couple points i would like to raise:
1: David as a politician cannot openly speak about his views regarding the sovereignty being conceeded that Helmut raised. He would risk damaging his image as a politician so i can understand why he didn't engage with this topic. However, Helmut argued from a perspective of power that a fierce Chiefs would not give up their mana and sovereignty because they were feirce and that there was little British presence at the time. My question is and David touched base on this lightly, why would a world super power who ruled by conquest and claimed a quarter of every square meter of land make an exception for a bunch of seperated iwi on a small island in the middle of no where? That to me is illogical.
2: The outro from the moderator was appalling, they say there should be seperation of church and state, after hearing about this event i am beginning to think there needs to be seperation between state and culturalism. If thats not indoctrination then i don't know what is!
Right is on Davids side. However I hope more facts are brought out to show that Britain in fact "required" Sovereignty so that that could "legally" bring their common law to this lawless land
Mediator was terrible - if you have an opinion, join the debate , don't moderate it.
I love how David ran away from Helmut's argument about how all New Zealanders actually aren't equal under the law and called it a high school argument, Pat from BHN made essentially the same argument to him a few years ago and he had no response then either and hasn't gone back on the show since...
He knows it debunks his point about wanting all New Zealanders to be equal under the law and proves he's race baiting since he ONLY wants equality baseed on race, not in any other area where the law discriminates like people under 18 being denied the right to vote or people under 65 being denied super based on age
what a great debate! top marks to all involved. I have been super frustrated with mainstream media coverage of this. The protests against it are covered but no one is telling us what exactly this bill is about. this debate was very illuminating and I learned a lot. The question of 'was sovereignty seeded' is massive. really bad that this is not what we are debating widely. have the powers at b decided that this is too hot to handle and we're just expected to muddle our way forward. I think this debate shows that a constructive and respectful discussion can be had.
regarding the example of Indian tribes in the US, I just learned that there was a supreme court decision in 2015 in Oklahoma that did grant sovereignty which was not the status quo and has really upended the apple cart. what is happening there would be a very interesting case for us to look at. we need to map out what NZ/Aotearoa would look like as best we can under each pathway to understand how it would be in practical terms like what was being asked for in this debate but never quite reached.
The Iwi vs. Peewee Treaty Debate | Helmut Modlik vs. David Seymour - The Working Group - 8 October 2024
Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Greetings to you all.
In this critical analysis of the debate between Act leader David Seymour and iwi leader Helmut Modlik on the Treaty Principles Bill, it becomes abundantly clear that Modlik presented a far more compelling, evidence-based argument that thoroughly outmatched Seymour's rhetoric-heavy approach.
Seymour's Arguments:
1. Seymour relied heavily on vague assertions and emotional appeals, claiming New Zealand is more divided now than at any time since the 1981 Springbok tour, without providing any substantive evidence to support this claim[1].
2. He described the Treaty as a "beautiful document" while simultaneously pushing for his Treaty Principles Bill, a contradictory stance that lacks coherence and historical understanding[1].
3. Seymour's claim that the Treaty said all New Zealanders have the same rights and duties is a gross oversimplification that ignores the historical context and the ongoing impacts of colonization. This interpretation has been challenged by scholars such as Claudia Orange, who argues that the Treaty was fundamentally about a relationship between two peoples.
4. When challenged to provide evidence that Māori chiefs ceded sovereignty, Seymour failed to present any historical documents or scholarly research to support this claim. This is in direct contradiction to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal's Te Paparahi o Te Raki report, which concluded that Māori did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown in 1840.
Modlik's Arguments:
1. Modlik grounded his arguments in historical context and cultural understanding, emphasizing the importance of understanding the Treaty's historical context in 1840. This approach aligns with the work of historians like Michael King, who stress the importance of understanding the Treaty in its historical context.
2. He provided insight into the Māori worldview, explaining the concept of "mana-diminishing behaviour" and why it would be culturally and psychologically impossible for rangatira to completely surrender their mana. This perspective is supported by Māori scholars like Moana Jackson, who have written extensively on Māori concepts of sovereignty and authority.
3. Modlik directly challenged Seymour to provide evidence that Māori chiefs ceded sovereignty, highlighting the lack of linguistic, cultural, or historical evidence for this claim. This challenge is supported by the research of scholars like Margaret Mutu, who have analyzed the Māori text of the Treaty and its implications.
