Thanks Duncan this is more coherent and most clear explanation on the bill I get it now because of your korero. Although my iwi and hapu did not sign and have always been unpro we had alot of losses with resources and deaths during the land war 😢 very sad my poor koroua and kuia were slaughtered nga mihi nui I'm defs back on track now ❤
When land or resources passed from one pre-European Iwi to another so did Tino rangatiratanga and tikanga. Disputed lands moved occasionally from the control of Tainui to Ngapui and from Ngapui to Tainui. A new iwi now had authority over this land. Tino rangatiratanga can pass from one group to another. It always could. All landowners in New Zealand have authority over their own lands underneath a nationwide system of governance.
Tino Rangatiratanga is Maori kupu it isn’t an English word which you’re trying to water down. It’s not something that can be given to Pakeha, because it encompasses Maori culture. Seymour’s attempt to give it to everyone, is in fact doing the opposite for Maori it’s taking our culture and white washing us. Everything Te Ao Maori is under attack. For instance Maori land isn’t on English titles, if Seymour’s bill passes government will have rights to confiscate our lands which also hold our Marae, Tipuna and current iwi. Under his Bill claims Maori have special rights, and shouldn’t. That is just one example
Are you trying to claim Tino Rangatiratanga as land ownership?? pls sit down. That's like saying the entire marine eco system is... sand. It does not equate.
Principles were only acknowledged in 1975 and only published in newspaper rather than put into law at the time. The Māori party are very clear about wanting a separate parliament and Māori do have "different responsibilities and rights" to other NZers.
@@xxyzz-j7o That's the part where I think Seymours bill should pass to become law as one person one vote and Pakeha and Maori live side by side peacefully like we did 50s 60s 70s 80s before elitists started making trouble. The elite have done very well out of all of this while the ordinary Maori have not received one cent.
Difficult here to penetrate the rhetoric and get to the argument. The problem here is that while Webb agrees that the Treaty evolves...in spirit (which is undefined), he has definite ideas about how the Treaty should be regarded now...and his name calling against David Seymour does not give credit to his position. His is an opinion stated ex cathedra...as if final. Few treaties survive their signatories. Whatever their thoughts, ambitions or suppositions, the Treaty signatories are all long dead. The Crown no longer has authority. The principles? A complex and ill defined conjuration of Geoffrey Palmer that has been more hotly contested in interpretation than a biblical text. So let us have a national conversation with ALL opinions...including Seymours.
Yes, Te Tiriti evolves in spirit. One day it identifies itself as an agreement relevant to the 19th century between 542 chiefs and the British monarchy through its representatives, next day as an everlasting tablet from the gods, next day as an axe to rend asunder governance and the stability and success of this nation, next day as a political tool to stimulate racism against white people, next day as a justification to show contempt for our parliamentary rules, and next week as a reason for terrorist assassinations. Very difficult to keep up with its preferred pronouns.
@Empathiclistener pls direct me to where in Te tiriti it demonstrates racism toward pakeha?? Cause one thing that is easy to recognize is since it's signing, every legislation that created harm to ppl or environment have been clear breaches of it.
What a load of coloniser crap, and spoken with so much intent to justify ignoring a founding document. Your summation means squat diddley at the end of the day, just white noise...
@@AmeliaRosehe1 But you haven't actually addressed or refuted any aspect of what was written. You have simply resorted to insulting dismissals without explanation, plus some speculation about intent.
Michael Education is excellent isnt it. Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill 45 Kings Counsel 440 Church Leaders Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dame Jenny Shipley Former AG Chris Finlayson The Crowns own Lawyers The Courts 100 years of jurisprudence. Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world. What academic rigor backs Davids argument... Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor. Its like he just made it up... Inventing his own form of history that only the academically lazy would follow...
The choice that we are being presented with is really very simple. We can continue with a system of democratic government as we currently have, or we can have some form of dictatorship. That is the choice.
@@michaelholmes1805 Te Tiriti provides a process where the govt can be held accountable... this bill gives the govt sole power, thus allowing them to make whatever laws and processes they want. For someone who doesn't want a dictatorship, thats exactly what yr asking for. P.s answering a question is also pretty simple and opens up understanding
Inventing history is the realm to which Act is basing its claim around trying to introduce a Principles Bill referendum. Act's current history is based on pākehā greed for Māori whenua and how to take it like a coloniser.
