Excellent paper and insights by Julian .. Is Hipkins his own man ? We don’t know yet. His performance in the Police and Education portfolios has been very disappointing , at best. . He must keep the Maori caucus right in its place and totally dismantle Ardern’s obsessive ,ideologically-driven Maorification agenda . We are about DEMOCRACY and unity , NOT a divisive co-governance / Maori tribal-rule neo-apartheid political structure , with Maori “ control , ownership and commercial exploitation of our key resources .
Hipkins has a lot to do to unwind all the damage Ardern has inflicted on us. In short, we want our Country , democratic system and democracy back intact and a unity which says “ we are ALL New Zealanders together , regardless of heritage.
Absolutely there is only one chance to get this right but heavy artillery is on its way.. A return to Representative Direct Democracy is not an option.. No it is a must..
50 plus years of Incompetent Indirect Democracy has meeted out the biggest deficit in our History..
To keep on doing what we have always done and expecting change is sheer madness. Red Blue Red Blue baton change Corrupt Duopoly Dictatorship must go as must the 120 squatting in the Hive. Complicity in the biggest Genocide in the history of the world..
Yes Wayne, we now have our own swamp and it must be drained.
The swamp rats have been selling We the People out to NGO’s via Global Public Private Partnerships. (PPP)
Here is a link to Mel K doing a 15 minute truth bomb session laying it all out as to what is really going on and who is behind the curtain.( If should start straight into Mel’s presentation, but if it doesn’t she starts at 8.47.00.)
Another possibility regarding Chris Hipkins’ “struggle to define co-governance”, is that he is positioning to sell a version that is likely to be palatable to the majority of New Zealand, including Luxon and National. That version I suspect will be something like consultation with iwi on steroids. In other words it will play on what is effectively the status quo, where iwi representatives are consulted on a wide range of matters where there is even a hint of potential Maori interest. This is already a form of “co-governance”, by providing special access channels to elected representatives as well as opportunities to influence local and central governance decisions not available to other groups or individuals.
This would be a very clever move by Hipkins to defuse co-governance as a bomb under Labour. Perhaps evidence that he is much more dangerous than Ardern.
Link to an ONZF article that dissects the Tiriti o Waitangi to understand it’s true meaning using the 1869 Official Back Translation by Mr T E Young of the Native Department.
Dr. Charlie Baycroft
on January 23, 2023 at 1:36 pm
There are so many c0nflicting opinions about the Treaty of Waitangi.
People speak as though they we alive and participated in the events that happenned 200 years ago and will not admit that their opinion of history is probably romaniticized, unrealistic fantasy.
The Treaty between tribal chiefs and the representative of the Queen of England was a way for the people of that time to deal with serious issues that they faced AT THAT TIME.
The people of today should be concerned about dealing with the issues that we face IN THE PRESENT and not what some long deceased people did in 1840.
Why should any person living today feel obliged to comply with the decisions of some tribal chiefs and the representative of the Queen of England?
They decided what they wanted to decide then and we should decide what we want to decide NOW and without interferrence from how anyone chooses to interpret what happenned in the past.
This constant arguing and referring to “the treaty” for personal leverage and potential gain is foolish, divisive and detrimental because it distracts us from our current problems and gets in the way of solving them and improving the future for this nation and its people.
“The treaty” ought to be gotten over and consigned to the dusty shelves in some museum of the past where it really belongs because it has nothing to do with New Zealand and its people in 2023.
My understanding is that the Treaty document itself , in Maori , as signed by the majority of the Chiefs was translated into Maori directly from the Littlewood document , utilising the Maori language , as limited as it was , and no doubt including some “new” Maori words to enable the translation to be effected. In short there is a VERY strong , if not unarguable case for saying the ONLY true “ back-translation” was , and should continue to be the originating document , namely the Littlewood document .. We are today well experienced in Maori translations from Maori to English being “varied to suit” the Maori’s’ “objective of the day” for a translation , Ie their intended use / purpose for the translation .. the Littlewood document is unquestionably the authority .
One New Zealand Foundation Inc
on January 23, 2023 at 5:29 pm
Hi Hugh, I beleive to much has been read into the Treaty since it was signed in 1840, 182 years ago. It was a really simple document.
All it realy said was, “The tangata Maori must give up their individual governments to the Queen for Her to form a legal government to bring protection, law and order to all the people of New Zealand, irrespetive of race colour or creed.
This is exactly what the Preamble said and from the Chief’s speaches, exactly what they also understood it to mean when they shook hands with Lt. Governor Hobson with the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. No more, no less.
Please read the article above suggeted by Neil, it explains this in detail
What a relief to actually hear the truth stated instead of all the invented nonsense trying to make the Treaty out to be the end all of everything. The comments above are excellent. We need more people stating these irrefutable facts so that we all know the truth.
This is the first election in my 78 years that I am frightened of. I fear for the future of New Zealand and therefore cannot (for the first time) vote Labour. I do not trust the Nats or ACT to stop co-governance and set up a real Constitution for our country, so who do I vote for? The minor parties just mean a vote for the status quo.
