Natalie Coates: Treaty principles already a compromise | Q+A 2024
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Human rights lawyer Natalie Coates discusses the legal application of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and how in the view of many the existing principles already represent a politically acceptable compromise compared to the actual text of the Treaty
Subscribe to Q+A: bit.ly/QandASu...
Join Jack Tame and the Q+A team and find the answers to the questions that matter. Made with the support of NZ on Air.
WATCH SUNDAY 9AM ON TVNZ1 OR CATCH UP ON DEMAND: www.tvnz.co.nz...
FOLLOW Q+A ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook:
/ nzqanda
Twitter:
/ nzqanda
For stories that matter to you and the very latest from Aotearoa and around the world: 1News.co.nz/
Does Rangatiratanga, in a modern environment, mean that Maori implement there own tax system to provide their own social welfare system...health, housing etc. one could imagine that most social outcomes will likely be poorer. Potentally things like age of death will be lower and poverty will be higher. Maybe there should be a referendum amoungst Maori to decide if this is the way forward for them? Just some thoughts to have korero about.
That's racist
No it doesn't
Kia ora, , , it's with the 2 signatories of the treaty
Maori n the clown
So iwi will be paying back all the settlements to the population of nz then? Since we are not a party to the treaty as you say? Would be illegal to force payment from taxes taken from a party not party to the treaty eh. Iwi would have to go to the Brits and try it on. @@Hup-x1y
That remains to be seen. Judging Maori on the back of the disadvantages they have suffered and extrapolating that as a continuance of their future has the connotation of the savages grading the colonists used to conqueror people. It may take two or more generations to get things right but we cannot say either way., can we?
Maoridom has developed an economic value of $70 billion and rising, has its own political party - Te Pati Maori plus the Maori caucuses of Labour and Greens, it has its own media, educational and health services yet Maoridom has the highest levels of poverty, crime, unemployment, incarceration, poor health outcomes, homeliness, etc than any other group in NZ's population. I believe that Maoridom needs to sort itself out and help its own people.
YES AND WHERE DOES ALL THAT SETTLEMENT MONEY GO NOT TO HELP THERE PEOPLE ONLY THE GREEDY ELITE MAORI LOOK AT Tipene Oregan he's worth billions how
Spot on!
Totally agree. Add to that the highest rates of domestic violence, infanticide and child abuse in the OECD.
What health service is purely for Maori?? Your comment seems pretty over simplified to me shich shows a very real lack of understanding
I see what you did and by your logic, the National Party is for nationalists, Labour for birthing mothers, Act for pretenders, Greens for Martians etc.
She just basically admitted that if they get their way New Zealanders are going to be treated differently based on who their ancestors are! Welcome to the new Zimbabwe
You could always go back to your homeland
Is English your first language?
Stop the hyperbole. Being a drama queen doesn't add anything of value to the conversation.
She is basically saying what it literally means. Why should the Government be allowed to come into our areas and do what the want?
@@sambdb2099She can out speak you in English and Maori
The majority of "Partners" who were not consulted on the "principles" are not happy. But apparently the current interpretations are the only Politically acceptable ones. I would argue that the election results are the best way to measure political acceptability. We could just take the word of someone who makes a ton of money from the way things are now....follow the money and you find the truth.
Following the money is a great way forward
'Maori are entitled to and get special treatment, but it's not something we should be afraid of. We should all embrace it." Yeah, right.
If the treaty guarantees Maori special reason rights then it would seem to be in conflict with our current bill of rights.
Ine says you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, the other says you must discriminate on the basis of race.
It's not discriminating on race, it's discriminating on ancestry.
This is not a race issue as David suggests. There is only one race and that’s the human race.
In 1840 the sovereign culture were Māori as evidenced in the recognition of that sovereignty by the 1835 He Whakaputanga Declaration of Independence.
Fact - Māori did NOT cede sovereignty
Fact - British Imperialists illegally breached Te Tiriti and invaded sovereign Māori peoples to effect the corporate theft of 19th century Māori economy - an act that impoverished hapū Māori unjustly - a state of inequality and discrimination that continues today from successive Govt’s and in generations of vertically racist institutions and their policies.
Fact - Equality for Māori and justice can not be achieved under the current gov’t.
Fact - Aotearoa New Zealand’s liberation from colonisation rests with Tāngata Whenua and Tāngata Tiriti resolving racism, discrimination, imbalance in political power and National economic sovereignty
Fact - David Seymour doesn’t give a flying Fart about the “mana” of ALL KIWIS - he’s just serving his corporate puppet masters who sponsor his pockets to garner the favour of removing Te Tiriti responsibilities from their profit targets tagged to the unexploited Māori owned natural resources currently protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
He’s using Trumpian rhetoric and disinformation to spread divisiveness as a smoke screen. He’s gaslighting Aotearoa NZ’s uneducated white boomer nation to gain votes and he’s inviting Far Right wing voters to his rhetoric fest selling them the mythology of how evil Te Tiriti is to new immigrants who have no say in Te Tiriti debate.
Paulo Freire describe all David Seymour’s in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed by illuminating the following: “in the absence of an awakened conscience the colonised will seek to become their coloniser.”
David is a sell out hiding behind a bulldust rhetoric of “all kiwis have mana and deserve equal rights” and he’s willing to “erase hard fought Māori justice and repatriation for grievances under successive governments” by varying a contract without engaging the very contract signatories first - that’s not only another Treaty breach but it’s actually illegal to vary a contract in this way.
This is a contract issue.
Which came first? Would it not be the other way around?
You talk a lot about facts but your comment mentioned none, all made-up rhetoric. @@1Ma9iN8tive The chiefs who rebelled after the signing of the treaty did not even deny what had happened, they just did not want or like it.