Along with Capital Cities are sought after Capital gains. You are right and not wrong. People who lose the plot, want the Waitangi Tribunal to shut up shop, full stop.
Te Tiriti will always be the founding document of this country. Members of parliament reside in the house of commons because they are NOT representitives of the crown, the governor-general IS the representitive. This bill spits in the face of 1.8 million Maori, past and present, by sweeping everything under the rug like the land confiscations, injustice persecutions based on ethnicity (Not the crime), and oppression of culture never happened. This isn't a handicap race, everyone deserves the same start line. It's more or less saying "Maori, we're starting fresh, you start at the line and I'll just give you some shin splints and a broken knee and then we can see who will win this fair race."
How does the treaty's scope expand into radio waves and Te Reo? It sounds like, you agree with Seymor. The principle are important according to you. And they change frequently. Via the treaty settlements process there has been incremental changes to the treaty such that it no longer accurately captures the current state of the relationship between Maori and the Crown. There has been shift over time in practice, but not on paper. This is the crux of your argument, from what I can see. Ok. This makes sense to me. Back then NZ settlers was part of a monarchy and Maori also had a different social structure. Now we are all, in areas of politics, a democracy. How does not recording the current principles (or new terms, or whatever) support the first part? What is the harm in writing them down in a bill and using the existing democratic process to ammend them as necessary? At some point a new point if reference would be handy. It doesn't really matter who does it. The ACT bill, even if it went to second reading calls for a referendum on the matter. The principles put forward are.pretty vanilla. Basically NZ's version of life, liberty and property. I suspect the big point of contention is on the 'property' part as it would imply equal responsibility among all for their property and you said that the signatory party with more resources needs to pay for reparations. If we are all equal, then that part is questionable. As far as I can see, the British Crown hasn't spent money here on settlements for ages. The real money comes from the NZ government, which raises money from taxes. So any settlements current made are paid for by NZ citisens. So the argument boils down to who gets to decide how much taxpayer money raised from.everyone goes to a specific Iwi for a specific settlement in the future. Why should that not be all of NZ, given that the money belongs to all of NZ?
The same labour party that would want to break away from ties with the UK argues that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between the Maori and the Sovereign of the UK. Which is it they want a partnership or nothing to do with the UK. If its a republic or total sovereign independence from the UK, on what grounds does the Treaty stand..Hypocrites as always
Good point. Te Tiriti can only remain relevant for as long as British royalty remains our head of state. Though I suppose when NZ is a republic Britain could invade to force us to keep meeting England's obligations according to this crucial international covenant.
Most of the country is tired of hearing about Maori issues. We all live on the same planet and we all have the same ancestors. Let’s just get on with being a great nation of people.
If 'indigenous' means the first people in the land, then Māori were not the first. Ancestors spoke freely about people already here. Also archeological evidence is overwhelming - Mao people etc.
It is well known that Maori were not the first here in NZ, nor are they indigenous. They are native and pretty much every Maori tribal group will freely admit others were here prior to their arrival.
Oh Ronnie Education is excellent isn't it. Especially in regards to history which doesn't seem like a strong suit. I would recommend you do better there lest it gets embarrassing. Especially when i see the caliber of people that disagree with the bill 45 Kings Counsel 440 Church Leaders Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dame Jenny Shipley Former AG Chris Finlayson The Crowns own Lawyers The Courts 100 years of jurisprudence. Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world. What academic rigor backs Davids argument... Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor. Its like he just made it up... How do you follow that...
@deanosdeano2310 indigenous refers to species that evolved within the country, tuatara, kiwi, haast eagles, moa, native refers to those species that did not naturally evolve within a country, those that were introduced later. So Maori, all people's who landed here , not evolving here are native, not indigenous. Talk about education, really!!
