Trick or Treaty? Indigenous rights, referendums and the Treaty of Waitangi
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 12. 2023
- The fate of the Treaty of Waitangi is teetering on the brink of a popular vote, as the new coalition government pledges to introduce a Treaty Principles Bill, potentially triggering a referendum.
The recent Australian voice-to-parliament referendum serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the precarious nature of safeguarding indigenous rights when subject to majority decision-making.
In an exploration of this critical issue, Mata speaks with prominent indigenous advocates, academics and treaty experts to uncover the motivations behind any potential erosion of Māori rights in Aotearoa.
Update: Atlas Network says it does not oppose climate policy or indigenous land rights. The Taxpayers Union is being offered an opportunity to respond to the matters raised in this documentary.
Correction: David Seymour did not attend Lord Hannan's event while he was in New Zealand. David Seymour attended a dinner with Lord Hannan."
This is the official channel of TVNZ's 1News, where we deliver the latest news, in-depth journalism and expert analysis from reporters you can trust. Subscribe for reports from 1News, Seven Sharp, Breakfast, Q+A, Fair Go and Sunday.
A sad day indeed !
❤ & Prayers from Fiji for the indigenous peoples of AustralIa & NZ.
Need to respect people who were there before you.
not really
The people in nz before wanted a society not savagery thats why they signed sovereignty to the queen.
@@gouldmcclay The queen granted sovereignty to Māori, through te tiriti - not the other way around.... Kawanatanga is governance - to rule over the lawless pākehā. Rangatiratanga - sovereignty - is granted to 'Tangata katoa o nu Tirani', all the people of Aotearoa, in article the second.
The Indigenous Peoples of Australia have been on their lands for Tens of thousands of years, and that will continue for generations. Our Aroha and Solidarity goes out to them eternally, as Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa. ❤🙏🏽
do you realize how crazy you sound
Yeah I hear you,the indigenous Maori have been in NZ for wow 500 years longer than Pakeha.I prefer the term ,first arrivals rather than indigenous
As a kiwi living in Aus the way 1 news represented the no campaign here is so wrong.
The yes campaign was vague, people didn’t know what they were voting yes too.
Also 1 news didn’t speak to any of the aboriginal leaders that were against the yes campaign.
1News is always biased. When they interview Seymour, it really sounds more like an interrogation than an interview.
Where are the captions for this? This very content talks about the rights of marginalised communities yet you’re excluding people with disabilities and those who speak English as a second language by not having even automated CZcams captions turned on for this! Not cool!
I hope the treaty settlement industry finally comes to an end.
Custom,when grounded upon a certain & reasonable course supersedes the common law.
KIA KAHA OUR ABORIGINAL BOTHERS & SISTERS SENDING PRAYERS & LUV WE GOT EACH OTHER...INDIGENOUS POEPLE STAND UP FOR OUR PEOPLE TAKE THE GOVERNMENT TO COURT no more suffering.
AOTEAROA Maori are the caretakers
AUSTRALIA Aborigines are the caretakers
How can they cover up what has happened in the past dodgy dealings
1. Where was the referendum in 1986 when the NZ Govt repealed the NZ Constitution Act 1852.
2. Sec 2. ss 3. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 states: In the event of any conflict in meaning between the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Maori version, the Maori version shall prevail.
3. The seat of Govt sits in the Post Office which is where all Treaty's are established through 100 year leases.
Gary Judd KC was on the Platform and said under the law the only version of the Treaty that is valid is the Maori version as it was signed by all the parties. The English version wasn't signed.
.
22:13 basically says the Maori version of the treaty is not relevant, the only principle that should be debated is which version of the treaty should be our founding document. Without Maori or the land, the English version means nothing. Honour the Maori version of the treaty as this is the document signed by more than 500 chiefs compared to the English version which only has 32 signatures on it. The colonists argue it doesn’t matter how many chiefs signed the English version, if that is true - then they’re saying one chief may speak for all Maori people which is not the case and certainly wasn’t agreed at Waitangi in 1835…
Only the English Treaty matters we all speak English now.
@StGammon77 english treaty is a lie that's why it got scribbled on
@@StGammon77The Treaty is a lie. Which is why you have two.
Te Tiriti is the right history
Something sounding veeeery similar in the strategy being used here in NZ...
Yes spread this vid far and wide
We built the harbour bridge and we can't see the reason to give it away
@@waynekilgour393 sorry, who built the harbour bridge ?
@@Kult365 if it was built prior to treaty claims , it dosnt matter .
@@waynekilgour393 you can build a bigger harbour bridge, all the way back to Ingarangi ✌🏽
If it does happen in New Zealand, The government better be ready for one hell of a fight.
issue is the treaty is too old and has translation issues. Demographics are also different in NZ now and the Crown isn't what it once was.
The treaty is inherently racist as it places one ethnicity above all others.
We will be having our referendum, and will be willing to fight for it.
@@schlookie if the referendum passes and wins, do pakeha go back to there King in England? And all peoples return to there lands?
@@kareemhetaraka-brown1259 if the referendum passes, we all become one people under one law woth everyone having equal rights. And no one gets preferred over anyone else because of their race.
Te tiriti is not a document that should be altered based on public opinion.
Why not make public the actual treaty so everyone can see.!!
Umm did he just say you had the treaty all wrong??? This feels so hopeless
Can someone please tell me why the focus of everything is always on 'Te Tiriti õ Waitangi' (1840) and not 'He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni - the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand' (1836)?