Excellent paper and insights by Julian .. Is Hipkins his own man ? We don’t know yet. His performance in the Police and Education portfolios has been very disappointing , at best. . He must keep the Maori caucus right in its place and totally dismantle Ardern’s obsessive ,ideologically-driven Maorification agenda . We are about DEMOCRACY and unity , NOT a divisive co-governance / Maori tribal-rule neo-apartheid political structure , with Maori “ control , ownership and commercial exploitation of our key resources .
Hipkins has a lot to do to unwind all the damage Ardern has inflicted on us. In short, we want our Country , democratic system and democracy back intact and a unity which says “ we are ALL New Zealanders together , regardless of heritage.
Absolutely there is only one chance to get this right but heavy artillery is on its way.. A return to Representative Direct Democracy is not an option.. No it is a must..
50 plus years of Incompetent Indirect Democracy has meeted out the biggest deficit in our History..
To keep on doing what we have always done and expecting change is sheer madness. Red Blue Red Blue baton change Corrupt Duopoly Dictatorship must go as must the 120 squatting in the Hive. Complicity in the biggest Genocide in the history of the world..
Yes Wayne, we now have our own swamp and it must be drained.
The swamp rats have been selling We the People out to NGO’s via Global Public Private Partnerships. (PPP)
Here is a link to Mel K doing a 15 minute truth bomb session laying it all out as to what is really going on and who is behind the curtain.( If should start straight into Mel’s presentation, but if it doesn’t she starts at 8.47.00.)
https://rumble.com/v26jdok-reawaken-nashvilletn-day-2.html
Another possibility regarding Chris Hipkins’ “struggle to define co-governance”, is that he is positioning to sell a version that is likely to be palatable to the majority of New Zealand, including Luxon and National. That version I suspect will be something like consultation with iwi on steroids. In other words it will play on what is effectively the status quo, where iwi representatives are consulted on a wide range of matters where there is even a hint of potential Maori interest. This is already a form of “co-governance”, by providing special access channels to elected representatives as well as opportunities to influence local and central governance decisions not available to other groups or individuals.
This would be a very clever move by Hipkins to defuse co-governance as a bomb under Labour. Perhaps evidence that he is much more dangerous than Ardern.
Yes- this path of constant consultation could be very likely.
In fact, it is “soft co-governance” for a period to prepare for real CG.
ACT an NZ First would be isolated – too specific on democracy and the veto. Could be dismissed as scaremongers -unless they can stand firm.
A few years of this strategy would then allow the He Puapua agenda to return and its objectionable elements ( notably veto) could quickly advance .
http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/articles/treaty-of-waitangi/dissecting-the-tiriti-o-waitangi/
Link to an ONZF article that dissects the Tiriti o Waitangi to understand it’s true meaning using the 1869 Official Back Translation by Mr T E Young of the Native Department.
There are so many c0nflicting opinions about the Treaty of Waitangi.
People speak as though they we alive and participated in the events that happenned 200 years ago and will not admit that their opinion of history is probably romaniticized, unrealistic fantasy.
The Treaty between tribal chiefs and the representative of the Queen of England was a way for the people of that time to deal with serious issues that they faced AT THAT TIME.
The people of today should be concerned about dealing with the issues that we face IN THE PRESENT and not what some long deceased people did in 1840.
Why should any person living today feel obliged to comply with the decisions of some tribal chiefs and the representative of the Queen of England?
They decided what they wanted to decide then and we should decide what we want to decide NOW and without interferrence from how anyone chooses to interpret what happenned in the past.
This constant arguing and referring to “the treaty” for personal leverage and potential gain is foolish, divisive and detrimental because it distracts us from our current problems and gets in the way of solving them and improving the future for this nation and its people.
“The treaty” ought to be gotten over and consigned to the dusty shelves in some museum of the past where it really belongs because it has nothing to do with New Zealand and its people in 2023.
My understanding is that the Treaty document itself , in Maori , as signed by the majority of the Chiefs was translated into Maori directly from the Littlewood document , utilising the Maori language , as limited as it was , and no doubt including some “new” Maori words to enable the translation to be effected. In short there is a VERY strong , if not unarguable case for saying the ONLY true “ back-translation” was , and should continue to be the originating document , namely the Littlewood document .. We are today well experienced in Maori translations from Maori to English being “varied to suit” the Maori’s’ “objective of the day” for a translation , Ie their intended use / purpose for the translation .. the Littlewood document is unquestionably the authority .
Hugh Perrett
100% correct and perfectly and clearly written. Thank you
Hi Hugh, I beleive to much has been read into the Treaty since it was signed in 1840, 182 years ago. It was a really simple document.
All it realy said was, “The tangata Maori must give up their individual governments to the Queen for Her to form a legal government to bring protection, law and order to all the people of New Zealand, irrespetive of race colour or creed.
This is exactly what the Preamble said and from the Chief’s speaches, exactly what they also understood it to mean when they shook hands with Lt. Governor Hobson with the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. No more, no less.
Please read the article above suggeted by Neil, it explains this in detail
What a relief to actually hear the truth stated instead of all the invented nonsense trying to make the Treaty out to be the end all of everything. The comments above are excellent. We need more people stating these irrefutable facts so that we all know the truth.
This is the first election in my 78 years that I am frightened of. I fear for the future of New Zealand and therefore cannot (for the first time) vote Labour. I do not trust the Nats or ACT to stop co-governance and set up a real Constitution for our country, so who do I vote for? The minor parties just mean a vote for the status quo.