Incorrect, Kupe was the first to arrive in Aotearoa, sailing around Aotearoa he saw that it was uninhabited, to prepare the land for Maori he blessed it and consecrated the land. Maori and Mori Ori would travel over many years to Aotearoa to inhabit. One thing is true, all indigenous in the Polynesian triangle are indigenous to all of Polynesia, our language are dialects of each other and our customs are similar. So we are definitely indigenous in Polynesia and here in Aotearoa, and Pakeha are not indigenous to Polynesia, Aotearoa and New Zealand
@ oh Aaron have you been reading the 1930s version of history. Oh my lord, Kupe may of named Aotearoa, but was not the first here. Māori know this, we’ve known it since forever, there are histories of waka going back and forth between the Polynesian islands. And you ain’t reading individual Iwi traditions many which state that Māori were already here. Please go back to 1950 because that myth was popular then.. I’m Māori as well so I know my history, VERY WELL. As for you, you may have to…up skill yourself.
Because they prefer forming decisions on evidence and facts? How is that not beneficial for a country? Seymour even said during a interview with Jack Tame that he doesn't understand what an article in the treaty refers to 🤷♀️
Just how wrong one can be. You don't know history at all and just spout what the Maori activists are saying. There are. No Partnership and up to now, No principles enshrined in law.. Although when it suits Maori they use invented principles to further their cause. And these principles are as far away from the original Treaty so as to be laughable! David Seymour "mirrors" Yes mirrors as to what was intended by the then Crown. with the original Treaty articles So get educated "Dr" Duncan!!
Education is excellent isnt it. Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill 45 Kings Counsel 440 Church Leaders Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dame Jenny Shipley Former AG Chris Finlayson The Crowns own Lawyers The Courts 100 years of jurisprudence. Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world. What academic rigor backs Davids argument... Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor. Its like he just made it up...
Pls tell me what Te Tiriti articles say? And why do you believe over 40 Kings Counsels, Crown lawyers, Judges, Professors, Religious leaders, Previous Prime Ministers, regional councils oppose this bill?
This is honestly gold, a keyboard warrior telling a Dr to get educated. Perhaps you should have taken your own advice when you had the chance. Also, the original version, signed by both, Maori and The Crown, was the Maori version.
He’s correct. Maori can see when Pakeha is trying to white wash them again. This is definitely a metro passive aggressive move David is making. If his Bill passes it gives government rights to confiscate our lands, Marae, and everything Maori. In the interest of equality. Because Maori lands aren’t on English titles. Therefore we have special rights, that is what he’s after 🤦🏽♂️
He thinks he can hoodwink people with these self-contradictory falsehoods about the Treaty Principles Bill and strained attempts to justify adherence to recently-invented, fake 'principles' of Te Tiriti that are not consistent with its wording or with the recorded speeches of rangatira at the time of signing and in the few decades thereafter.
You thought you had something there😂 There are no recordings in 1840 of anything except paper. And the Maori version has never been altered in the term you are attempting to reference. It has always been the same, from signing, right up until today. The only people misunderstanding the treaty are those too ignorant to learn the language the original (Maori version.)
@@rodneyhenry9184 By 'recorded' I meant 'written down' by people there listening at the time. Obviously, no audio recordings could be done then. And I made no claim that 'the Maori version' had ever been changed. When I refer to Te Tiriti I always mean the Maori version (although a small number of rangatiria actually signed the English version at one location). Your childish ad hominem reference to being 'too ignorant' simply highlights your own low standards of communication. While I understand te reo a bit, there is no need for me to learn it totally when it comes to Te Tiriti because we have excellent translations of it into English by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922 and by Prof. Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989. The two translations are very similar but Sir Hugh added a few English words according to his belief about what the rangatira at the time understood. Sir Apirana's translation will certainly be more accurate because it was less distant from the time of signing and he will have talked directly with first descendants of those who signed and probably even some of those who signed. Sir Hugh's amounted to a revision, not just a translation. By the way, the Maori Te Tiriti was not the 'original' version but had been translated into reo from an original English text.
I loved the way you dissect the problems with the Bill. It’s easy for politicians, knowing the heightened temperature, to revert to scaring people. Seymour’s tactics smacks of scaring people to believing “black is bad”, and “if they take over all hell will break loose”, and that simply isn’t the case. Unfortunately, he has a minority that leans to this thinking. I’m an immigrant and proud to be a New Zealander. Seymour’s Bill is simply divisive and does definitely not seek to unify New Zealand. It seeks the exact opposite. Well done on explaining this.