He Whakaputanga clearly gives Māori absolute sovereignty and preceeds Te Tiriti but people either ignore its existence, have no idea it does exist, or just hyper focus on Te Tiriti.
Can someone please respond to this question in an intelligent manner? I am genuinely bamboozled at the lack of chatter on or around He Whakaputanga in Māoridom. It has been, and still is, complete and utter radio silence on the first legally founding document of New Zealand aka Nu Tireni.
Thank you.
Because the treaty built on the earlier declaration. In that declaration, a nominal sovereignty was recognized to a federation of northern chiefs in 1835. Unfortunately, these chiefs were soon at war among themeselves, and they found themselves unable to govern. the solution: have them cede this nominal sovereignty [diplomatically recognized by the British] to the British Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi. This they understood pretty well.
@@davethewave7248
Both documents are intrinsically colonial.
Both of them suck up to the English.
The aim is to end colonisation, not to perfect it..
Aotearoa must be a Te Reo speaking Māori governed Māori owned Māori majority polity - Aotearoa mo Māori anake.
i nga awa ki nga moana
ka watea a Aotearoa
@@jameskjx At least you come out and say it straight. Yes, the treaty is a project in colonisation [back when colonisation was equated with civilization]. And yes, there is a radical Maori political project at work today.
@@davethewave7248 Prove it, don't infer, reference direct evidence that Māori knew they were giving up what made them who they are, and happily did so.
You keep saying that statement without any proof all over the comment section.
@@MountainMaid238 Tamati Waaka Nene turned the tide when the treaty was being discussed with chiefs at the Waitangi meeting. You can read the responses of many chiefs that were recorded at the time, and then published later in 'The Treaty of Waitangi' by T.L. Buick [1936]. He asked the governor to stay and be their friend, and significantly, their father.
Nene: 'What did we do before the Pakeha came? We fought, we fought continually. But now we can plant our grounds. and the Pakeha will bring plenty of trade to our shores. Then let us all be friends together. I am walking beside the Pakeha. I'll sign the pukapuka"
Changing a principle of Titiri o Waitangi needs to be agreed upon by Maori, an it won't be. Thinking that Maori can invent a Tiriti o waitangi that was voted on is why Seymour claims, then wants to crop in 5 words he wants to replace that principle. Playing out on media as well. How blatant is that?.
There were no principles but now they have been secretly pushed onto us all every NZ should have a say and I think David's 3 principles are clear and precise as opposed to dodgy Tribunal corruption
Taxpayers Union - tobacco industry connected?
Well it is run by Chris bishops dad
Taxpayers union paid for all the stop 3 waters signage... That explains why there is a sign that must have cost hundreds of dollars to make, if not over a grand, hanging on the fence of a building that is, quite literally, falling apart... I thought it was unusual that they could afford a political statement which costs that much to produce, but they can't afford a sheet of plastic to cover a window and stop the elements from destroying the very 'bones' of their building...
All good when the CTU do it though eh buddy?
@@yukisnow665 I literally never said that, but keep creating straw men to justify the shitty actions of 'your side'...
Don't read so deep into it, you have no idea what my political stances are until I tell you.
@@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies Clown
The indigenous people of aotearoa deserve their rights to governance over their rohe ❤past and present, Maunga ki te Moana
Aotearoa and it's fanciful ideologies are fiction and the gig is up
@@PeacefulMeteorShower-th8fkonly in your deluded mind
@@PeacefulMeteorShower-th8fk yes Maori are.what doesn't matter is what you think
@@PeacefulMeteorShower-th8fk look up what indigenous means
@@PeacefulMeteorShower-th8fk indigenous means before colonization
Govt as recent as 1960 has been stealing coastal Maoriland for european,english,whatever you call yourselves, and Mr Peters knows this because this raruraru started his political career.Shame on you cousin 😮
Unfortunately fixing the economy isn't government strategy in NZ.
💯 The economy is working exactly as intended, sucking all wealth from the bottom to the parasites at the top.
@@middleearthemarxist2433 yes, they keep giving us the false dichotomy of elections while making sure that money keeps flowing up to the mega-wealthy, whoever gets into government.
This is the best item I have seen about the treaty review. I listen to david seymour and luxon and the guy on the platform and wonder what they really are saying about maori and about the treaty. I get the feeling that they are being dishonest, hiding what theybreally want out of the review. This you tube series of interviews makes total sense of the whole business. Excellent work from Mahinarangi Forbes and her team.
You are creating a straw man by projecting your fears onto others.
Goldfinger Forbes?
In this day and age, how hard is it to turn on subtitles on important content like this documentary?
Who counts the votes? Are we sure it was a legit vote and count? Highly unlikely. I don’t believe most New Zealanders would vote no and I doubt most of Australians would vote no either
I guess there was no point in presenting the perspective of an indigenous australian who voted "no", right?
You could, but statistically they overwhelmingly voted yes.
@@loud9903 whoosh
Good on ya mate. Prob avoided a world of trouble. lol
The status of the ToW is NOT the issue. The issue is the open-ended, unquantified and ill-defined PRINCIPLES of the ToW which have been foisted on the public without any consultation whatsoever.
Do you believe I have the right to your property?
No but what has that got to do with the imaginary 'principles of the treaty' dreamed up by the Waitangi Tribunal? @@Ruakituri
OMG, everything, @@food4thort
I think it's important to go back further to the past generations of how humanity environment first established. And to find out where any forms of documents are found its possible requirements available. There is a story in the Bible in the Old Testament Writings about the Tower of Babel which may give us a closer look at the spread of humanity and become nationality of our Creator.