4. He emphasized the ongoing nature of Treaty settlements, powerfully stating, "Two cents in the dollar is not a settlement, it's a down payment". This sentiment echoes the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal in numerous reports, which have consistently found that the Crown has failed to honor its Treaty obligations.
5. Modlik's arguments aligned with findings from the Waitangi Tribunal and other historical scholarship, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the Treaty and its principles.
Modlik's evidence-based approach, grounded in historical and cultural understanding, thoroughly outclassed Seymour's rhetoric-heavy arguments. The debate exposed the Treaty Principles Bill for what it is - a politically motivated attempt to undermine Māori rights and maintain the status quo of systemic inequality, rather than a genuine effort to address Treaty issues.
Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui. Be strong, be brave, be steadfast.
References:
[1] www.nzherald.co.nz/.../act.../ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP/
Orange, C. (2011). The Treaty of Waitangi. Bridget Williams Books.
waitangitribunal.govt.nz/.../report-on-te-raki.../
King, M. (2003). The Penguin History of New Zealand. Penguin Books.
Jackson, M. (2018). Understanding the Treaty of Waitangi. In M. Reilly, S. Duncan, G. Leoni, L. Paterson, L. Carter, M. Rātima, & P. Rewi (Eds.), Te Kōparapara: An Introduction to the Māori World (pp. 133-149). Auckland University Press.
Mutu, M. (2010). Constitutional Intentions: The Treaty of Waitangi Texts. In M. Mulholland & V. Tawhai (Eds.), Weeping Waters: The Treaty of Waitangi and Constitutional Change (pp. 13-40). Huia Publishers.
www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/.../waitangi.../
Citations:
[1] ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/.../blog.pdf
facebook.com/Themaorigreenlantern/posts/pfbid0LpSRLWb9GMnju9nEAud6E54roKRWH7A1myVQyEaMCraBvyDe9e4tJRAvy1UgwMjGl
Good "spin"
❤
Nice use of chat gpt mate
This is a great example of why it's impossible to provide accurate analysis on issues you've already made up your mind on.
Biased much?
He kept bringing it back to what the document stated...
David struggled to get around it... but good to know his views in full without being interupted or anyone getting upset.
Know thy enemy.
Bomber is so brave and virtuous 😅.
The fact he wet himself over the response of an audience when the images of politicians came up on screen, two of whom are Maori just shows the division that the left has caused in this country.
Those responses are learnt from a left leaning media peddling misinformation and morons like the grevience activists and Bradbury using communist tactics to sow the seeds of division.
As a part Maori New Zealander i''m sick of this BS grevience industry that the treaty now pushes and the only reason Helmit is on board talking nonsense.
I want this to stop, and even though I'm not a huge fan of David, I feel he is correct on this issue.
The billions of dollars these leeches suck from our taxes is absurd and it must stop so it can be put into the pool to help all New Zealanders. Better Hospitals, better roads, better education, (without ideological driven far left teachers) for us all.
It's disgusting how far this country has slipped, and it must stop.
Thank you so well said..
the only division is you. what do you want? maori to not exist or a whitewashed assimilated version... im glad Bomber immersed his family in the maori culture its a beautiful thing unique to aotearoa newzealand. your just going to have to keep hating on maori
We need more Maori speaking out. It's disgusting the way iwi have fraudulently used the rogue James Freeman version of the treaty (notes put together by a sacked lowly clerk) to claim Forestries and fisheries. there is no ika or ngahere in the Maori version.
Best thing I ever did was move to Australia and stopped paying my taxes to these leeches...
@@x0xmwaahx0x why didn't he learn himself putting a five year old in to bat for him,what a poof,he had no place in this debate and should not have had anything to say in it.
Exactly!!
Going forward I know what world I want my kids and grand kids to live in, it is certainly NOT Helmut's vision.
Thats tough for you because Helmut won the debate as official polls show. I suggest you either tidy up your historical colonial mess of theft and murder or hop on that plane back to where you came form cause Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori will be right here holding your racist history to account for another 700 years
In essence, the final resting place of Modlik’s argument was that the Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown. As a consequence, all actions of government based on Crown sovereignty are essentially invalid. The basis for this position was that the Maori version of the Treaty apparently states Maori agreed to allow imposition of law, but that did not imply British Crown governorship. Apparently Reverend Williams translated the Maori words incorrectly and replaced the words “kāwanatanga” and “mana rangatira” with governorship into the English version.