@@timrooy1920 I disagree I reckon his bill is not divisive but will make all NZer equal and all will be treated equally. Maori are afraid and feel threatened as it will stop the gravy train. Our country have been held to ransom for long enough
Very wordy and not explained well ! Why dont you have a debate with Seymour on TV ! The Maori signed the treaty as the were killing each other and fighting not only because they wanted the crown to manage the small number of arrivals ( Pakeha) Also the French would have taken NZ . The chiefs understood they were being protected when they signed the treaty !
HEY RUTH!!! Willie Jackson from Labour wants to debate David Seymour. So you know, your boy David will not want to do that... AND RUTH, thats a very selective view of history you have, not very intellectual actually you need to read about our history. But also take a look at who is against the Bill 45 Kings Counsel 440 Church Leaders Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dame Jenny Shipley Former AG Chris Finlayson The Crowns own Lawyers The Courts 100 years of jurisprudence. What academic rigor backs Davids argument... Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor. Its like he is making it up...
Good points. It appears modern activists are implying the chiefs did not understand what they were signing. That is rather demeaning to them - after many had travelled to Australia and even England so know exactly who they were dealing with and that they were signing up to. Duncan is presenting typical modernist/activist memes, and the usual history revision thrown in.
The Maori were killing each other, yes, until the crown started supplying arms for both sides to kill each other, which didn't go as planned. It's documented in Te Papa museum, not that you would know what any educational facility is, evidently.
@@rodneyhenry9184 The crown supplied muskets? From what I've read it was private individuals who sold them to Maori, which sadly massively increased the body count.
The words have already been twisted over decades - the Treaty is really no longer truly binding given the complete change of the make up of the citizens of New Zealand
Education is the key here Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill 45 Kings Counsel 440 Church Leaders Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dame Jenny Shipley Former AG Chris Finlayson The Crowns own Lawyers The Courts 100 years of jurisprudence. Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world. Also this isnt about race and equality, its about equity for the two Parties - The Crown and Maori. What academic rigor backs Davids argument... Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor. Its like he just made it up...
@@CatherineSimpson-g1x can u walk me thru yr understanding of Te Tiriti? How do you interpret it as no longer being legal? (Or as u put it "no longer truly binding") And why do you believe the likes of Kings Counsel, Academics, Judges, Waitangi tribunal etc oppose the bill?
Ok let's start with the definition of treaty.....it's a contract between 2 parties that have " concluded and ratified" the agreement...do you understand that bit???
We the people voted for the national party we didn’t vote for NZ first or Act so why is Winnie and Seymour saying we voted them into parliament we did not vote them in luxon sold his soul because he wanted to be PM so badly he made promises too anyone and everyone who would get him over the line from the super rich too the poor man on the street
Thanks Duncan this is more coherent and most clear explanation on the bill I get it now because of your korero. Although my iwi and hapu did not sign and have always been unpro we had alot of losses with resources and deaths during the land war 😢 very sad my poor koroua and kuia were slaughtered nga mihi nui I'm defs back on track now ❤
Happy to help!
When land or resources passed from one pre-European Iwi to another so did Tino rangatiratanga and tikanga. Disputed lands moved occasionally from the control of Tainui to Ngapui and from Ngapui to Tainui. A new iwi now had authority over this land. Tino rangatiratanga can pass from one group to another. It always could. All landowners in New Zealand have authority over their own lands underneath a nationwide system of governance.
Tino Rangatiratanga is Maori kupu it isn’t an English word which you’re trying to water down. It’s not something that can be given to Pakeha, because it encompasses Maori culture. Seymour’s attempt to give it to everyone, is in fact doing the opposite for Maori it’s taking our culture and white washing us. Everything Te Ao Maori is under attack. For instance Maori land isn’t on English titles, if Seymour’s bill passes government will have rights to confiscate our lands which also hold our Marae, Tipuna and current iwi. Under his Bill claims Maori have special rights, and shouldn’t. That is just one example
Are you trying to claim Tino Rangatiratanga as land ownership?? pls sit down. That's like saying the entire marine eco system is... sand. It does not equate.