There should certainly be an Indigenous voice advising parliament. I think it was the clause about veto that killed it. It stated that originally there would be no power of the advisors to veto, but that in future this could change. For many Aussies, that would have swung their vote from Yes to No
I watch Australian news, the Australian government spent $400 million on the YES campaign, they had advertising everywhere, on planes, sports fields, shop fronts everywhere, they had celebrities backing it. the NO campaign had less than half of what the government threw at it. Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price are trying to do so much for the indigenous people, (but where is the government now) and they know there's so much to do, since the end of the referendum the government has been missing in action, Warren and Jacinta believe in helping people in need not by RACE. They believe in a united country not divided by Race.
So what are they doing to reduce the division that exists? Ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exit?
Yeah, that sounds like a bad way to achieve a united country not divided by race :/
100% correct.
Got an independent verifiable source for your numbers?
Some people don’t understand the terms equality and equity.
sorry what are the principles of the Treaty ? i cant find them anywhere
Does the Treaty Expert know?
Precisely, the lack of any definition makes "principles" entirely subjective, i.e. what you do or don't want them to mean, which is exactly what has been applied in the perversion of NZ's Treaty over the past 5 decades.
The recent interview of Jack Tame with David Seymour, details the current principles, before the interview starts. The video is available on CZcams.
@@mfrances7203 sounds like Waitangi tribual which is 80% Māori and the courts of 1970s and 80s decided for everyone else what the Treaty means. I see no reason why we can’t 45 years later have another look at it
My mistake, I thought you were looking for information.
When we go to India or China, we are still treated as foreigners, 3rd grade people! Why should we go overcrowded countries. This is Aotearoa, our country!
I think the Australians could see how divisive the Treaty is in New Zealand and made the right decision to vote No
Fun fact- Mundine and Price will go down in history as a pair of subordinate Serfs 😊.
There is an end date on the Treaty. 6 February 1840. As Hobson himself declared, the Treaty in te reo as signed by the close of that date constituted THE treaty, and all subsequent signatures were merely declarations of adherence to that document. It is expressly an exchange of subjection to the Queens Govermnent in return for protection of existing rights in land and administration- with the option of sale to the Crown. The third clause established equality of all subjects.
These are the original principles of the Treaty, arrived at in 1840 long before any think tanks, and long before the Waitangi Tribunal and its novel ideas of partnership and cogovernance.
1800s - 2023
Nz europeans: The white way is the right way.
Maori: No
The Waitangi Tribunal doomed itself when coming out last year and 'ruling' that Hobson had breached the treaty by declaring sovereignty over NZ. Such an absurdity was never going to fly. The reaction has set in.
@@davethewave7248He did. Obviously. Māori never, ever ceded sovereignty and never will. How is this most basic part of NZ history not common knowledge for some?
@@MountainMaid238 How is it that you do not know that the great Te Heu Heu scolded other chiefs for signing the treaty, saying that he himself would never give up his mana [absolute power. 'sovereignty'], and his right to rule as a chief to a mere woman [Queen Victoria]. Neither did Te Waharoa or the great Te Whero Whero sign.... leading to the later Kingite movement/ Maori nationalsim and the NZ wars in the 1860s. History is something you need to read for yourslef, rather than having some radical give you their politicized version.
@@davethewave7248 What are you talking about? Which Te Heu Heu are you referencing? Iwikau Te Heu Heu Tūkino of Tūwharetoa signed with Te Korohiko present because he bought into Williams explanations. I can't comment on Te Whero Whero, he's Waikato so I leave those matters to those who it belongs to - and I'll listen to his descendants before relying on the opinion of someone's quick google search.
You might need to check your sources. Or crack a book. Or chat to a descendant.
Two things being confused here. A referendum [or discussion/ bill] on the Waitangi Tribunal's reading of the Treaty and the Treaty itself. No-one in NZ is against the Treaty itself..
Moana Tuwhare says as much "if the voting public had a good understanding of the *principles* of the Treaty of Waitangi...". And of course, she thinks they do not. Notice her language is directed at the *principles*, that have been interpreted by the Waitangi tribunal. For many people, these principles are the radicalization of the Treaty, and so to say most do not 'understand' these principles is to beg the question against them... in a patronizing manner.
This is to say the experts know best. But the experts in this case are deemed to be radicals by those that do not share their political [Maori] nationalist opinions.
I kind of agree though. A referendum on the Treaty [whatever that meant] would be misguided. The experts we should trust are the disinterested historians, who can tell us what the Treaty meant to the Europeans and chiefs that signed at that time.... as opposed to what some interested party wants it to mean to us today.
As a centrist, I can appreciate the 'just cause' that can be made out for both sides here - the radical left and the reactionary right. It's a bit of a shame that this report did not give an intelligent voice to someone on the other side of the ledger... in the interests of objective journalism.
Many are against the treaty that I have seen on the Hobson pledge website unfortunately but I know they don't speak for all pakeha.
@@anarunikora2996 Yes, though I doubt they are 'against the treaty' if they are for Hobson, who put the treaty together. Perhaps they are against the Waitangi Tribunal, and its interpretation of the treaty. I mean, they came out with the nonsense last year that Hobson breached the treaty in declaring sovereignty over NZ. Good example of over-reach here, and why many are now wanting to have a good hard look at these bureaucrats, lawyers, and radical intellects that comprice the Waitangi tribunal.
@@davethewave7248 They bastardise the name for Thier own gain. Hobo's Pledge is 100% racist political funders.