The bill of rights isn’t supreme like the USA. Parliament has the power to legislate against it and often does.
to ask a lawyer for comment on the Treaty is like trying to take a bowl of food off an Alsatian. The treaty is a gravy train for the legal system. To talk about TWO nations is a nonsense for starters, the idea that Maori considered themselves nationally is still not happening
You’ve completely missed the point - and that’s a result of your limited education in the matter
Our ancestors thought of themselves as mana whenua
That’s how sovereign peoples lived
King William the Iv recognised that sovereignty in our people and gave his royal blessing in the 1835 De paragon of independence
You cannot declare independence if you’re not sovereign
We remain sovereign having never ceded our mana in 1840
"I think we're not mature enough as a country yet to have that debate"
translates to
"The indoctrinated generation of NZ'ers is not yet of voting age, we'll have the referendum when they are"
Correct.
Your comment proves the lack of maturity, jesus the paranoia
@MountainMaid238 Have you seen the NZ history curriculum?
@MountainMaid238 Also if you want to see paranoia, see mihirangi forbes interview David Seymour, and suggest sinister global forces are behind the one vote in Aus and the Act's treaty principles Bill. Anything but accept that the voting majority do not agree with what the current tortured woke view of things
Your idiotic and paranoid comment only proves her point.
Why is the Lawyer always out of camp Maori. Jack Tane is the Priest of all things Maori.
Because they think the treaty is a legal contract. It's not. It's a treaty/ compact of an empoire with indigenous tribes.
@@davethewave7248
Signed by your superiors if you haven’t noticed durrr legal as
@@davethewave7248it's historical.never up held
"I think that is something we need to have a bigger conversation about" spoken like a true lawyer.
We do not need a repeat of Australias vote here. That was so disrespectful to them and the way the politicians did that to manipulate the answer they wanted. This conversation does not need to happen now...if at all. If you dont like living here there are several, several exit doors. We are very lucky here, we could be living in Russia, China, North Korea, Africa just to name a few.
Whatever your viewpoint is this document has been around for a very long time, no different to otuer countries and their documents. People just want to spew hate sadly.
"If you dont like it leave" - that's not how a democracy works
@@Stick_Dinner07 lol like people who are hating on everything even care what democracy is about. Money money money is what it all is about. Democracy pfft, let me know when that happens as the last I checked 246,409 people is not our democracy.
Joined 6 days ago.. burner account?
@@roderick167 nope just never bothered to sign up until now, is that ok with you Roderick? Lol
@@Wah_wahh Nah. you don't come across as someone who is new to commenting on videos. Anyway, you do what you think you should do.
I will embrace equal rights for all people...thank you very much.
Just a second comment... it needs to be noted that none of the media in New Zealand are allowing a two sided debate.
There was literally no one who opposed her and pointed out that she told some damnable lies in this segment.
What lies are you referring to?
@@maiap2232 I'm interested in these apparent lies too
She told no lies. It is you that listened to lies.
Hard to take, isn't it, when a profession that civilised level headed people call in to discuss things like this say something.
The Treaty principles don't really exist outside of activist judges and lawyers. The lawyers need to read a book by Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty basically says that Maori have the same rights as everyone else the British Empire. And conversely everyone else has to same rights as Maori. As for the Maori version of the Treaty it must be remembered who and how the Treaty was translated to Maori.
Very well said.
I see the British Empire not looking so great lately too much Colonial BS I guess 🙄
Which version of the Treaty ??
@@tahanaparker2660the Maori version, translated back into English, says that.
Seems to me that for some time now the Māoris have had a bad case of buyers remorse . We have all had it before but some of us just get on with life .
Seems to me that's a dumb comment.
Most do not realise that many chiefs did not sign, so had nothing to be remorseful about it. The central North Island chiefs [that hadn't signed] then went to war 20 years later, where the British then enforced their sovereignty. But but but... the chiefs didn't sign you say! That's irrelevant. Before the ink had even dried on the treaty, the British declared sovereignty over the whole of NZ. This was back by the full force of the empire, not a few signatures. The argument over the treaty is a storm ina teacup - chiefs only ceded a nominal not an actual sovereignty.
@@davethewave7248 how many didn't sign? What percentage of the whole?
Deanwitt, bet you got teased at school eh bro 😥
@@Kult365 😂
Great korero kotero, well done 👏
E tama- your Māori gets better every time I here you well done you too.👏
Shame your English grammar sucks .
☺️
She sighs every time she gets a question LOL 😂😅 And when she is asked what the government would look like if in fact Māori version of the treaty is honoured, she says we need to discuss it. The so called expert in this matter doesn’t even have a clear proposal as to what they believe is the right way to govern NZ. They can’t formulate an answer because the concept doesn’t work in practical sense because the treaty was drafted in a hurry by a few individuals without proper discussion, consultation or considerations.
There are no versions other than what is stated in the Mother document translated into Maori everyone speaks English today so where's the final writ? Well it was lost but found in 1989 but Waitangi Tribunal won't reveal that just sits in a closet at Te Papa bring that Mother out its the only one that matches!
@@StGammon77 I don't know where you live, but over 500 Māori chiefs signed one document - therefore by shear numbers is that the Mother document?
We need a binding referendum on the Treaty . It’s outdated.
Really good interview and information. Yes, in the majority it would seem we are not mature enough to have this conversation now. But we do need to get there. Be better informed by people such as this so we can hold a proper referendum to decide how it applies today. The arrogance of a minority party to try an unilaterally force this without consultatuon is just baffling. Well it has unified Maori at least.
No, it was (excuse the pun) a 'tame' interview. She was just saying things like they are fact and universally accepted by all and he was not pulling her up on any of it.
@@terrynicol4548- hilarious … you the TH-cam commentator challenging the legal expert who works in this field 24/7 365 days a year and has the audacity to suggest her facts aren’t relevant … ba ha ha ha get educated or stay dumb … you choose.
@@terrynicol4548 I did not see it she was pushing a particular perspective but trying to convey the complexity of the issue and the nuances of various ideas. So informed me of a perspective and her experience and qualification led credibility. I will seek other perspectives for balance, so I can actually have an informed and mature discussion and view on it. It's rather important.
You sound smart, im not- but I try to be reasonable, let's you ,and I try to discuss it like adults?
Where do want to see nz another 40 years down the track- plenty of time for real change, where should we start- what is our biggest priority in securing our future interests?...