Sounds like wack, old timey nonsense that has no place in a modern society.
@ngaftp sounds like European descendants should really stop taking things that don't belong to them. Colonialism in 2024 is not cute.
Excellent treatment Duncan.
I'm with David 😂
Thank you for clarity. 😢😢😢.
... We will rise ... ❤
Principles were only acknowledged in 1975 and only published in newspaper rather than put into law at the time. The Māori party are very clear about wanting a separate parliament and Māori do have "different responsibilities and rights" to other NZers.
@@xxyzz-j7o That's the part where I think Seymours bill should pass to become law as one person one vote and Pakeha and Maori live side by side peacefully like we did 50s 60s 70s 80s before elitists started making trouble. The elite have done very well out of all of this while the ordinary Maori have not received one cent.
Difficult here to penetrate the rhetoric and get to the argument. The problem here is that while Webb agrees that the Treaty evolves...in spirit (which is undefined), he has definite ideas about how the Treaty should be regarded now...and his name calling against David Seymour does not give credit to his position. His is an opinion stated ex cathedra...as if final. Few treaties survive their signatories. Whatever their thoughts, ambitions or suppositions, the Treaty signatories are all long dead. The Crown no longer has authority. The principles? A complex and ill defined conjuration of Geoffrey Palmer that has been more hotly contested in interpretation than a biblical text. So let us have a national conversation with ALL opinions...including Seymours.
Beautifully said
Yes, Te Tiriti evolves in spirit. One day it identifies itself as an agreement relevant to the 19th century between 542 chiefs and the British monarchy through its representatives, next day as an everlasting tablet from the gods, next day as an axe to rend asunder governance and the stability and success of this nation, next day as a political tool to stimulate racism against white people, next day as a justification to show contempt for our parliamentary rules, and next week as a reason for terrorist assassinations. Very difficult to keep up with its preferred pronouns.
@Empathiclistener pls direct me to where in Te tiriti it demonstrates racism toward pakeha?? Cause one thing that is easy to recognize is since it's signing, every legislation that created harm to ppl or environment have been clear breaches of it.
What a load of coloniser crap, and spoken with so much intent to justify ignoring a founding document. Your summation means squat diddley at the end of the day, just white noise...
@@AmeliaRosehe1 But you haven't actually addressed or refuted any aspect of what was written. You have simply resorted to insulting dismissals without explanation, plus some speculation about intent.
Webb certainly helps explain why Labor was voted out of Parliament. Inventing history as he does , just adds to the mess that this country is in.
Michael
Education is excellent isnt it.
Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill
45 Kings Counsel
440 Church Leaders
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Dame Jenny Shipley
Former AG Chris Finlayson
The Crowns own Lawyers
The Courts
100 years of jurisprudence.
Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world.
What academic rigor backs Davids argument...
Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor.
Its like he just made it up... Inventing his own form of history that only the academically lazy would follow...
OK, can you pls tell me what the articles in Te Tiriti say? So I can try to understand where yr coming from
The choice that we are being presented with is really very simple. We can continue with a system of democratic government as we currently have, or we can have some form of dictatorship. That is the choice.
@@michaelholmes1805 Te Tiriti provides a process where the govt can be held accountable... this bill gives the govt sole power, thus allowing them to make whatever laws and processes they want. For someone who doesn't want a dictatorship, thats exactly what yr asking for. P.s answering a question is also pretty simple and opens up understanding
Inventing history is the realm to which Act is basing its claim around trying to introduce a Principles Bill referendum. Act's current history is based on pākehā greed for Māori whenua and how to take it like a coloniser.
Along with Capital Cities are sought after Capital gains.
You are right and not wrong.
People who lose the plot, want the Waitangi Tribunal to shut up shop, full stop.
Te Tiriti will always be the founding document of this country. Members of parliament reside in the house of commons because they are NOT representitives of the crown, the governor-general IS the representitive.
This bill spits in the face of 1.8 million Maori, past and present, by sweeping everything under the rug like the land confiscations, injustice persecutions based on ethnicity (Not the crime), and oppression of culture never happened.