@@davethewave7248 Te Tiriti clearly states that Māori gave the Queen permission to govern this country, and that Māori retain their sovereignty of all their possessions including land. When Hobson declared instead that the chiefs gave up their sovereignty (a warrior race just giving up? No, no-one would believe that), that's where he fd up. Badly. Even school children know this much.
@@davethewave7248 Māori by and large don’t support Hobson’s draft (the English document), they support Te Tiriti o Waitangi which is three things: the document most Māori signed, the document which retains Māori sovereignty and the document which is recognised by international law (contra proferentem). You will find that the principles of the Waitangi Tribunal (& how they are being interpreted) are actually a watered down version of what was guaranteed to Māori in Te Tiriti, rather than going “too far.”
❤ this Mahinarangi 🎉
Well said "what happens if we put the voice of the indigenous into the hands of the Majority" that is unfair in itself
If we put the rights of individuals in the hands of a racial, cultural or social group…….. we will have fairness for individual citizens!
@@JohanThiartwrong, taking away the rights of one group of people doesn't make things equal. Non maori lose nothing from the referendum. Maori people lose their rights to their land and possessions as well as their rights to practice and maintain their culture. What actually do non maori lose by Maori having rights?
@@autumnedwards45 Non Maori lose their minds. That's about it.
@@autumnedwards45 equality under the law.
So equal that a pakeha kid and a maori kid caught for the same misdemeanor get WAY different treatment. One gets a telling off , the other ends up in gaol.@@JohanThiart
"The two most sacred Christian doctrines are,
-Thou shalt not kill.
- Thou shalt not steal."
By the way, many thanks for the supremely informative multi-page comment by 'Lonely Alaskan' at, "Complete History Of Indigenous America Before Colonialism" on CZcams.
"The two most sacred Christian doctrines are,
-Thou shalt not kill.
- Thou shalt not steal."
So right you are👍🏽❤
No, its love the lord with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself
Slavery, Colonialism and Colonization are all evil things done by evildoers... Just saying.
Thanks for the informative, insightful multi-page comment by 'Lonely Alaskan' at, "Complete History Of Indigenous America Before Colonialism":
@@Sobabe-el5ke Just to let you know that the very insightful multi-page comment by 'Lonely Alaskan' at, "Complete History Of Indigenous America Before Colonialism" on CZcams, got pushed down below 150 other comments.
4:08- her reaction is priceless! Her looks like fine wine sry i digress ...her looks and the kapai say it all😆
Wake up you dreaming ejit🤦♂️
One problem is non Maori don't know what Maori want & will be satisfied with (Don't just tell me "what is theirs under the treaty" - it's far too vague a statement & doesn't help) it needs to be detailed. Non Maori need to know if they have a real reason or not to be scared of what they have worked for being taken away.
why after all the retribution/settlements that have been made (tax payer $) it's still not enough
Maori also need to acknowledge that without non Maori NZ would likely be just another 3rd world pacific country
Acknowledge the contribution non Maori have, and continue to make to this country every day.
If we could get appreciation of each other from both sides then maybe we can move forward together
Worth remembering if youth had voted it would have been yes.
Thank God we dont let children vote on such deeply important matters EH ?????
@@steviejustamann9689 thank god they get older but keep their voting preferences.
NO MATE ! They grow up and learn better ! Its all about,,, WHAT DO WE DO NOW ! there is never going back,, there is just the future. Thank God we got rid of the death cult greens and globalist race baiting labour ! Love to you and your's !
@@OldOneTooth Right , young people have a preference.
Are you to old to remember what was important to you in your youth.
@@waynekilgour393Young people today know more about the world they're inheriting than we did, because they're literally getting whatever we haven't squandered - which isn't much now. So don't compare, these kids haven't had the choice to keep their childhood dreams as long as we did
There were plenty of yes people in Australia who harrassed no people please broadcast unobjectively plus 8 or 9 of the top 10 aboriginal dominant areas voted no anyway.
Voting no just saved Australia a shot load of hassle.
A Ragitira , decided to whangai yself , as she saw much which others díd not - like being more Tangata Whenua , than any of her hapu . When she passed , nothing had been said , though a search was done and only a recent condolences book noted .
An entry was made , mentioning things only that Hapu would know of . They still woner how i found out and the contact with the Earth, is Still there , stronger thn ever .
Currently my wai , is off a major fault line , and pure , Natures inhabitants know this and have little fear , though not so narcassists , whove been removed from the marae & whenua , thru their actions .
Keep the WAI , Clean , and pure , without the poisons that we're 'asked' to drink . If youre on tank water , good for you , if you have access to a clean running Puna , again drinking , cook if you must , or steam the Kai , to help keep it and your whanau clean , and healthy .
eh??
Work at an organisation which states that it will adhere to the principles of the Te Tiriti õ Waitangi but there is no clear statement saying what this means and how it's implemented within the organisation. What's ended up happening is bunch of token looking stuff and some affirmative action, is that what it is? Lots of confusion and grey areas were people tip toe around being frighten being called racist when stuff makes no sense. I've got a Maori father and a Pakeha mother. Asked parts of the family and all are confused or pissed off that they are itemised by their race when they don't really want to be.
If we want to talk of an indigenous elite then let's look at Winnie Peters. He's indigenous, he's elite. He talks of getting his policy from 'normal Māori, not some sociology department at university' hinting at their elite status too - then we must acknowledge that he is not a normal Māori either..
If they want to argue about Māori elite, then we can use that same argument against them - show them how weak the argument is until they stop making it.