@@AAL3087I can dig that! 👍
The reason the two parties wanted a treaty, was because the British wanted to bring control of British citizens who were out of control, and Māori were devastated by the musket wars they fought between themselves and wanted the protection of the British Government. The British had no desire to take the country over. That happened subsequently.
Partially true... However, colonisation was definitely on everyone's mind! As the Preamble to Te Tiriti says, "...chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come." With the key words being "others yet to come". Signatures were received chiefs from February to May. Then, Hobson declared British sovereignty over New Zealand in May 1840. Finally, Queen Victoria issued a Royal Charter in November 1840, declaring New Zealand was a British Colony. There was no intent or plan to prevent British settlement of New Zealand.
@@neil3488 I am not sure it was on everyone's mind. There were plenty who didn't think like that. There were only 3000 permanent non Maori residents in 1840 so it is very likely sovereignty was not a major issue. The New Zealand Company were the true colonisers who had no interests but themselves at heart.
@@awblax1 Wow - You're choosing to willfully ignore the text of Te Tiriti, Hobson's declaration and the Queen's Royal Charter! Yes, the NZ Company acted terribly at times, but to rewrite history as you're attempting is stunning.
Apart from wanting protection from other warlike tribes, the majority were also generally concerned about France,
"Maori had a deep distrust of the French after a massacre of 250 Maori in 1772, after Du Fresne was killed"
It also stopped slavery, cannibalism and gave Maori women rights for the first time ever.
You speak very well. In 2024 in My eyes we are all one, I'm a white fella with Māori ancestry from the Hokianga. You want to get ahead, go to work and save. You play up you go to jail. Should never be two sets of rules based on heritage and color of skin. Rules apply to everyone to protect what we have here in Nz. In our Moana and Ngahere, to preserve and feed our next generations.
Good on you Paul. You have a great attitude. We are all NZers and we are multicultural too. There are so many other ethnicities here also
As a law student entering my third year this year, and having spent a significant amount of time studying the Treaty, my assessment is that the historical evidence indicates that Maori ceded something akin to sovereignty in signing the Treaty. This is supported by contemporary statements made by Maori chiefs both at Waitangi and in the years and decades that followed. It was also the conclusion of the Waitangi Tribunal for decades before 2014 when they came to the radical - and, in my view, factually wrong - conclusion that Maori never ceded sovereignty at Waitangi. I think ACT's proposed bill/referendum is exactly what we need as a country, and if by some miracle they are able to convince Luxon to allow the referendum to go ahead, I will be more than happy with the result of my party vote for ACT.
Why is the Tribunals 2014 report that took the position that rangatira did not cede sovereignty based off all the evidence sought factually wrong in your opinion?
@MylesR0bert123 Because that conclusion seems to me to be contradicted by contemporary statements made by Maori chiefs both at Waitangi and in the decades that followed. For example, during the debates at Waitangi, several chiefs were outraged at the idea that under the Treaty, 'the Governor' (William Hobson) would have power "over" them. One chief said that were the Maori chieftains to be "equal" to the Governor under the Treaty he may have signed, but he could not sign the Treaty as written since it meant that the Governor would be "up" and he and the other chiefs "down". Statements like these (and there are many more) seem to me to indicate that Maori knew that by signing the Treaty they would be ceding a higher authority to the Crown, who could then exercise that authority over them. That sounds sufficiently similar to the English concept of sovereignty to me that I consider the statement "In signing the Treaty, Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown" to be essentially accurate. I hope that answers your question.
@@alethein359 I see what you did - you applied a non-Māori perspective of reasoning, speculated, and applied a non-Māori conclusion. That isnt how the Chiefs saw it, which is why the breach is recorded in all the Māori ways of recording data, passed on throughout the generations, and present today. It is why article 1 and 2 are decidedly different, otherwise article 2 would be a repeat of article 1. They clearly wanted the queen to sort out her riff raff without losing anything in the process.
The only person the Chiefs were expecting to have to share any status with was the queen, not people like Hobson. Him having any power over them made no sense - was he Queen Victoria? No. In their eyes he was one of her subjects, closer to the help. Maori never ceded.
@@MountainMaid238 I applied a "perspective of reasoning" known by even semi-intelligent people as 'logical reasoning'. I'm guessing you've never heard of it. Consider this your introduction.
As for "non-Maori conclusion", I have absolutely no idea what that even means, and frankly I don't care enough to ask. My conclusion followed logically from my reasoning, and as a rational person, that is all I care about.
Article 1 cedes sovereignty and the exclusive right to govern to the Crown. Article 2 guarantees Maori property rights. Pretty simple really. Neither Article is a repeat of the other. And as for your statement that Maori "clearly wanted the queen to sort out her riff raff without losing anything in the process", if that were the case then why was there such fierce debate and disagreement among Maori as to whether they should sign the Treaty? If, as you say, they weren't losing anything in the process, then surely the decision to sign would be a no-brainer?
Maori understood that Hobson was the Queen's representative in New Zealand. Frankly, given the context, they would have had to be exceedingly stupid not to. And to say that the Maori chiefs didn't expect to "share any status" with Hobson is flatly contradicted by multiple statements made by Maori at Waitangi - statements which I cited in a previous comment and will not repeat here.
Why would Māori cede a more absolute and definitive form of political authority, sovereignty (loosely translated to Tino rangatiratanga), in the English translation of the Treaty, and not merely (political authority) kawanatanga as in Te Tiriti? Remember, the concept and constitutional practice of sovereignty is a western political construct ie. The idea of ‘absolute power’ over a given territory was not practiced by Māori constitutionally, instead, Māori had their own methods for collective governance.
Isn’t it more plausible and factually accurate to hold the belief that this is what was being debated by Rangatira at Waitangi? Ie. what was the form and substance of power being ceded to the Crown? Remember too, Māori did have the sovereign authority to cede power via He Whakaputanga.