This isn't a handicap race, everyone deserves the same start line. It's more or less saying "Maori, we're starting fresh, you start at the line and I'll just give you some shin splints and a broken knee and then we can see who will win this fair race."
How does the treaty's scope expand into radio waves and Te Reo?
It sounds like, you agree with Seymor. The principle are important according to you. And they change frequently. Via the treaty settlements process there has been incremental changes to the treaty such that it no longer accurately captures the current state of the relationship between Maori and the Crown.
There has been shift over time in practice, but not on paper. This is the crux of your argument, from what I can see.
Ok. This makes sense to me. Back then NZ settlers was part of a monarchy and Maori also had a different social structure. Now we are all, in areas of politics, a democracy.
How does not recording the current principles (or new terms, or whatever) support the first part? What is the harm in writing them down in a bill and using the existing democratic process to ammend them as necessary?
At some point a new point if reference would be handy. It doesn't really matter who does it.
The ACT bill, even if it went to second reading calls for a referendum on the matter. The principles put forward are.pretty vanilla. Basically NZ's version of life, liberty and property.
I suspect the big point of contention is on the 'property' part as it would imply equal responsibility among all for their property and you said that the signatory party with more resources needs to pay for reparations.
If we are all equal, then that part is questionable.
As far as I can see, the British Crown hasn't spent money here on settlements for ages. The real money comes from the NZ government, which raises money from taxes. So any settlements current made are paid for by NZ citisens.
So the argument boils down to who gets to decide how much taxpayer money raised from.everyone goes to a specific Iwi for a specific settlement in the future.
Why should that not be all of NZ, given that the money belongs to all of NZ?
So it's adapting, like you say it should.
The same labour party that would want to break away from ties with the UK argues that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between the Maori and the Sovereign of the UK. Which is it they want a partnership or nothing to do with the UK. If its a republic or total sovereign independence from the UK, on what grounds does the Treaty stand..Hypocrites as always
Good point. Te Tiriti can only remain relevant for as long as British royalty remains our head of state. Though I suppose when NZ is a republic Britain could invade to force us to keep meeting England's obligations according to this crucial international covenant.
Most of the country is tired of hearing about Maori issues. We all live on the same planet and we all have the same ancestors. Let’s just get on with being a great nation of people.
@@BC-tp8ep I feel exactly the same way. I'm sick of hearing about it
Thank you for havung common sense
If 'indigenous' means the first people in the land, then Māori were not the first. Ancestors spoke freely about people already here. Also archeological evidence is overwhelming - Mao people etc.
Humor me and name 1 source of such archaeological findings here in Aotearoa.
Is your claim based on Pākehā history as a means to deny Māori oral genealogy in Aotearoa or is it all WHITE NOISE from you lot?
The Palestine Flag. Oh dear.
@@christopherdiack4668
Would you rather a murderous Israeli flag instead?
It is well known that Maori were not the first here in NZ, nor are they indigenous. They are native and pretty much every Maori tribal group will freely admit others were here prior to their arrival.
Oh Ronnie
Education is excellent isn't it. Especially in regards to history which doesn't seem like a strong suit. I would recommend you do better there lest it gets embarrassing.
Especially when i see the caliber of people that disagree with the bill
45 Kings Counsel
440 Church Leaders
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Dame Jenny Shipley
Former AG Chris Finlayson
The Crowns own Lawyers
The Courts
100 years of jurisprudence.
Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world.
What academic rigor backs Davids argument...
Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor.
Its like he just made it up... How do you follow that...
@deanosdeano2310 indigenous refers to species that evolved within the country, tuatara, kiwi, haast eagles, moa, native refers to those species that did not naturally evolve within a country, those that were introduced later. So Maori, all people's who landed here , not evolving here are native, not indigenous. Talk about education, really!!
