Politics

[BlackPeter]

Three weeks to count the special votes? What a joke! No fully functioning government for all that time! It really needs sorting out.

True - but as many other issues with our society (like Health care, education and environment) - they all deteriorated under governments of both couleurs - National working hand in hand with Labour in making things worse.

Won't be different with our election system.

[Shareguy]

Yes it seems to long in this day and age.

According to news reports there are approx 567,000 specials which includes approx 80,000 overseas votes.

Also they go back and check all the original votes are correct, which I suspect takes the time.

[Hectorplains]

Picture taken earlier today at the office where Special Votes are being counted.

[Waltzing]

SV's a great way to cover up the melt down on voting night...

sorry cant find you on the smart phone app...

but we paid ourself a bonus for a job well done...

[Waltzing]

This is the politics of  derailing the wealthy...

if your rich dont bother going to university just get a private tutor.. and continue to party... dont get off the yatch....

dont bother just stay rich its not worth the trouble joining in...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/conservative-interns-privilege-test-patchwork-foundation/

[Waltzing]

Big offensive by the IDF opening up..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWl2BivEwnM

[Waltzing]

Do we have a New law of the land and it may not be RULE of Law...

https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/tt_stephen_franks

[Waltzing]

Government Bloat ...

https://www.buzzsprout.com/944017/13877168-dr-oliver-hartwich-on-how-the-incoming-government-should-reform-the-public-service

[Waltzing]

The Report to change the direction of a Nation....

Right full of learned intellectuals that say ... your nation has been stolen by the university master class of the last 30 years and ... how to take it back...

https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/prescription-for-prosperity-2023-briefing-to-the-incoming-government/

well there is one way and that is privatise the lot and LIST IT on the NZX.... before NZ has to adopt the AUS dollar....

 

[Waltzing]

Do the Courts in NZ need guidance regarding constitutional matters and would ACT's position on the treaty be the start of Government taking back these issues and creating certainty over the countries future...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501894/maori-will-go-to-war-over-act-s-treaty-referendum-labour-mps-warn

[BlackPeter]

Do the Courts in NZ need guidance regarding constitutional matters and would ACT's position on the treaty be the start of Government taking back these issues and creating certainty over the countries future...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501894/maori-will-go-to-war-over-act-s-treaty-referendum-labour-mps-warn

I guess it is important to separate ones views about how the treaty should be interpreted (or "fixed") in ones opinion from the basic legal principles of the meaning of a contract and who afterwards can change it.

I suspect most of the posters here are in agreement related to "co-governance" and anti racism (i.e. no person should be preferred or discriminated against based on their race). But this is not what the treaty is about.

The treaty is a contract between two parties. One party being some selected leaders of the people who happened to live in New Zealand before 1840 and the other party being the British Queen, assuming responsibility for all people moving at that time from Europe. Her legal deeds belong to the crown, and for NZ our govenment took over the rights and committments coming out of this contract.

No legislation of the world would allow one side of a contract unilaterally changing this contract, and exactly this would happen if we allow a referendum to interpret the treaty.

"Pacta sunt servanda" is one of the most fundamental rules for any legal system. Without this you don't have a functioning legal system. I.e. whatever stands in the treaty, we either need to stick with it, or we need to change it in agrement between both treaty partners. We can't just tell the other side that we changed our mind and from now on do things differently.

So - what exactly do you think our courts need guidance on, and who do you think should provide this guidance?

[Waltzing]

"The treaty is a contract between two parties"

well said "PARTIES...."  , Partners? really think DUCKS on this one...

was thinking that if NZ was to move towards a model of government like Southern Ireland the position of ACT might be mute and the old piece of paper which really is a poor version of a treaty or really at best a pre amble to something a bit more complete....

It looks like it was scribbled together in the Bombay Office of Biritsh East India Real estate office by a sales clerk...

International Treaty? Gosh looks a bit like a fourth form history class project...

NZ History ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTFEZiKItLs

The Barristers are starting to feel the supreme Court does in deed need guidance becuase of a lack of a complete constitution..

Moving to a model of government like southern ireland would complete and you the public would get to vote on it..

Bye bye treaty by dinner time is what MP Davis is concerned about and one can see how this might happen.

[Ferg]

If there is an issue with an interpretation of a contract, surely that should be addressed.  I also fail to see anywhere that says any partnership (assuming the 'partnership' interpretation is correct) must be 50/50.  Try that in a business with 3 partners or in a business with a senior partner...

[Hectorplains]

If there is an issue with an interpretation of a contract, surely that should be addressed.  I also fail to see anywhere that says any partnership (assuming the 'partnership' interpretation is correct) must be 50/50.  Try that in a business with 3 partners or in a business with a senior partner...

You are correct - The Courts have not commented on the relative status of the parties to the Treaty partnership, other than noting that this partnership does not necessarily describe a relationship where the partners are equal.

The Court of Appeal has discussed partnership at length, including the rights and obligations flowing from it, but no exhaustive definition of this principle has been attempted.

In the Forests case (1989), the Court of Appeal commented that;  Partnership certainly does not mean that every asset or resource in which Mäori have some justifiable claim to share must be divided equally. There may be national assets or resources as regards which, even if Mäori have some fair claim, other initiatives have still the greater contribution.

If you're keen, page seven onwards...

If the argument is centred, for example, on Three Waters it should be noted that partnership was not sited as the predominate principle of obligation.  There are three principles; those are of partnership, participation and protection.  Three Waters proposed that Iwi/Māori would have a greater role in the new Three Waters system, including pathways for enhanced participation by whānau and hapū as these services relate to their Treaty rights and interests. 

The Treaty has been thrashed out in our Courts for decades and from that interpretations of the Treaty have been introduced in to law.  The two versions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi and significant issues around translation means that there are major differences in the meanings between the two versions.
The Courts have address this by referring to the aforementioned, 'principles' of the Treaty.  These are the core concepts that underpin both texts.

ACT's plan would re-define every existing reference to those principles with their own suggested meanings.  That's one helluva rocking of the legal boat.  Practically that means all legislation which refer to the principles would need to be re-written.  That's only going to benefit lawyers and consultants...that sound is of their sweaty hands rubbing together in glee.   So it is possible but it comes at a significant cost,  and that's just one objection to what they're pushing for, there are much deeper ones concerning the whole sanctity of our legal system...but that extends too far for me on a Sunday morning.

Finally, though, using a public referendum as the vehicle to achieve this...will give voice to all kinds of divisiveness and extremism.  It's bad politics, baby.

[Waltzing]

Its all "DUCKS"

he was having dinner and asked his wife what was for dinner? Pheasant  Darling?

No Duck dear...

Oh he said looking at the patchy peice of  parchment... must be some ducks in here somewhere,,,

we need to get them Quacking along together down there...

Cooking the goose ... or in this case, DUCK...

waddles like a Duck.... ect ...  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y1kf9rFJ7mA

if it looks like a DUCK...

Look says IWI its a DUCK!!!!!