If you are following this reasoning, logically then, the Crown derived its political authority (kawanatanga) as stated in Te Tiriti from Rangatira, not sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga). Remember, the Māori version was signed by almost x10 more Rangatira, wasn't it? Why is there this factual discrepancy? Again, to return to my original point, isn’t it more likely, as the Waitangi Tribunal Report evidences, that the uncertainty around what was being ceded and what Rangatira were retaining was being debated?
I have engaged with your comments above and below, but for me, it does not evidence a close enough reading of all factors and forces. (at the risk of this sounding like an unwarranted flex etc. but I am a lawyer, and I would have studied the papers you studied, and more in my later years (eg. advanced public law goes much deeper into this). Good for you for thinking through the issues, I resonate with that, but your responses do evidence an emotional bias, perhaps too an ‘ideological’ one, rather than being merely ‘logical’ and ‘rational’ as you are seeking to be. That’s cool, I get that, but still, maybe hold your punches as below, and show some humility because we all have blind spots. These issues have a deep history and have been engaged with for generations, not merely in a few law papers. This does not discount your perspective, but you can be open to other ones too. I do look forward to your response.
@@alethein359
Where is this place they call ayeotearower?
It very close to a place called nu zilland 😂
Watch in 0.25 speed,jacks face is hilarious
i like pies !
Subtitles would be nice on discussion with the use of mixed languages. Can't inform people correctly if they don't know the meaning of the words used
Just use google
I agree subs would be easier for the mono-linguists amongst us (not being negative about mono-lingualism)
Okay so she says the Treaty recognised unique Maori rights and she wants the principles defining those special rights to remain fluid and undefined. Can anybody direct me the Q&A interview that offers counter-points to this pro-co-governance view, thus fulfilling Q&A's responsibility to fairness and impartiality under the journalistic code of ethics?
80% of all Maori problems are self inflicted alcohol,drugs and obesity-easily corrected if they want to.Education is easy if they TURN UP-I never missed single day at high school got S.C,U E and a degree and im no brainiac!
And how do you think Maori ended up in the situation they find themselves in?
All NZ citizens are equal. Maori, European, Asian, Pacific Islanders, American, Canadian... This is the 21st century, time to get real
Not equal but same rights
Wait if you’re half Māori who would govern you
Winston Shane David and Nicole
Natalie's expert analysis: First, ACT's proposal is problematic (but doesn't explain what problematic means, and then she admits there is no draft bill - so how does she know the proposal is problematic?) and second, the people of Aotearoa aren't mature enough to have this discussion. Really? From what David Seymour has said in interviews, ACT is proposing to interpret Te Tiriti (Te Reo version of the Treaty, not the English version) as applying to all people living in Aotearoa. That doesn't diminish Māori rights but recognises that Māori culture is part of all people living in Aotearoa. Ultimately, culture is learnt; it isn't genetic. So, treaty claims will still be settled, iwi/hapu will still have customary rights, and Māori language and culture will still be supported by Government. Natalie - why is this problematic?
There may not be a draft bill but Act's proposed principles have been known for a while.
@@richardghp2781 And... What's the problem?
@@neil3488 She does say why - because Seymour's interpretation deliberately erases Maori rights. Seymour's interpretation strategically generalizes it "as applying to all" in order precisely to disempower Maori from his openly racist, revisionist, right-wing position. "All" = white people.
Bro
Obviously you didn’t listen closely enough
@@aaronjacobs4411 No answer then! Bro
Why do all Green representatives have extraordinarily large irises? Also they have somewhat erratic body language.
(Probably just stress.)
Have you measured the iris 3 times in different circumstances and do you have a doctors' practicing certificate?
Otherwise... lol
Shoplifted pharmaceuticals
@@__Ben777__ from Simple Seymour's pseudoephedrine? 😂
In 1835 Maori were declared a sovereign nation under He Whakaputanga which was recognized by another sovereign nation the United Kingdom. Maori as the sovereigns of Aotearoa entered into a partnership with the British Crown via the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 bringing about a new beginning for both Maori, the Crown and Non-Maori (British Subjects) currently living in Aotearoa at that time.
This is the distinction between Maori and Non-Maori living in NZ. Non-Maori citizens living in New Zealand are not Treaty Partners, they are beneficiaries of the Te Tiriti because their Sovereign formed a relationship with Maori. This is facts but it does not mean that Maori are not inclusive, this does not mean that Maori want apartheid between Maori, the Crown and Non-Maori residents and citizens living in Aotearoa/New Zealand both past and present.
So to look at Maori in the same light as you would a Non-Maori citizen is incorrect. The correct way of looking at things and the structure of New Zealand is and should be the following...
There are two authorities and two powers in Aotearoa / New Zealand...
1. Maori
Under Maori you have all Maori descendants who are beneficiaries of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Non-Maori descendants who reside here in Aotearoa under Maori Sovereignty who have come into Aotearoa through Maori.
This does not apply to Non-Maori residents who have come into Aotearoa by way of the Crown.
The reason why this is not visibly seen is because Maori are yet to establish a Whare o Nga Rangatiratanga o Aotearoa (Maori Parliament) and suffered colonization and assimilation by the Crown representatives for the last 184 years and continuing.
2. The Crown
Under the crown you have British subjects and Non-British subjects which includes all Non-Maori and Non-British citizens that resides in New Zealand who have come into New Zealand by way of the Crown.
The Governing stewards of the Crown have spent the last 184 years strengthening their hold of the country by way of deceit, fearmongering and establishing a narrative that Maori are ugly, despicable, criminals, violent, thieves, supporters of apartheid, lack the capability of governing and managing affairs and that Maori just wants to take from everyone for their own self benefit.
The 2018 Census found that the percentage of people with multiple ethnicities is as follows: 55% for people who identify as Māori; 16% for people who identify as European; 41% for people who identify as Pasifika; 10% for people who identify as Asian and 22% for people who identify with some other ethnicity. However, this is most likely to be under-reported as many people are ignorant of their ancestry because they don't view the world through the lens of race/ethnicity. It will be most interesting to see how many people will investigate their ancestry once constitutional change in the form of an ethno-state is put forward as you suggest. By your definition, David Seymour is Māori (his great-great-great-grandmother was of Ngāti Rehia). Personally, I don't believe that when people are born, they forever tainted by the sins of their ancestors. My advice to you: Don't judge people by the actions of their long-dead ancestors, but by their actions in the present.