Issues with this interpretation of the signing & the concept of sovereignty:
1. Is it claimed that Maori were only able to understand the Maori version and there were no Maori who were able to read both the English & Maori versions? That seems highly unlikely. There were bilingual Maori and Non-Maori aplenty. Colenso’s notes on the Maori debates & comments reveal that Maori knew what the English version said when they signed the Treaty.
2. The English translation of Apirana Ngata’s Maori language explanation of the Treaty (1922) clearly states that the Maori chiefs did indeed fully cede sovereignty and fully understood the implications. Does Modlik also denounce the translated Apirana document as inaccurate & on what basis? The opposing view (and the popular one currently) is outlined here: thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right . From Modlik’s account, the Treaty allowed for the Crown to govern the settlers and non-Maori according to English law, but that governorship/kingship over Maori people and their lands was to be retained by the Maori chiefs. Governorship & rule was to be shared.
These apparently irreconcilable positions are at the centre of the current debate and tension. If these positions are indeed irreconcilable, then the Treaty cannot serve its function as a constitutional document.
Issues with this account:
1. Maori tribes were not united under a single chiefly authority or king. There was no New Zealand government or central authority. Therefore, under this scheme, each tribe would govern their own people and lands - pretty much as they did before the Treaty signing. Why then would Maori sign a Treaty when the only impact of British governorship was to be applied to the settlers and new arrivals?
2. How does Modlik envisage the application of law over Maori & how would that be enforced? The tribal conflicts that killed a substantial proportion of Maori in the musket wars indicates that this model of separate governorship was disastrous for Maori and a failure. Inevitably British subjects would be embroiled in this tribal warfare. The Crown would hardly sign an agreement to allow that sort of political instability. What would be the point?
3. Here’s an issue that must have existed in 1840 and certainly exists now. What is the status of those with mixed tribal blood, or mixed Maori and non-Maori blood. Under which chief is a person with mixed Tainui and Ngapuhi ancestry to be governed? Does a person with mixed Maori & non-Maori have the right to select the legal system under which he/she is to have rights and obligations? Do such people pay tribute/taxes based on what mixtures of parentage they possess? What if parentage is unknown? This was commonplace I think in 1840, more so now. Who decides? Such a system would be catastrophic and chaotic. Anarchy and tribal warfare would be inevitable.
The only possible solution is to abandon the Treaty as a constitutional document and start afresh. It is disastrous to have multiple authorities that have different laws and customs governing different sectors of the population based on ancestry, within a single geopolitical jurisdiction. How are the police to determine if someone should be arrested for suspicion of a crime when the person’s racial profile determines what law applies? What if the person does not know his or her own genealogy? Impossibly complex - unless everyone carries an ID card with their DNA details (that is a slippery slope into dictatorship if ever there was one!). Even if NZers were to accept such a mandatory ID card (doubtful), the problem of mixed parentage cannot be resolved.
Abandonment of the Treaty as a constitutional document is no easy matter either. Ideally, all citizens must be treated as individuals without reference to race, religion, ethnicity, philosophy, gender or other group identity. Only a minimal age for eligibility to vote, and clear standards for citizenship should apply. Being born in New Zealand is sufficient criterion to be a citizen. Naturalization through a clear process with very transparent criteria is the only other route applicable. All non-naturalized people in New Zealand are subject to the laws of the land but have no democratic or political rights as such. Otherwise, all people: citizens or not; in New Zealand at any given time; must be equal before the law without exception.
David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Act is a first step, in that the conversation is being had and should continue. The next step is to agree on a constitutional document that follows the principles in the paragraph above. We must look forward, not back to an agreement that contains irreconcilable differences of interpretation. We do not need a full Republic constitution. The existing relationship with the British Crown with the Parliamentary system of governorship and an independent judiciary that does not make laws, only interprets then applies them, is a reasonable and pragmatic model. Separation of Church and State is also a clear principle to move forward with. The State should have no involvement with an independent Press and in my view, should be separated from the economy as well. Separation of State & economy is a long term goal, but the other principles can be implemented immediately.