This is literally the worst take possible
He is right, because Winston despises Maori tribes, where the Maori world lives. It is no different than what Tony Blair did to the UK, and that has at most 5 years before it is destroyed beyond repair.@@humanwithaplaylist
500 years extra occupation is barely indigenous. I prefer the term first arrivals.Not to say that what pakeha elite did to Maori wasn't un ethical and immoral.
@@lockk132 Mate, that's EXACTLY what indigenous means... Half a millenia is a LOOONG time, longer than MANY nations existed.
Māori are indigenous.
@@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies think will disagree on that definition
If the Treaty is a constitutional document between maori and the Crown , it is long past time non maori New Zealanders had a written constitution to protect us from decisions made by maori and the Crown
Why is Tainui Holdings a member of the NZ Institute?
And why do all maori entities pay no tax ??? oh cos they got the brown tick
As a person of European decent I don't fear the treaty find it divise, quite the contrary, I view it as my birthright to have been born here and to call myself a proud Pakeha citzen!
If we vote against the treaty, *ahem* sorry, "tHe PrInCiPlEs Of ThE tReAtY" as Seymour's wheasel words put it, then I better pack my bags and figure out where I need to move back to
🖤🤍❤️
No one is "voting against the treaty" what is being proposed is an end to the use of the treaty by radical ideologues that use and abuse it to promote ideology instead of nation building.
If anything the process will make the treaty an even stronger constitutional document.
The woke ideologues will then lose their ability to abuse it and we can all move on together in peace.
Kāo e hoa, manaaki still reigns. Just like our Tūpuna were attempting to do in the first place - you and yours are welcome. Always xox
This is just to devide a nation that's what it was only about . Thomas Mao is not identical indigenous.
The Treaty is fundamental to NZ as a nation. Seymour himself has acknowledged this.
As a 5th generation pakeha (8 NZ generations in our whanau ) originating from one of the early sailing ships, nobody can rip me from my connection to this land.
Maori need fundamental respect as having arrived here a few hundred years earlier and as signatories of the treaty. This must be complementary to pakeha relationships to NZ if there is to be sustainable healthy expression of the treaty.
Some clarification on how bureaucrats interact with maori and pakeha respectfully would be helpful so that neither interests are sidelined or subsumed as sometimes is now the case. This is a current issue with Conservation land where far too many government officials limply tread around issues for fear of upsetting "tangata whenua" and ignore the ordinary kiwi constituency that fought to create the department and who have an equally deep relationship with this living taonga; our forests, rivers, mountains and native biodiversity. Government departments need to learn to stand up tall for their mandate, whatever it is (education, health, police, conservation etc) while behaving respectfully with both maori and pakeha "tangata whenua". If they do this they will actually grow a spine and command respect and then be able to stand tall as partners in a healthy cooperative relationship. The winner will be our lands and biodiversity which wil benefit future generations of maori and pakeha alike. What matters to future generations is whether or not this generation succeeded in protecting the national treasures, not whether or not bureaucrats had lots of cosy meetings.
People come to our country for a better life. Then try to change our indigenous rights to our country too suit their needs and wants labeled under "equal rights". Cant go to China Dubai India etc and demand such changes so why people think its ok here in NZ?
Ĥow awesome Mahinarangi
Did the indigenous Australian's have a treaty agreement.
At least National government has left the comments open! Goes to show they can handle the disputes. The last government you couldn’t comment also they sent there news to CZcams and comments were turned off. Well done National.
?
National didn't make this...
The opening of this story is a lie. Australians didn't vote not to recognise aboriginals in the constitution, if that's all the referendum were about or the questions were separated Australians would have voted for recognition.
What Australians didn't vote for was ASTIC 2.0 but this time embedded in the constitution instead of just in legislation. Australians voted no to a question that hadn't even been properly defined and the PM who has resided over Australian living standards dropping by 10% during his term refusing to answer questions about the proposal.
Edit: It is utterly false and frankly racist, to talk about any ethnic group as if they are a monolith. As if they all think the same, want the same things, have the same political goals/ideologies and feel the same about outcomes. There were just as many indigenous Australians opposed to the voice as there were for it, and the overwhelming majority of those it claimed to be aimed at helping hadn't even been told about it. Across Arnhem Land, Northern Queensland and the Torres Strait aboriginal communities weren't being told about the voice even though that's who the Canberra mob claimed it was to help. When they were told about it by journalists seeking opinion, they didn't want it. The voice was the canberra mob trying to cement their power over all indigenous australians again. It wouldn't have helped anyone. Real inclusion is the only thing that will help and that means making the NT a state, including tewee country and all of Torres Strait in voting and redefining electoral boundaries in QLD, SA and WA to give aboriginal communities a real say over candidates instead of being swamped out by larger population centres. That drives more indigenous candidates into parliament where they can have a real voice and secure real outcomes. The way forward is through unity, not division. NZ could stand to learn that too.
Unity by whose definition and according to who?
@@MountainMaid238 Unity by the dictionaries definition, you know what the word actually means because that's how words work.
@@tjmarx Yeah, ok, but do you ever use critical thinking to think for yourself? Like, who decided this definition belongs in the dictionary I'm reading? Does that persons intention, understanding and potential agenda align with mine?
Unity has multiple meanings depending on who is defining it. Indigenous, catholic, science etc. Your dictionary for unity is not the only knowledge base to draw from. And all words are made up anyway, so don't take yourself so seriously.
