National - FFS!

[fungus pudding]

Racist nonsense!

Actually, it is neither.

[moka]

Luxon in an interview appeared to lack any kind of meaningful understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi, co-governance or the depth of the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/former-national-leaders-had-a-rudimentary-understanding-of-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/56EGBTLGEAFMILJKCUATGX3NL4/

“Throughout the interview, Luxon drew a distinction between "everyday New Zealanders" and "Māoridom", creating two seemingly discrete groups that he posed in opposition to each other when discussing co-governance.
If, according to Luxon, everyday New Zealanders don't understand what co-governance is, but Māori do, then doesn't it logically follow that he's suggesting that Māori aren't "everyday New Zealanders"?

It was also unclear to me whether he understands the most basic reason for the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal – that Māori, in the te reo text, did not cede sovereignty. Rather, Māori sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga) was affirmed, while Māori agreed to grant the Crown the power of kawanatanga (governance).”

[Getty]

If Lux thinks he can stand on a soapbox at election time, and woo swinging voters by taking public holidays away from them, he will be suds.

Too much time spent in business class, to lose touch with economy class...

[Panda-NZ-]

He doesn't want his coffee to go up 25 cents this year even though hes mega wealthy.

[Balance]

Luxon in an interview appeared to lack any kind of meaningful understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi, co-governance or the depth of the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/former-national-leaders-had-a-rudimentary-understanding-of-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/56EGBTLGEAFMILJKCUATGX3NL4/

“Throughout the interview, Luxon drew a distinction between "everyday New Zealanders" and "Māoridom", creating two seemingly discrete groups that he posed in opposition to each other when discussing co-governance.
If, according to Luxon, everyday New Zealanders don't understand what co-governance is, but Māori do, then doesn't it logically follow that he's suggesting that Māori aren't "everyday New Zealanders"?

It was also unclear to me whether he understands the most basic reason for the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal – that Māori, in the te reo text, did not cede sovereignty. Rather, Māori sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga) was affirmed, while Māori agreed to grant the Crown the power of kawanatanga (governance).”

On the contrary, moka.

People like Lizzie & you throw te reo words like te tiriti o waitangi instead of Treaty of Waitangi as if that automatically lends legitimacy to the Maori text as being the only valid interpretation of the treaty.

We all know there are two texts of the Treaty, English & Maori.

The English language at the time of the signing of the Treaty was a well developed and understood language with precision in terms of legislative imperative to the words.

The Maori language was in its infancy with hardly any legislative imperative. In fact, they had no words for most of what is taken for granted in the world of government, law & order!

Why should the Maori text and interpretation be the only one now to determine the intent of the treaty?

There are two interpretations and it’s only because of Ardern’s government to corner the Maori vote (and make bottom dwellers and beneficiaries of most of them) which has allowed the current PC climate of favoring Maori in every interpretation to prevail.

Luxon is perfectly entitled to prefer the English text interpretation if and as he chooses.

And he will be judged by NZers and NZers will vote accordingly next year on that basis.

Spare us, moka, your woke and racist postings using a few te reo words as if that’s the be all and end all of what constitutes interpretation of the Treaty.

[dobby41]

Why should the Maori text and interpretation be the only one now to determine the intent of the treaty?

Primarily because they are the ones the treaty was with - they 'owned' NZ at the time so surely the interpretation to take precedence would be the one they understood in their language.
Otherwise, wouldn't it be a case of trying to pull the wool over their eyes?

[Balance]

Primarily because they are the ones the treaty was with - they 'owned' NZ at the time so surely the interpretation to take precedence would be the one they understood in their language.
Otherwise, wouldn't it be a case of trying to pull the wool over their eyes?

You mean like Ardern has been doing to NZers for the last 4.5 years?

[dobby41]

You mean like Ardern has been doing to NZers for the last 4.5 years?

Nope - not what I mean at all!
You do struggle to stick to a subject.

[davflaws]

Primarily because they are the ones the treaty was with - they 'owned' NZ at the time so surely the interpretation to take precedence would be the one they understood in their language.
Otherwise, wouldn't it be a case of trying to pull the wool over their eyes?

If the principle of contra proferentem applies (and from memory the Court of Appeal judgement coming down in favour of "partnership" mentioned it as one of the matters it considered), the Maori version takes precedence.

[fungus pudding]

If the principle of contra proferentem applies (and from memory the Court of Appeal judgement coming down in favour of "partnership" mentioned it as one of the matters it considered), the Maori version takes precedence.

https://sites.google.com/site/treaty...ra-proferentem