Lots of food for thought here. I think point No.1 is often overlooked, and so obvious.
Seymour sounds like he's learned his talking points by heart. Almost wooden.
I hear he's read multiple texts about the topic and translations, unlike many from the radical left Labour party, and Te Pati Maori.
Ye I hope he has more historical centered facts next time
Awesome Helmut you nailed it bro.tino pai to korero kia koe
Another Moari really not helping their debate by displaying their stupidity!
@@mike-v7s Mike, why do you feel like it's acceptable to be nasty to Māori?
His own coffin. Emotive and no specific facts to support his narrative. Just opinion of himself and the book he waved
@@vishtymkin1778 Because they have been nasty to me for a very long time. Being called a pakeha annoys me too. Historically if one race creates a word to refer to another it doesnt end well. Ive been called a pakeha and palangi unprovoked for too long and ive had enough. Why do you feel like you have to defend them? You obviously havent grown up in South Auckland.
after the opening statements I think the moderator hijacks the discussion.
Democracy is only here because of the British, did this guy forget after signing the Treaty some Maori went to War with the Crown for a long 26 years before they got into Line.
Basically what Helmut is saying maori won't to do what ever there want hell with democracy.
WTF, David Seymour cannot give our treaty rights to just anyone on NZ soil. Te Tiriti was exclusively between Māori and the crown.
You've got to be an NZ citizen before you get those rights. You're jumping to conclusions. Check yourself
Who's the Crown ...Today
The treaty was dishonored when guns were pulled on the English.
Disappointing headline. No wonder the subject is difficult to get a fair hearing on. Rather childish introduction to what was a healthy and open discussion on an issue that affects us all. Again so much bias on the part of the moderator. Instead of trying to tip the balance why not let the parties have their say and leave it at that. Why close off with a summary that was neither relevant nor balanced. It was the last say so use it with respect as the moderator.
Seymour says the problem with Te Tiriti principles is it was interpreted and decided upon by judiciary, academics and tribunals. How does he think English Common Law has been created???? Its called jurisprudence and it has almost a thousand years of evolution OUTSIDE of any government
Helmet contradicted himself in 30 seconds by referring to Democracy, and then debated against democracy.
What democratic rights have been denied to you or anyone else?
@@kevin5073
Nothing right now.
But Helmet view is that democracy does not exist in this country
@@alman-world so after 180 years no one has been denied any democratic rights but because David Seymour says so, suddenly its the end of democracy as we know it?
@@kevin5073
Well, If I can have a crack at that, I would like to give a couple of answers.
1 - The Maori have threaten violence if democracy doesn't go their way... the have threatened my right to peace
2- In a democratic system any person of any race should be able to contest any seat... by having Maori seats they have violated that right.
3 - They have violated equality before the law, recently many Maori who have committed serious offences have avoided prison altogether
4 - I personally know of many property owners who have had their property rights restricted... for example a farm track couldn't be widened due to Iwi interference
5 - Lastly, when I was a young man I was unemployed for a time. I heard about some jobs going at a local carpet mill and Winz were forwarding people. However when I inquired why I hadn't been sent that particular job I was told, very blatantly that the government has a policy of giving Maori preference in order to reduce the number of Maori on the dole. Now what that means in practice is that the Winz staff had to send those job details to the Maori applicants... and NOT to people of other races.
Now any way to cut that last point... I was a victim of racism. Right now I work with someone who worked there for over a decade... and when she left a couple of years ago staff were still being incentivised to give Maori jobs first. So this blatant racism has been going on for decades.
Now that's quite a laundry list of problems... and those are the only the ones that come to me off the top of my head. Do you want more?
Wait I have one more...
6 - The basic principal of fairness and justice is that only the guilty party should pay for a crime. And because I have never stolen Maori land it is an injustice that I am paying for it. Two wrongs don't' make a right.
Oh... and another
7- In a free country it is standard for public places like the beach to belong to everyone. That is being taken from us as well
Jeez... they just keep coming don't they?
@@alman-world you probably want to watch it again.
