Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

6 Comments

  1. As a living document. The main text is supposed to produce a functional, strong central government with a sitting full-time executive that implements laws and can act without parliament if something unexpected comes up. I’ve always thought of the Māori version as more of an immigration issue kind of thing, at least that’s what the sales pitch said that sold it to Māori; everyone uses an equivalent of “…, and don’t rules lawyer yourself to death.”

    Parliament is allowed to make an air force and commerce including internet. Etc.

    The Human Rights Act should be read very broadly in what it protects against in each of the 3 articles. It is in there because people wanted guarantees against government abuse, arbitrary or legislative. Without it, the people don’t ratify parliament and there is no power at all. Maori should all be treated as God fearing worshippers is currently treated (protects everything that isn’t an act of violence or otherwise insane stuff).

  2. Du Plessis-Allan is a light-weight in the field of journalism. She can only recycle gotcha stories because, like Kate Hawkesby and Mark Richardson, she hasn’t got the intellectual ‘grunt’ to do real, investigative, insight journalism. She does children’s fairy tales in lieu of Shakespeare, when it comes to her craft.

    It’s a shame this is where journalism in NZ has descended to.

  3. Totally spot on piece thanks very much.
    The sort of tag team ‘reporting’ of Soper and HdA should not be permitted in any newspaper, and certainly would not be in one that held itself to any, let alone high, journalistic standards. Ditto for the other two-headed yapping dog. It’s incredible and a disgrace that this domination of stupid biased schoolyard writing is permitted in any publication that calls itself a newspaper. Trying to sully Ardern’s intelligence and sincerity is a cheap trick that fools no one.

  4. HdPA looks as if she’s ready to go to a party. Unfortunately for her, celebrating her “win’ over the PM, is misplaced and premature. She doesn’t appear to know that the Maori version of the second article gives Maori tino rangatiratanga, retention of their traditional authority. This puts the cession of sovereignty in article one in an entirely different context than the English version would seem to allow.

    I have read widely on Maori politics and I cannot recite the words of the Treaty. However I know about the second article and the significance of tino rangatiratanga without having to look it up. I guess HdDA doesn’t have the foggiest about that. It means our PM understands what’s important, what’s significant for us in the Treaty, and HdPA is left looking quite silly with no party to go to.

  5. Mate, great article and many good points. Treaty principles are a government construct. Probably well meaning but they weren’t in the Treaty and weren’t agreed.

Comments are closed.