@@MountainMaid238The English have butchered other people’s dialects to suit their narrative,including Te Reo Maori!🤦♀️
@@gumdigger7595 Um, ok. So what does that have to do with how Māori understand the narrative? Do you think Māori can't think for themselves? Can't have their own truth, their own histories? They had a voice in the past, they have their own voice now. And Pākeha can interpret whatever they want.
So many untruths. The voice to parliament/ message from the heart was a 47 page manifesto the was all about taking control of the country, just as the toxic He Puapua document here in NZ.
It was literally an advisory committee with no legislative power. Racist people just get scared easily.
Is the new zealand government advisd by the crown?
I, in no way, understand how this can be considered fair and objective news coverage both of the Australian vote on the voice to parliament and the Act party's call for a referendum regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. Instead of providing a fair and free platform for the ideas of both sides of each of these arguments to be equally and accurately represented, this whole report assumes the righteousness of the yes vote and what this report calls "Maori" and the implicit danger and nefariousness of any opposition to this reports ideas of "indigenous rights". I should also note the humour I find in the parallel assertion that any opposition to these "indigenous rights" claims the existence of "indigenous elites" and that this is conspiratorial, whilst simultaneously claiming, quite conspiratorially, that the source of any opposition for these ideas originates from global elites from the oil industry.
It's not supposed to be "news coverage", it's an investigative report on how vested interests funded and ran the No vote in Australia with various opinions on what that might mean for here. There's nothing conspiratorial about it, unless you consider proven facts conspiratorial.
Keep your culture brothers hold tight
thy have their culture ....nobody is stoping thm from having there culture
It's a culture pakeha don't understand you take an forget to fix the land we live on
@@ReginaldHarris-gm8fi - not all pakeha are rapacious capitalists. Most people just want a quiet life. Unfortunately we live in an age dominated by the 1%.
We live in hard times an age off struggle an poverty as well issues that are important to maori an te reo holds that a place to maori keep your culture
More like tricky Treaty than trick or Treaty
I kind of knew what was happening behind the veil.
Thank you, for reinforcing my thoughts.
Mauriora 🙌
Noting 1News is a state broadcaster, it surprises me that such a contentious issue is covered in such depth without showing both sides of the issue.
The Australian Referendum was covered over the first 10 minutes of the video, and not once was anyone from the 'No' side of the debate interviewed, yet minutes of soft questions were given to the 'Yes' debate.
On the NZ issue, it isn't until almost 14 minutes in that an old interview with David Seymour is played. Yet, again, minutes are spent showing interviews with people on the opposing side to David Seymour.
Does 1News think this is fair and balanced journalism?
David Seymour is Layman at best on the fact and didn't have much of a voice at all until he started with this. He factually wrong. The treaty violations were government led and now he talks about equal rights in the treaty what a joke. He plays on the fears of certain people and it works. But it's not right.
RE the ending comment. . Though the treaty is an important historical document with both moral and political weight, it is not our constitution. As for sovereignty, that lies with Parliament. Whatever is passed in Parliament flies.
It's our founding document so yes, that's a constitution. Read the preamble and try again ☺️
@@Kult365 Because New Zealand's constitution is not all set out in one document, and much of it is found in practices and the common law, it's known as an 'unwritten constitution'. As for the ToW, it is a pact between two peoples, where Maori chiefs cede a nominal sovereignty to the British~~
No, the treaty is only one part of the total constitution. There are other things in there such as the statutes found in the magna carta of 1297 and the bill of rights 1688. So you are completely wrong.@@Kult365
@@davethewave7248 Got a peer-reviewed citation for the claim that Māori chiefs ceded sovereignty? Because under international common law, Te Tiriti holds more weight than "The Treaty of Waitangi" which mistranslated Te Tiriti, and was signed by less than 10% of Maori chiefs of the era, instead of the 500 that signed Te Tiriti (accounting for 90% of Rangatira of the era). The Contra Proferentem rule of law (which states that in the event of ambiguity, authority should be construed against the party which drafted the proposal) also supports this. This principle is also consistent with the Indulgent Rule of the United States Supreme Court, which states that treaties with native Americans should be construed in a way which would be readily understood by the indigenous people.
@@BingeThinker1814 Yes, Te Tirti, the Maori version, should be considered THE treaty. This was orally delivered to most of the chiefs by the missionaries/ officials. Read the first-hand records, letters, and diarys, and you know that the chiefs at the time understood Te Tiriti to be granting the governor the power to rule. As for 'rangatiratanga' in the second article, this is chieftainship, which the British had no intention whatsoever to take away from the chiefs - chiefs still had the right to rule over their own tribe, and a right to possess their own lands... with also a right to sell surplus land. It was only in the 1970s that some started to equate that with 'sovereignty', but this is in actual fact to project modern politics back onto the treaty by re-interpreting it... which would be dishonouring it.
I read a translation of the Māori version of the treaty and it clearly say one govt will govern all of the land of NZ.
Oh really 😂
American influences I bet.
Black Rock corporation
Funded by NZ on Air of course!
Watch the Mana interview with Seymour. This host happily jokes she might vote ACT! Disingenuous and alarmist.
I tried my god damn hardest to tune the yes campaign into this shit and people tried to call me conspiratorial, we need to organise and work with the same strategic and tactical rigour.
What people are primarily concerned about with the principles of the ToW as interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal are the political ramifications revolving around the *sovereignty* issue. It's really as simple as that, and why I also tend to side with the reactionaries here [even though I am a centrist].
Yes, there will no doubt be a lot of misinformation coming. But this is largely in reaction to the misinformation that was first perpetrated by the Waitangi Tribunal in its radical re-reading of the treaty.