That may have applied to the settlers in 1860 but all their descendents are born and bred kiwi so are now tangata whenua. NZ euro is an indigenous people/culture not found anywhere else in the world. They get EQUAL say in any matters repeating to NZ. Get over it. It can't be changed.
The treaty gives the government the right to govern.
Cancel the treaty you'll cancel the government.
No, it gives Maori legal rights. It was then supersed as NZ became a self-governing country. Enter Parliament, which was quick to ratify and safeguard the legal rights of Maori.
@@davethewave7248 you know that means the treaty was meaningless after 12 years.
So why wasn't the country given back?
@@BamBam-uf4yi There was no country to 'give back', but rather a country to build. Actual sovereignty over the whole country was declared shortly after the treaty was signed [before the ink had even dried... the treaty was just a nominal ceding of sovereignty by some tribes]. Some central North Island tribes rejected it, and so British sovereignty was then enforced in the 1860s, and with the help of 'kopapa' maori. Such is history.
You just admitted that they knowingly stole the land.
@@BamBam-uf4yi Declaring sovereignty over the land is not stealing it. It's not only establishing law and order, but providing an environment where people can actually own land [have legal title]. Before law was established, chiefs only possessed land as long as they could defend it from other tribes. The treaty also recognized and gave a customary title to the chiefs [of the land that had not been already legitimately sold]. Going forward, land would have to be bought from chiefs.... which it was.
Te Tiriti ki te Tai Rawhiti was brought to the East Coast by Reverends Henry Williams and William Williams and signed on the East Coast by over 40 chiefs in 1840. There was no English version, only the Maori version. Tino Rangatiratanga was guaranteed to Te Tangata Whenua ki te Tai Rawhiti. Rangatiratanga is translated from the Bible to mean "Kingdom". Kawanàtanga is a lesser authority and was given to pakeha to govern authority over their own British subjects.
Isn’t your proposal the same as the notion of treaty principles?
She's a lawyer, with a major in Maori history. She is lining her own pocket
So her ponderous answer is she agrees that maori have extra human rights. Not such a good answer.
As a Lawyer, her interpretation of the Law, the Treaty and the process is fundamentally flawed!
Funny asking a lawyer why they are NOT needed when those principles are finally defined ..
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.
There is zero ambiguity here. "to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land"
Stop picking and choosing
@@patriciatehaate236 What do you mean? THAT is what is written??
@terrynicol4548 would you cede Sovereignty ?
@terrynicol4548 read the jolly thing where does it state the cheifs agreed to Sovereignty.
That is the illegal English version.
There are two key issues that no one is discussing: First, in a secular society that values science over religion/spiritualism, the wrongdoing of our ancestors should have NO bearing on us (their descendants). People that choose to identify as Māori should embrace the positive aspects of that culture, not the negative aspects. Feeling aggrieved because of the wrongs done to your ancestors and then blaming others - who were not alive when these wrongs were committed - is a culture of victimhood that can never be undone and really doesn't set a good example for children. Second, 184 years of relationships between Māori, British settlers and many others have resulted in an Aotearoa where there is only one people - Kiwis. For example, in the 2018 Census, 55% of people identifying as Māori have multiple ethnicities. We are a melting pot of cultures. We should celebrate our history and cultures, but, fundamentally, we should realise we are all merely human. Note that humans have almost the lowest genetic diversity among all species on the planet. Concepts of race and ethnicity are unscientific. Such ideas were created to divide people and to justify one group harming another group. Let us learn from history and move forward as one people - Kiwis!
Very Seymourellian sounding. Let's just ignore the cascading injustice of a people robbed. That's fine. Its their fault they lost their lands etc. Don't concern us now.
Since your telling everyone to get over the past wrongs and move forward? How about we deport you back to england and move forward there? Im sure your get over it!
@@AAL3087 Most treaty claims have been settled. NZ government's have had inquiries and apologised. Maori language and culture is now supported and funded... So, ACT's proposal says, let's focus on the future as one people and try to make the most of that future. Others wish to create division, e.g. separate parliaments and laws. What's your vision for the future?
Just move forward back to england. You'll get over it.
@@neil3488 thanks. I appreciate the sentiment and I admit I am still learning. If redress has been made, it implies recognition of a Treaty. As I understand it, it falls under international signed by two sovereign nations. I know Act if trying to cidifybthe principles that have been developed but I don't know if these are all the principles and whether they are correct. I am also not sure if the division exists. The inequity seems to.
Yes, exactly the text in the context at the time it was written. Maori knew what they wanted for their people. Take the text out of context we are left with the CON.
Look at green party lot??that women who stole should go jail..no excuse.she not even from nz..a refugee that labour let come in.once again.good on you jacinda,
Muppets
Hypocrite , She say's we need "Korero" on how to move forward with living by the "Maori Version of the treaty" But we aren't mature enough as a nation to discuss and have a referendum on the meaning of the "Principles" ..... typical tax payer funded grifter (Both of them )
No, because the default is to remove it. Doing so will cause civil war here.
Why would u say racists?
I do think indigenous people should have a say in which direction that will prosper for them in prudential realestate and resources belonging to them for there gain?just a thought
It seems to me that perhaps if people - whoever they are - do not wish to affirm rights for all New Zealanders then we simply pass a Bill that gives rights to ALL New Zealanders that are equivalent to the "treaty" rights - no need to change the treaty simply include everyone else separately with a new law.
All indigenous peoples naturally have special rights and maori have theirs in a signed contract which with military power has been conveniently ignored till recently !
A partnership can be discussed once injustices have been rectified .
ACT arguing equality is using racism to extinguish indigenous rights !
Under the ToW, the various Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and became citizens with the same rights as everyone else. The Maori version says the same thing. It's black and white. Maori at the time knew full well what they were signing. Today, claiming that the ToW was a "partnership" between two sovereign nations is a total farce. Maori were not unified, and had no single representative authority.