Incorrect, Kupe was the first to arrive in Aotearoa, sailing around Aotearoa he saw that it was uninhabited, to prepare the land for Maori he blessed it and consecrated the land. Maori and Mori Ori would travel over many years to Aotearoa to inhabit. One thing is true, all indigenous in the Polynesian triangle are indigenous to all of Polynesia, our language are dialects of each other and our customs are similar. So we are definitely indigenous in Polynesia and here in Aotearoa, and Pakeha are not indigenous to Polynesia, Aotearoa and New Zealand
@@aaronahchee7484 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@ oh Aaron have you been reading the 1930s version of history.
Oh my lord, Kupe may of named Aotearoa, but was not the first here.
Māori know this, we’ve known it since forever, there are histories of waka going back and forth between the Polynesian islands.
And you ain’t reading individual Iwi traditions many which state that Māori were already here.
Please go back to 1950 because that myth was popular then..
I’m Māori as well so I know my history, VERY WELL.
As for you, you may have to…up skill yourself.
Palestinian Flag, What a lefty
@@lukeorchiston9291
Would you rather a murderous Israeli flag.
And this is why labour is irrelevant in NZ politics…
Because they prefer forming decisions on evidence and facts? How is that not beneficial for a country? Seymour even said during a interview with Jack Tame that he doesn't understand what an article in the treaty refers to 🤷♀️
Just how wrong one can be.
You don't know history at all and just spout what the Maori activists are saying.
There are. No Partnership and up to now, No principles enshrined in law.. Although when it suits Maori they use invented principles to further their cause. And these principles are as far away from the original Treaty so as to be laughable!
David Seymour "mirrors" Yes mirrors as to what was intended by the then Crown. with the original Treaty articles
So get educated "Dr" Duncan!!
Education is excellent isnt it.
Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill
45 Kings Counsel
440 Church Leaders
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Dame Jenny Shipley
Former AG Chris Finlayson
The Crowns own Lawyers
The Courts
100 years of jurisprudence.
Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world.
What academic rigor backs Davids argument...
Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor.
Its like he just made it up...
Pls tell me what Te Tiriti articles say? And why do you believe over 40 Kings Counsels, Crown lawyers, Judges, Professors, Religious leaders, Previous Prime Ministers, regional councils oppose this bill?
This is honestly gold, a keyboard warrior telling a Dr to get educated.
Perhaps you should have taken your own advice when you had the chance.
Also, the original version, signed by both, Maori and The Crown, was the Maori version.
Well what rubbish this guy spouts.
Can you spout with your own rubbish which part
He’s correct. Maori can see when Pakeha is trying to white wash them again. This is definitely a metro passive aggressive move David is making. If his Bill passes it gives government rights to confiscate our lands, Marae, and everything Maori. In the interest of equality. Because Maori lands aren’t on English titles. Therefore we have special rights, that is what he’s after 🤦🏽♂️
Michael doesn't have a clue about the truth of the Treaty he's dodgy and dishonest
Good on you Duncan. Debate silly Seymour and put him in his place
He thinks he can hoodwink people with these self-contradictory falsehoods about the Treaty Principles Bill and strained attempts to justify adherence to recently-invented, fake 'principles' of Te Tiriti that are not consistent with its wording or with the recorded speeches of rangatira at the time of signing and in the few decades thereafter.
You thought you had something there😂
There are no recordings in 1840 of anything except paper. And the Maori version has never been altered in the term you are attempting to reference. It has always been the same, from signing, right up until today. The only people misunderstanding the treaty are those too ignorant to learn the language the original (Maori version.)
@@rodneyhenry9184 By 'recorded' I meant 'written down' by people there listening at the time. Obviously, no audio recordings could be done then. And I made no claim that 'the Maori version' had ever been changed. When I refer to Te Tiriti I always mean the Maori version (although a small number of rangatiria actually signed the English version at one location). Your childish ad hominem reference to being 'too ignorant' simply highlights your own low standards of communication. While I understand te reo a bit, there is no need for me to learn it totally when it comes to Te Tiriti because we have excellent translations of it into English by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922 and by Prof. Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989. The two translations are very similar but Sir Hugh added a few English words according to his belief about what the rangatira at the time understood. Sir Apirana's translation will certainly be more accurate because it was less distant from the time of signing and he will have talked directly with first descendants of those who signed and probably even some of those who signed. Sir Hugh's amounted to a revision, not just a translation.