Sources: Trust me bro
@@BingeThinker1814 Sources - a hell of a lot of reading historical books, which many are too lazy to do today. They'd rather outsource their intelligence to some academic with radical political opinions.
We need a citizens assembly, not a referendum. Get a random representative sample of NZers in a room with experts, historians, lawyers, etc and get them to hash it out - worked great with abortion in Ireland
Like an election?
@@AghoraNath nah, cos you need to actually get people in a room talking face to face, that's the only way you can build consensus. Having the experts there too to give their insight and help lead discussions is a crucial difference
Citizens assemblies are always better than referendums. Referendums routinely give terrible results because you're asking people to resolve a complex issue which most of us literally know nothing about in most cases. That's why criminal cases have juries and not a public vote.
I'm thinking a debate in Parliament/ committee may be quite close to this. Better to have that than a straight out referendum on the treaty... or the principles of the treaty as interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal. It has all got very messy.
@@AnthonyFlack Yes, having a bill read in Parliament woth acommittee to discuss it looks the better way to go than a straight out referendum.
The Maori are different they fight back.take no shit.
The only way is revolution
We need to be able to have an adult conversation about the fact the Aboriginal people are indigenous to Australia however Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand and are generally thought to have arrived around 700 years ago. This is a relatively short amount of time compared to the tens of thousands of years Aboriginal people have been in Australia.
Maori are indigenous to this whenua, full stop. They didn't steal it from anyone or colonise any prior inhabitants.
@@kezza2451 But that's only a fairly recent take on what indigenous means. Saying full stop is typical of the lack of nuance in social conversations which drives polarization. What are the implications of this view of indigenous? Does it mean that in say 400-500 hundred years by which time other ethnic groups who were not involved in colonisation such as Chinese, Croatians etc have been in the country for 700 years that their customs and practices should be considered indigenous to New Zealand? New Zealand is a young country and we should be having conversations based on science and facts while learning from the mistakes of other places around the world.
What are you trying to say? The government should be forgiven maori should assimilate? For get our heritage and pretend we are a british? . I'Ill tell you now as long as I know my whakapapa and that my people died for our culture to be protected. I will tell you again i am not a pakeha. My ancestors will be proud of me❤
They are indigenous to islands like Tahiti where they lived for far longer than in NZ. Any other "definition" of indigenous is just lying to peoples faces@@kezza2451
The living culture of this place is indigenous to here. It's part Maori, it's part British, but it's not like the British British, it's part other things too, it's unique to this country and its unique aspects should be celebrated. Everyone has been wherever they are for a short time compared to Aboriginal Australians, but 700 years is still further back than I can remember.
I particularly rate the prophet with the beard and cap. At least it’s an improvement on Fire and Fury, it’s just hyperbole and mis characterisation, spiced up by ominous music.
❤❤❤❤ ...SAY NO TO RACE BASED POLICIES --- 1 law for all
This country was and always called New Zealand. Why are the Maori award of the real truth.
As an Australian I believed it was the best and fairest Country to live. After this referendum I can no longer say that-shamefull.
Australia Fair?
The referendum confirmed that concept. Individual rights are not subject to the rights of any group. That sounds Fair!
Idiotic. The referendum is the will of the people.
@@j6077xxd Not all people, just the current majority. A majority built off the thieving of a British Crown.
@@j6077xxd Sometimes "the will of the people" becomes majoritarianism, what do you think would have happened if LBJ decided to put segregation to a vote in 60s America instead of passing the Civil Right Act?
@@j6077xxd - and conveniently, after seventy years of the "White Australia" immigration policy, "the people" are over 90% white and massively outnumber "the people" who had been living there for the previous 40,000 years.
Very one sided report. How come we didn't get both sides of the argument 🤔
There's no argument. There's just understanding history and international law (eg. that Maori reps signed Te Tiriti (the Maori language text of the treaty), and in international law it would be that version of the text that would be legally binding anyway, even if they didn't sign it (which they did)!
- Or are you talking about some other "argument", perhaps?
What are you even talking about?
Please feel free to be specific whenever you're able to be a little more clear in your thoughts.
Not everything has to have a ‘both sides’ approach, it’s not a news report. Would we for example see an investigative report into the Holocaust and insist that Nazis were interviewed to give their perspective? No.
@@EcoKiwiMagazinePonekemost people who have fallen for this race-baiting by ACT, the Taxpayer’s Union etc have no interest or understanding of history or international law. They want to feel like the dominant majority is somehow the victim. Sad times for this country going backwards.
Education and jobs would be a great start 😂😂😂
MAORI ARE DIVISEVE they have a tribal culture based on violence .................we moved forward
You cannot turn the clock back. There is no difference to this situation in Australia and New zealnd,that what happened in Europe centuries ago.. it is why we give way to big trucks and trains. The biggest will always dominate the smaller. The United Nations have created expectations when they are putting their noses into something which they shouldn't.
Who needs civil rights or a rules-based order when we can just let everybody get rolled by those more powerful and let nature take its course, you mean? Prefer not.
😂
The idea that it was the money or airtime and not the argument itself that won in australia is a load of bollocks - there were debates, the yes side could not define what the law changes were and were not going to be able to do making it entirely reasonable to vote no. It was a poorly thought out law, there is only the left policy makers to blame for that. This is an incredibly bias segment on these issues.