Bin the treaty. Its a curse with its grossly distorted exagerations of its original intent. Weve had perfectly good laws which worked for all. Bin the thing!
The legal profession have a lot to answer for in this country. This young woman thinks she knows best but doesn't even acknowledge the correct name of her country. Our democracy is actually based on the common law of Great Britain in 1840. The Treaty was nullified when the Constitution Act was passed in 1852. It has since been resuscitated.
All a storm in the teacup really. NZ politics is not 'treaty-centric', nor should it be. The treaty, great that it was in securing Maori their legal rights, was fast eclipsed by events on the ground. Historicizing the treaty is honouring it.
Quite right, its time these elite/radical Maori put some of their vast wealth to helping their own people ... funny how they're willing to use their wealth to go to court if need be, but not to help their own people ... Mana means nothing but money these days ... they're protecting their own gravy train ...
Well what Natalie & like minded advocates, cn never get their heads around is that Maori along with every other NZer have what they call Tino Rangatiratanga "Self Determination".. You're born with it, pretty much every human being on the planet has it. She's advancing a spurious argument trying to manufacture a grievance when one doe not exist
92% of NZers do not wantTreaty touching. NZers don't see that removing Maaori rights is a slippery slope toward resource grabs from the govts. shareholders.
There'll be no NZ left if this govt. has it's way.
What the hell are Māori rights ?
@@PhilT1957 and that about sums you up in a sentence 😆
@@Kult365 well what are they?
@@PhilT1957 read the Tiriti and get back to me.
@@Kult365 what’s the point. You guys are living in the past. Get over it. Nothing can bring back the past.
She`s way up on the gravy train, her ticket is clipped. Only the elitist maori ever see any treaty settlement money.
You forgot 'entitled Maori'.
The Maori version of the Treaty (as translated on the Waitangi Tribunal website):
PREAMBLE - Victoria, the Queen of England, in her concern to protect the chiefs and the subtribes of New Zealand and in her desire to preserve their chieftainship and their lands to them and to maintain peace and good order considers it just to appoint an administrator one who will negotiate with the people of New Zealand to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come. So the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Māori and European living in a state of lawlessness. So the Queen has appointed 'me, William Hobson a Captain' in the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand (both those) shortly to be received by the Queen and (those) to be received hereafter and presents to the chiefs of the Confederation chiefs of the subtribes of New Zealand and other chiefs these laws set out here.
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.
The Māori version of the Treaty is very clear: NZ will be a colony of England: "...give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their [the chiefs'] land" (Article 1) and there will be a lot of settlers moving to NZ: "...and others yet to come" (Preamble). Article 2 protects the physical and intellectual property rights of Māori (and that is consistent with English Common Law). Article 3 says all of the people of NZ are equal - we are all British citizens. With the treaty claims settlement process nearing an end and Government support (and funding) for Māori language and culture, what is the problem?
The problem is that this is a misinterpreted fraudulent peace treaty contract.
@@dgm2593 What is the evidence to support your opinion?
if this is what our foundation document states, i think the treaty is void, and needs to be scrapped, it will never be settled.@@neil3488
@@dgm2593 This text is from the Waitangi Tribunal website - an authoritative source Obviously, you're trolling!
Wow, what a bunch of piss weak questions.
05:28 woww. You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen. We're not mature enough to have this conversation. You and I. According to this woman, aren't smart enough to have this discussion. That is unbelievably arrogant, and undermines the whole purpose of democracy. From a lawyer, of all people..
Yo nzqa- your part of rnz right? What happened to the editor who was smeared as a Putin apologist for correcting articles on Ukraine?...
Nzqa would be tvnz not rnz....
@@mobbarley7517 thanks for the clarification, doesn't really matter, the point was that nz media is captured, that's why you probably think Ukraine was the unprovoked attack of mad man, that Israel has the right to kill that many children, and Ansaralla's BDS actions have nothing to do with Palestinian suffering, all over Israel since the nakba in 1948.
So in the first part of the interview. Lawyers: Read "Maori opinion" through the Waitangi Tribunal. Can define a Principle depending on the situation (That suits them of course). The other thing is. Using the term "The"spirit" of the treaty? not a very good "legal" term eh!
Lawyers should be the slaves of the people (via the elected Parliament member) is not the other way around. In my view; Lawyers have already stuffed the Treaty up. Its Parliament that runs this country!
Now lets have a discussion. We are multicultural not bi cultural for a start. Any 21st century "Principles" should reflect the Treaty for the 21 Century and beyond.
She was asked "are we ready, mature enough" to make decisions about the Treaty. Her answer was NO but I think most people would say Answer. YES! However only after a balanced and true history lesson for all.
The Maori activist and radical leaders place great emphasis upon Te tiriti but the English "draft" was the first document. We can all read that.The context and intent by the then Crown spelt out the conditions for a treaty with Maori. Maori contend that there is a miscommunication when it was translated. I don't think so. There is too much evidence that Maori "got it"
Ricardo the turd states that Maori ceded sovereignty. NZ wasn't a sovereign nation in 1840 (no head of state just a mish mash or tribes) so no sovereignty to cede.End of story. Principals bill now needed more than ever to stop all the gravy and BS being generated out of legal ambiguitys.
Kōrero e hoa - beautiful wisdom
Excellent summary breakdown from Natalie Coates.
The principles have to be defined before they can be redefined
To be classed as a Native American you have to be 3/4 indigenous. This type of qualifying should be held in NZ. What we have is a bunch of Europeans touting as natives when in fact they are just a group of ancestors that invaded and colonized peoples before Europeans came to New Zealand. Get over it and move along... we are one nation.