Rights to culture. Where else can Māori culture be practiced and history upheld in this world. Every other race that lives here has its culture upheld in their native lands. They intend to diminish Māori sovereignty. As soon as Māori step out of Aotearoa NZ, we can't take the sovereignty of others in their own country.
Seymour's right Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, therefore we are all equal. No 50-50 co-governance bulldust that leaves us like apartheid era South Africa.
Not if you count the treaty written in the language the signatories knew. It only says your fantasy one in the language less than 2% of them knew, and couldn't read.
maori are equal to the crown not you james... Lol
Yip, the signatories of te tiriti understood what they were giving up, this is recorded in their speeches. The ones that didn't want to sign did so because they knew what they were giving up.
Source: Trust me bro
No. You're wrong. The treaty is about an alliance of 2 sovereign. Not one.
I really appreciated the debate, nobody discusses the treaty in public. Can we have more ?
God help NZ the next time Labour win another Election
Next election. If you don't like it fkoff
Make sure they dont!!
Toitu te Tiriti
Helmut "Are Treaties meant to be honoured or settled?" The answer "well, that's self-evidently true" What is?
This moderator sucks
His closing comments goes to show his mind is already made up
He was very nasty at the end there, kind of ruined it.
@@yingle6027 cringeworthy
The best ending ever loved it woo hoo. You the man Helmut.
Best moderator ever. 😊
The left wing bias and framing in this discussion (more like interrogation) is disgusting, vile and sadly expected from any thing coming from left wing circular thinking perpetual victims.
David was set up and bullied by the moderator, who was intent on expressing his personal views, instead of facilitating honest and meaningful debate. The result....a waste of time!
Yep the moderator was clearly not mutual. Was really unfair, regardless of that Seymour still wiped the floor with Helmut.
He said he was going to do that
Agree 100% with your comments, tha moderator Bomber Bradbury is only a self opinionated racist
David got exposed lol - that’s what happens when you regurgitate nothing but lies and divisive rhetoric.
@@rikima123 yes david wants equal rights for all, so divisive 🙄 yawn get a grip
Seymour didn't come with any receipts or sources 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hemut argues that its illogical to think that the chiefs were persauded to give up sovereignty of their kingdoms to a british monarch... yet that's exactly what Athelstan did to become the first King of England. That's the problem with Maori history... it doesn't account for the rest of the being 4000 years ahead.
That's a literal fantasy story. England was started by the celts, then romans, then saxons, then vikings, then french. Stop lying.
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835
On 28 October 1835, at the home of British Resident James Busby in Waitangi, 34 northern chiefs signed He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (known in English as the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand).
The handwritten document consisting of four articles asserted that mana (authority) and sovereign power in New Zealand resided fully with Māori, and that foreigners would not be allowed to make laws. Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of United Tribes, was to meet at Waitangi each autumn to frame laws, and in return for their protection of British subjects in their territory, they sought King William's protection against threats to their mana. They also thanked the King for acknowledging their flag.
By July 1839, 52 chiefs had signed He Whakaputanga, including Te Hāpuku and Te Wherowhero, the first Māori King. The document was officially acknowledged by the British government. Busby saw it as a significant mark of Māori national identity and believed it would prevent other countries from making formal deals with Māori.
See our database of signatories or read more about He Whakaputanga from Archives NZ.
Transcript
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira o nga iwi o Nu Tireni i raro mai o Hauraki kua oti nei te huihui i Waitangi i Tokerau 28 o Oketopa 1835. ka wakaputa i te Rangatiratanga o to matou wenua a ka meatia ka wakaputaia e matou he Wenua Rangatira. kia huaina ‘Ko te Wakaminenga o nga Hapu o Nu Tireni’.
2. Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni ka meatia nei kei nga Tino Rangatira anake i to matou huihuinga. a ka mea hoki e kore e tukua e matou te wakarite ture ki te tahi hunga ke atu, me te tahi Kawanatanga hoki kia meatia i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni. ko nga tangata anake e meatia nei e matou e wakarite ana ki te ritenga o o matou ture e meatia nei e matou i to matou huihuinga.
3. Ko matou ko nga Tino Rangatira ke mea nei kia huihui ki te runanga ki Waitangi a te Ngahuru i tenei tau i tenei tau ki te wakarite ture kia tika ai te wakawakanga kia mau pu te rongo kia mutu te he kia tika te hokohoko. a ka mea hoki ki nga Tauiwi o runga kia wakarerea te wawai. kia mahara ai ki te wakaoranga o to matou wenua. a kia uru ratou ki te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni.