Where is Price and Mundine now....sell outs
Ko Jacinta Nampijinpa Price tona ingoa! Kia tika te whakahua i tona ingoa! Pronounce her name properly. I am sure you don't like being called Joanna. Both side were financed and supported/endorsed from big fossil fuel companies and many more including very powerful Indigenous land councils. Was very hard to trace where the money was coming for, but it was coming in fast from everywhere and from both sides. The narrative and funding was though hugely bias in funding the 'Yes' side of the debate. 380 million? something like that? And yes conservative think tanks exist, and have a right to as well. People were so quick to call each other racists. Everyone was a racist, just ask anyone! Both sides. Was a terrible thing for a nation to go through. Disgusting. Men voted different from women. 70/30% Inner city suburbs voted different to everywhere else 20/80%. If New Zealand goes down the road to a referendum it would bring similar discussions and similar rifts and old wounds. The 'largely uniformed public' as referred to here by the experts, would indeed have a pronounced voice. New Zealand needs to respect ALL it's tāngata and try and be above this sort of thing.
And be kind to each other FFS and stop sowing division.
Seymour is correct, there is nowhere in the world where a minoriry succeed in gaining long term influence & control. The majority always prevail...and if you belive in democrativ values it should.
You've never heard of tyranny of the majority, then?
- The most pure form of democracy we could create these days would be citizens assemblies.
What we have now is corporate sponsored dog and pony show representative electoral nonsense.
Even in Australia, where they have STV which on paper ought to function even better than MMP, they're still trapped by two parties quite clearly bought out by the extractive industries.
Bottom line is that our governments are NOT representing the majority of actual human citizens, but, rather, are representing the wealthiest *corporate* "citizens" who pay for all their electioneering and policy writing and promotion.
The majority always has more influence and control, especially in a racist society.
No where else in the world has Te Tiriti
That's why seymour and his 8 percent voters won't get anywhere. They are the minority
As a Pakeha I will proudly stand with Māori. The principles of Te Treaty aren’t the problem it’s the principles of David Seymour that are the problem.
Seymour doesn't have an principles. Or scruples.
What are the pricples of the treaty, please enlightening us all ....
@@glenpiggott5815 Yes . Please . At the moment it's a never ending graveytrain .
Don't use racist and derogatory words such as Pakeha please.
Wish I could just call anyone who disagrees with me Racist and Ignorant. Saves the pesky job of reasoning and negotiating.
Great bit of propaganda....Can't wait to see your next doco " The Myths of Maori History according to Maori Myths ". I'm stocking up on popcorn.
Why did they reject the Voice? Most probably because they took one look across the ditch at the Waitangi tribunal... and decided not here. lol
What isn't well known is that a constitutional voice to parliament would have also caused the Federal Courts to defer to the Voice Committee any legislation out of an abundance of caution. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an Aboriginal woman and senator, called out that the cause of the gap within Aboriginal communities was about traditional customs, such as child marriages and the lack of Aboriginal women's rights,. Also rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and a general lack of interest in child education within Aboriginal communities.
💔💔💔💔
No is No move on grifters
Excellent commentary 👍, Treaty referendum designed to Divide & Conquer 🇳🇿
elite maori dividing and conquering since treaty pay outs
Great video
UTU. FOR U AND GOVERNMENT
Exclusivity btw Maori and treaty partner
Equal citizenship before the Law….. What an archaic idea. Yea,right.
Before *who's* law though? Maaori never ceded sovereignty so your argument is foreign in almost every sense of the word.
@@Kult365 the chiefs that signed the treaty argued differently. They debated amongst themselves long into the night before they signed the treaty on the sixth of February.
The chiefs who refused to sign the treaty did so in defiance of the Crown. They did not sign the Treaty because they wanted to retain their sovereignty.
@@Kult365 New Zealand Law as signed up for in the Treaty.
@JohanThiart also I believe they all went to kohimarama In 1860 to further discuss what they had signed
@@iankinnell5643 the Kohimarama Covenant has authority in my view and I have also read what Sir Apirana argued, so I am not at all intimidated by the opinion of others.
One news is a political party. Winston is right
Indigenous New Zealand Maoris were civilized enough to make a Treaty, as opposed to Australian natives not even wearing clothes.
Australian natives are now civilized to the degree that they desire to conform with it. Whereas NZ natives floated into their lands and being a much smaller place stayed more like a large local community, I think. Aussie natives spread out into tribes that treated each other like foreigners, and do not even know if they were from one migration. They had no common law or loyalty. So now they are joined into a system that gives them many benefits, but they no longer can be just a tribe that rules itself. In 2024, to enjoy civilized practices and food and health standards, schooling, actual housing, jobs and pay, and entitlement to enter into government if you are skillful enough, and voting and rights, you have to join into a civilization.
NZ natives/Maoris were and are much more advanced in the same amount of time than Aussie natives, who really needed help to join the future.
Polenesians from all around the Pacific seem to have come from much more advanced ancestry than Aussie migrations from Asia.
Let me guess u wana get paid 4 it to
how is this good journalism ? it is totally one sided .....were are the interviews with the individuals frm the no campaign ? were are the interviews with individuals who oppose the treaty principles ?
It’s not. It’s one sided bullshit yet to still try and divide a nation.
They were not asked.
The tribes have already mobilised, and anything goes now, including Civil War.
@@shauntempley9757 Dont talk kaka e hoa
You know they weren't.
Since when does a single individual Maori overrule the tribes?@@tane1mahuta1
If they steal your rights, and your children's, which they are strongly trying to, and you do nothing, how does that honour your whakapapa?
Your ancestors expected you to stand and fight to preserve them.@@tane1mahuta1