No thanks
"it is clear" - if it was, then we wouldn't be here
Being Maori and also NZ European here, I reckon I’ve got a reasonable standpoint. I agree Maori didn’t seed sovereignty but also that after having much of their lives destroyed by colonising traits from the crown, not necessarily all the settlers, and a miss framing of Maori over time, it has come to this, including reverse racism. The land settlements my family have been involved with multi generationally and given the lateness in modern history, set us back where, it means that the use of the land is basically impossible in many situations and the lack of social financial status makes building impossible and stuck with a lack of ability to function as tied to this past. Whakapapa has become political because of this, so much so that to find information and identify with your genealogical roots can be difficult because people don’t want to involve you in their claims, or have claims stolen. It’s messy and many Maori disconnected don’t benefit yet still deal with the stigma of receiving special treatment, even though we got disfranchised and can’t utilise our resources, while some larger claims make some Maori organisations wealthy that doesn’t trickle down fiscally to the majority of Maori. My European side came back from war service and got given easy loans to buy stolen Maori land at low prices to thrive.
To go forward I think we need to form a new agreement that honours the treaty but also dismantles the crowns involvement, forming a new non crown affiliated New Zealand. This started in England and we all suffered here for it in a cultural sense of togetherness and true NZ identity.
The English crown have dishonoured us all and yet we blame eachother.
We all got royally screwed
As a Maori W pakeha blood (Welsh and German - Welsh being in a army setting where they picked my Maori great grandmother off a Marae as spoils of war, and the German ancestor being the ammunition and arms dealer in the land wars - I think I have a fair say too) I genuinely feel as though Maori lost much more than what my white ancestors ever had to. My ancestor was the first ever Maori beheaded during the $10 per head campaign - simply bc he was elderly and an easy target. Our women and children raped to landlock and instil fear and self hatred. Pakeha settlers could literally win a footrace to get land, while Maori land was confiscated at we were forced to build infrastructure. My pakeha whanau struggle to comprehend what we lost, bc in reality they had everything to gain and nothing to lose. As a Maori they'd ballot your land if you went to war and if not they'd make you dig drains or imprison you. Alot of the blockhouse were designed for pakeha safety, but it's hardly mentioned that they kidnap Maori children and murder them there as ritual (think freemason). My family was imprisoned on rekohu and deemed rebels, mind you only after it was deemed uninhabitable for European settlement - this meant the actions of prisoners were often conflated for those of ngati mutunga and ngati tama by the pakeha. A pakeha today can now threaten to shoot up all Marae and kohanga, but won't be deemed as a terror threat. But us Maori out in the uruwera? Terrorists according to the govt, police and media. I'm just saying if blame is the only consequence for the benefactors of colonial settler actions, then I'd count my lucky stars if I were them. And my white family does, I even give my great grandfather slack about his actions picking nan out of a line up just for being a killer. His response? And what moko - I'm with her cousin now, take your nan back to the marae😂he's cool W accountability idk whys it's so abhorrent, I can own my German ancestors actions - he just wanted putea, but I can't ignore that he supplied the bullets that killed our whanaunga both pakeha and Maori.
Unilateral. Good points
She forgot to mention that many Maori sought protection from the Crown from other warring Maori tribes more so than from the early settlers. And the country was never called Aotearoa in 1840. This is just a modern unofficial made up name that has never been debated on eith the genersl public of NZ.
Does your "prominent Maori" include one Mr Willy Jackson?
will you stop saying Aotearoa!!
Our Country is called - NEW ZEALAND!!
Actually it clearly states Aotearoa on your passport. So it is both.
@@terrynicol4548
in which language?
Both refer to the same thing, I don’t see what the issue is. It’s like saying you shouldn’t refer to Japan as 日本 (Nihon) because the latter isn’t English. If someone speaking English wants to refer to the country as Nihon, there’s nothing wrong with that. Same thing applies here.
@@davidman001
in the japanese language they call their country Nipon when they talk with each other in Japanese...
when japanese speak with foreigners Gaijing they will use the English name JAPAN.
same in south Korea,, you can say KOREA
they will call it HANGUK..
we arent MAORI.. we are native english speakers.. so calling our country a name which isnt English seems weird..
another question..
do Maori call it Aotearoa? in Te reo?
Get withit chrissy boi, ,
Aotearoa aoooeeeahhh😅
The Treaty recognizes pre-existing rights. Maori have made us better NZers, not lesser. The amazing marae environment where opposing positions are respectfully debated and problems resolved is a model for all cultures in this conflicted world. NZ, again leads on this one.
Bowing to demands of an aggressive 8% pressure group is NOT democracy. Wake up NZ to the current political dynamics of shrill popularism where demonizing the 'other' is an ancient but flawed tactic that leads to war and social unrest.
Aroha nui
What is democracy?
I personally understand the parameters you are governed by !
My question ?
Do you wish freedom of Speech mmmmmh !?🤔😉😎🎱
Hang in there ,
Because it comes !😛😛😛♾️🙏🕊️
she's !00% correct!
This guy doesn't even know what he's talking about, colonization was mentioned before 1840 by the New Zealand association & Busby. They even mentioned colonization of New Zealand in the 1820snunderbthe Bigge commission
One person one vote, not apartheid or nz cannot move forward
What exactly is apartheid? How does it factor into this? Curious.
lol Māori have the same number of votes 😂😂😂
Apartheid is separate development where 1 group of peoples have different rights and allowances than others in society. The word means apartness and nz fought viciously against it in south Africa but now the same political group of people want to bring a form of it (apatheid) into nz. Answer 2. Maori currently have extra votes through the Maori seats and special wards in councils etc, tax free status in trusts and many more. However as always with Maori they want more eg 16% of the population want 50% of control. This would lead to nz becoming venuzuela
@@kenking3188 That is wrong. Apartheid is the domination and full control of one people over another in society.
Te Tiriti is not apartheid.
Dont forget Maori accepted Sovereignty in 1840
The treaty all about money plane and simple
Race is a white colonial construct and citizenship is a white concept too. White people or maybe more correctly white culture is imposing these separatist ideologies upon our society. Not Māori and not a Maori worldview.
Ask her if she thinks maori should be able to have there own justice system.
So woke !!!!!
Greater numbers and reductionism.......There are more of us than you. And nobody is 'full blooded' anyway (inference of referencing our other whakapapa) ..........lets not forget the racist phenotypical foundation of our epidimiological myths.