4. Ka mea matou kia tuhituhia he pukapuka ki te ritenga o tenei o to matou wakaputanga nei ki te Kingi o Ingarani hei kawe atu i to matou aroha. nana hoki i wakaae ki te Kara mo matou. a no te mea ka atawai matou, ka tiaki i nga pakeha e noho nei i uta e rere mai ana ki te hokohoko, koia ka mea ai matou ki te Kingi kia waiho hei matua ki a matou i to matou Tamarikitanga kei wakakahoretia to matou Rangatiratanga.
Kua wakaetia katoatia e matou i tenei ra i te 28 o opketopa 1835 ki te aroaro o te Reireneti o te Kingi o Ingarani.
The Codicil
Ko matou ko nga Rangatira ahakoa kihai i tae ki te huihuinga nei no te nuinga o te Waipuke no te aha ranei - ka wakaae katoa ki te waka putanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene a ka uru ki roto ki te Wakaminenga.
A translation by Dr Mānuka Hēnare of Ngāpuhi, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Kuri
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. We, the absolute leaders of the tribes (iwi) of New Zealand (Nu Tireni) to the north of Hauraki (Thames) having assembled in the Bay of Islands (Tokerau) on 28th October 1835. [We] declare the authority and leadership of our country and say and declare them to be prosperous economy and chiefly country (Wenua Rangatira) under the title of ‘Te Wakaminenga o ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni’ (The sacred Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand).
2. The sovereignty/kingship (Kīngitanga) and the mana from the land of the Confederation of New Zealand are here declared to belong solely to the true leaders (Tino Rangatira) of our gathering, and we also declare that we will not allow (tukua) any other group to frame laws (wakarite ture), nor any Governorship (Kawanatanga) to be established in the lands of the Confederation, unless (by persons) appointed by us to carry out (wakarite) the laws (ture) we have enacted in our assembly (huihuinga).
3. We, the true leaders have agreed to meet in a formal gathering (rūnanga) at Waitangi in the autumn (Ngahuru) of each year to enact laws (wakarite ture) that justice may be done (kia tika ai te wakawakanga), so that peace may prevail and wrong-doing cease and trade (hokohoko) be fair. [We] invite the southern tribes to set aside their animosities, consider the well-being of our land and enter into the sacred Confederation of New Zealand.
4. We agree that a copy of our declaration should be written and sent to the King of England to express our appreciation (aroha) for this approval of our flag. And because we are showing friendship and care for the Pākehā who live on our shores, who have come here to trade (hokohoko), we ask the King to remain as a protector (matua) for us in our inexperienced statehood (tamarikitanga), lest our authority and leadership be ended (kei whakakahoretia tō mātou Rangatiratanga).
The Codicil
We are the rangatira who, although we did not attend the meeting due to the widespread flooding or other reasons, fully agree with He Whakaputanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene and join the sacred Confederation.
English version written by James Busby
The English text was drafted by British Resident James Busby for the 28 October 1835 signing. It was then translated into te reo Māori by Henry Williams and written out by Eruera Pare Hongi. Busby despatched the English text to both the New South Wales government and the Colonial Office in Britain.
Declaration of Independence of New Zealand
1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi, in the Bay of Islands, on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the Independence of our country, which is hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of The United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His Majesty, the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgement of their flag; and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that he will continue to be the parent of their infant State, and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.
Agreed to unanimously on this 28 day of October, 1835, in the presence of His Britannic Majesty’s Resident.
(Here follows the signatures or marks of thirty-five Hereditary chiefs or Heads of tribes, which form a fair representation of the tribes of New Zealand from the North Cape to the latitude of the River Thames.)
English witnesses:
(Signed) Henry Williams, Missionary, C.M.S.
George Clarke, C.M.S.
James R. Clendon, Merchant.
Gilbert Mair, Merchant.
I certify that the above is a correct copy of the Declaration of the Chiefs, according to the translation of Missionaries who have resided ten years and upwards in the country; and it is transmitted to His Most Gracious Majesty the King of England, at the unanimous request of the chiefs.