By the way, the Maori Te Tiriti was not the 'original' version but had been translated into reo from an original English text.
I loved the way you dissect the problems with the Bill. It’s easy for politicians, knowing the heightened temperature, to revert to scaring people. Seymour’s tactics smacks of scaring people to believing “black is bad”, and “if they take over all hell will break loose”, and that simply isn’t the case. Unfortunately, he has a minority that leans to this thinking.
I’m an immigrant and proud to be a New Zealander. Seymour’s Bill is simply divisive and does definitely not seek to unify New Zealand. It seeks the exact opposite.
Well done on explaining this.
@@timrooy1920 I disagree I reckon his bill is not divisive but will make all NZer equal and all will be treated equally. Maori are afraid and feel threatened as it will stop the gravy train. Our country have been held to ransom for long enough
Utter rubbish
Yes you are!
Very wordy and not explained well !
Why dont you have a debate with Seymour on TV !
The Maori signed the treaty as the were killing each other and fighting not only because they wanted the crown to manage the small number of arrivals ( Pakeha)
Also the French would have taken NZ .
The chiefs understood they were being protected when they signed the treaty !
Nope
HEY RUTH!!!
Willie Jackson from Labour wants to debate David Seymour.
So you know, your boy David will not want to do that...
AND RUTH, thats a very selective view of history you have, not very intellectual actually you need to read about our history. But also take a look at who is against the Bill
45 Kings Counsel
440 Church Leaders
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Dame Jenny Shipley
Former AG Chris Finlayson
The Crowns own Lawyers
The Courts
100 years of jurisprudence.
What academic rigor backs Davids argument...
Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor.
Its like he is making it up...
Good points. It appears modern activists are implying the chiefs did not understand what they were signing. That is rather demeaning to them - after many had travelled to Australia and even England so know exactly who they were dealing with and that they were signing up to. Duncan is presenting typical modernist/activist memes, and the usual history revision thrown in.
The Maori were killing each other, yes, until the crown started supplying arms for both sides to kill each other, which didn't go as planned. It's documented in Te Papa museum, not that you would know what any educational facility is, evidently.
@@rodneyhenry9184 The crown supplied muskets? From what I've read it was private individuals who sold them to Maori, which sadly massively increased the body count.
The words have already been twisted over decades - the Treaty is really no longer truly binding given the complete change of the make up of the citizens of New Zealand
Education is the key here
Especially when i see the calibre of people that disagree with the bill
45 Kings Counsel
440 Church Leaders
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Dame Jenny Shipley
Former AG Chris Finlayson
The Crowns own Lawyers
The Courts
100 years of jurisprudence.
Actual academic rigor, and intellectual evidence and process, all readable, all accessible. How the principles work, the history of Te Tiriti and it being an agreement between The Crown and Maori, and those two being the only party's who can negotiate any change. Like all Treaties ever around the world. Also this isnt about race and equality, its about equity for the two Parties - The Crown and Maori.
What academic rigor backs Davids argument...
Oh wait, there is none. cause he doesn't site any studies to critique or learned opinion. You have to question that when the weight of evidence is not in his favor.
Its like he just made it up...
Do you even know what it says?? Cos yr comment would imply you don't
@missshante808 of course I do...the stuff being peddaled today is most definitely twisted and, in some cases, is being deliberately misinterpreted
@@CatherineSimpson-g1x can u walk me thru yr understanding of Te Tiriti? How do you interpret it as no longer being legal? (Or as u put it "no longer truly binding") And why do you believe the likes of Kings Counsel, Academics, Judges, Waitangi tribunal etc oppose the bill?
Ok let's start with the definition of treaty.....it's a contract between 2 parties that have " concluded and ratified" the agreement...do you understand that bit???
We the people voted for the national party we didn’t vote for NZ first or Act so why is Winnie and Seymour saying we voted them into parliament we did not vote them in luxon sold his soul because he wanted to be PM so badly he made promises too anyone and everyone who would get him over the line from the super rich too the poor man on the street
The coalition is a contract between 3 races a pakeha a Scotsman and a Māori so what’s the difference
A Maori who's willing to sell this entire country out to foreigners. Something the Maori majority are actively against*