So tracking what you are saying ....I in the interests of SELF DETERMINATION may not only ignore my whakapapa to Aotearoa, I may also ignore the other cultures I am connected to too because I am an individual and in magically falling out of the heavens like no other individual in the known UNIVERSE before me, l may choose which of my ancestors I outrightly ignore as opposed to the others whom I may blatantly deny. How blithely ungracious of me.......... Nothing is better than absolutely nothing , right??
Proudly, there are now more of us who don't conceivably know who we are now, than those who do know who we are. Therefore, being birds who cannot fly en masse is not an issue so long as we placate the bald eagle on the planes. Doing things correctly and being correct are a mere contrivance. Mr Seymour, are we truly all ORPHANS .....or only those of us removed by The State. Were none of us born into a group, - isn't that primary or first group just another name for family? Successive Governments have developed an ethos conducive to an 80 percent school truancy rate. WHY.....through liberating young people to be permanently bonded on devices for the majority of the day, as preferential to being an active member of an OPPRESSIVE group.....FAMILY.
Got it, so that is that why elderly in New Zealand are discarded into retirement villages....Its obviously to teach all those GERIATRIC ORPHANS out there the benefits of individuating in their twilight years IN A GROUP context, and VILLAGE nonetheless with SOCIAL BENEFITS from living in a COLLECTIVE GROUP. Not exactly what Mickey Savage had in mind for SOCIAL HOUSING as not everyone has a Trust Fund.
Perhaps our current generation of leaders have their 'I''s' too close together. Its 'I' this and 'I' that. Being in Aoteraoa brings great fortune. Unlike Stephen Hawkings Social Darwinism inspired reference to humans being mere naked apes on a cold star in space, here ONE can whakapapa directly to the Gods, well......... just a little tiny miniscule number, not noteworthy really, waste of time consulting with, barely even warrant a vote......DEMOCRACY AND REDUCTIONISM in action.
ONE reading equals one step closer to your flawed vision for yet another BANANA REPUBLIC.....1 + 1 = 2.
Sooooo sick if this issue.....
A parliamentarian but believes Maori have Sovereignty?! Pfft what a joke
Abolishing a Unity document between two nations that dates back beyoned any living humans existence today... Re-write it with a majority vote made up of a high non newzealand cultural percentage e.g Indian asian etc etc.. most unfortunately it shines a light on the underlying issues we as a society still have here in 2024. Question, how much debt is newzealand in?
Just a mess everyone pulling In different directions
She's a problematic propagandist
So " Principles" are "defined" by what is happening????the right side of the road is decided by where the car happens to be? such a great way to drive a car! Question..... just after 30 years of bloody slavetaking cannabal feasting& land invasions which were in fact @500 times WORSE Than the disaster hitler inflicted on GERMANYS jews (check the figures) Maori on maori with the aid of 150+ CANNON & many muskets wiped out HALF the 1800 population ! .....50+ thousand....dead... @ 500 wise chiefs accepted the British offer to give ownership to the English crown & become "british subjects"...slaughter STOPPED SLAVERY stopped . ALL the "goodies" of western science, goods, plants (fruit trees, tools vegetables, wool clothing cloth canvas sails shipsETC actually the OFFER was mighty good BUT..... then massive immigration, booze smarts sods came along + smallpox measles, tobacco yup the whole deal .thats what the "Treaty settlement industry was all about. This is NOT "my idea" JUST READ REAL GENUINE HISTORY!! ..Then ask yourself howinell was this not taught to me in school?
It is not intelligent to think that democracy is anything to do with Maori culture,it came with the settlers
headed by the Crown.If you disregard the Crown,then you don't know the truth and you give disinformation.
She's not even convincing...
Facial! language never lies!
Another left wing activist, yawn
One sided interview
Going forward as one nation is simple and easier,bury the Treaty for ever.
This is a key example why democracies dont work for minorities even though maori people are tangata whenua of Aotearoa
There are more ministers of Maori descent in the current government than was in the previous. They would disagree with you. And if you don't like democracy here in NZ, try a stint in North Korea or Russia and see how you get on.
Tangata whenua just means the people living on their property, I am tangata whenua proprietor of my own land and business not you!! Get it it!!
@@StGammon77 That's not its traditional meaning, no
Why doesn’t he challenge the bullshit statements she makes? Ummm yes we all know that !
The Maori give sovereignty to the crown and rangatira are given ‘exclusive and undisturbed possession’ of lands, forests, fisheries and other property. Each iwi's had rights over their region. iwi sold a lot of there land. And they never develop the land them selfs. However iwi's should be getting cut's off the fisheries and forests and mining. This should be per year. From that iwi's can by back land. build schools or add to schools in place in there region, Job training institutions, create employment in the regions, develop housing in their regions, give grants for them to become doctors, teachers etc.
On their land only not all land that's evil
The colonisers of NZ have never given respect to, allowed participation in governance or upheld rights of a colonised people e.g. US / Israel human rights abuses for decades / centurary. Like Israel / US who uses Deny, Distract, Deterrence anduse their money hegemony to sway opinion. Until Titiriti O Waitangi (Maori ver.) is acknowledged under international law occurs a debate on how implemented cannot be reached in modern times.
The colonisers of NZ are long dead! Time to move on...
No, some of us Maori are actually happy to have the debate and listen to all sides. The rest bring shame upon our people
I'm all for a discussion, because to be able to discuss you need to be informed and sooo many who have formerly been complacent will start on their path to Treaty literacy. And once more countrymen are educated on this, yes let's have that mature discussion.
Rubbish, Maori have participated in government since soon after the ToW was signed. Maori males obtained the right to vote ahead of non-land owning European males. And we have had MP's of Maori descent for many decades. Just ask Winston et al. There are more ministers of Maori descent in the current government than in the previous. They would all disagree with you. Go learn some history.
Maori males were forced to vote for one of four Maori seats to ensure they would never hold a majority in Parliament. Despite being the majority of the population. So don't come on here claiming that somehow the democratic process has ever been fair for Maori citizens.
Echo chamber ....
Funny so was palastien