(Signed) JAMES BUSBY, British Resident at New Zealand.
CREDIT
Archives New Zealand - Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga
Reference: IA9-1
The downloadable copy of the Declaration was reproduced from an 1877 book of facsimile copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi.
The translation is from Archives New Zealand.
How to cite this page
He Whakaputanga - Declaration of Independence, 1835, URL: nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/the-declaration-of-independence, (Manatū Taonga - Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 14-Sep-2021
THIS MEDIA ITEM APPEARS IN 1 ARTICLE(S):
Declaration of Independence.
© Crown Copyright.
@@tanepukenga1421 England did not exist until Athelstan's Kingdom of England. Prior to that the territory was several other Kingdoms. You are factually mistaken. The territory of what became England was previously Roman Britannia.
Bit rich of a Maori to tell me my own history. Don't you fulla's complain about Europeans doing that to you?
@@rickspestcontrol That's actually my history prof from uni and all of england calling you a bullshitter. Especially since he was saxon, genius.
@@tanepukenga1421 Righto.. well I am a prof of history and the term is Anglo Saxon (of which I am one) and I'm telling you that you're wrong.
A point that is ignored or at best skirted around, is the configuration that derives from the treaty. Te Tiriti was between two sovereign parties: 1) The Queen of England who reigns by bloodline and is constrained by Rule of Law, Magna Carta,1688, and the Bible. 2) The United Tribes of all of New Zealand in congress as a group as representatives of their tribes which each have distinct territory, kitanga, and bloodlines going back to the 7 canoes. Each tribe was entreated to continue full sovereignty over their own area. Each tribe allowed the Queen to appoint a governor and thence permitted British people to rule by rule of law, Magna Carta, 1688 and the Bible over the settlers and by implication, rule over the tribes if, and only if , there was a governance matter at hand. The Governor evolved to a Governor General and a Parliament. Mission creep came in and Maori Tribes were impacted. There used to be a Maori Parliament until about 1947 when it went into recess and thence Maori lost any visible means of their sovereignty as a collective whole. We now have a shadowy sham whereby the Maori Monarch (Monarch of a small part of NZ) and the (Maori) Ratana Church and the Tribe that is at Waitangi are "consulted" by the government to rule longer. Each tribe is still sovereign over their own territory that they have not been made to sell. Its just that they are fractured. Look into Ko Huiarau to restore the structure that was put together by the ancestors in 1808!!! Ko Huiarau has legs as it used to have mana and can be restored. Each tribe might dream of "taking back sovereignty" but since when has any tribe been willing to let any other tribe dictate to them? Never! It is bad enough when bureacrats in Wellington tell us what to do. We are old enough to attend to our own affairs and those bureacrats work for us. We pay them! They better do what WE want. That can be done by re-instating the Ko Huiarau Parliament.
"Iwi vs Peewee" - how very adult.
We cant create a better future for all if we obsess about recreating the past. New Zealand for New Zealanders - Maori, Chinese, European, Samoan, etc. No special rights for one group. How is this so hard to understand?
Go Seymour Nz needs you to sort this out. Seymour for prime minister 2027🤗 . Go ACT
Seymour lost the debate, loser
Seymour Trump
Go Trumpy. And Seymour then
@@boltang bahaha
Seymour is the leader of the Act Party which is a minor party in New Zealand politics. Minority parties never make PM. Don't you know anything about our voting system? Explains a lot about why you support Seymour 🫢
I'm shocked that a link I followed to try to connect with this debates in one click took me to blatantly pornographic videos. How can I Report it?
Helmut is delusional
Agreed.....He was just cherry picking directly from a fairy-tale of a distorted historical perspective.....We hear that BS all the time from the activists in parliament, it was getting old years ago. Now the argument has shown itself, to be as pathetic as the ones that peddle it.... like second rate, second hand yard-brush salesman
How?
Yet you can't say how or why, like you couldn't when you were being racist during the debate. And just to reiterate, Yes, Maori ARE in face citizens and DO in fact pay tax.
So is your mum for having you
For those asking why.....For all those saying you never ceded sovereignty, stop expecting a treaty payout and all the benefits that come form being colonized. Go back to living in your mud huts and eating each other.
I cant wait to sign the referendum