tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post4882614651861415878..comments2023-09-23T05:56:35.265+12:00Comments on MandM: Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of WaitangiMandMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-86830909299106959462009-02-15T11:38:00.000+13:002009-02-15T11:38:00.000+13:00We have a fault on our phone line so until it is f...We have a fault on our phone line so until it is fixed on Monday (GRR more reasons to switch back to Telecom) we are reduced to borrowing internet connections...<BR/><BR/>Very briefly then, at law, the responsibility for decisions made by the Crown rests solely on the Crown and not on those who influenced or pressured them to make these decisions.Regardless, even if it could be brought home to those who did pressure the Crown to make this decision and even if this turned out to be the majority, it still does not follow, in terms of legal theory, that the minority were responsible or that future generations were responsible or that anyone happening to share your race is responsible. The people responsible are the parties to the contract; in this case the Crown.<BR/><BR/>As far as the confiscated land issue goes, title to New Zealand land is granted under the Torrens system which perfects (renders good) any fault in the title such as fraud, for any purchaser who purchases land in good faith without any actual knowledge of any fraud associated with the land. Registration of the title means that any fraud associated with the land is wiped away and cannot be revisted against the new owner. This system of indefeasibility of title is guaranteed by the crown. Obviously sometimes it creates an unjust outcome but the crown recognises this and is obligated at law to provide compensation in situations where this happens. Again, this shows that the issue is between the Crown and various Iwi or other Maori entity who can demonstrate at law that they meet the criteria to be considered a party to the Treaty.<BR/><BR/>Problems of course arise in addressing many of these claims due to the lapse of time and the Maori concept of land ownership v the common law concept. Nevertheless there is a body of Maori jurisprudence that helps the courts ascertain legitimate claims so these things can be worked out, the problem is the speed at which they go at, government interference, the availability and access to justice. All things I support the Crown sorting out, speedily, but again I still do not see how it is the responsibility of individual citizens to personally ensure this happens.Madeleinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00377823497040412237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-45244348161809565042009-02-14T15:22:00.000+13:002009-02-14T15:22:00.000+13:00Interesting post. You seem to, if I read this corr...Interesting post. You seem to, if I read this correctly, maintain that just iwi are Treaty partners with the Crown, but this is not the case anymore as non tribal groups such as Urban Maori Authorities - are also deemed partners under the Treaty.Swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913329810121951824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-2215172345047241392009-02-13T15:31:00.000+13:002009-02-13T15:31:00.000+13:00Hi Madeleine,From what I can see of your legal arg...Hi Madeleine,<BR/><BR/>From what I can see of your legal argument I agree with it. But historically the waters are muddied. As a matter of history, I'm pretty sure that, especially from the 1850s on, "the Crown" acted on the advice of private citizens, inside and outside the nascent Parliament. While it's a fine principle that the citizens aren't responsible for the government's actions, it gets a bit stretched when the government only acted the way it did because of strong popular pressure.<BR/><BR/>A second problem is that, with respect to land in particular (I can't speak about other <I>taonga</I>, which, I gather, are sometimes seen differently between British law and Maori custom), many Pakeha continue to own and/or live on land which was, at some stage in its history, unjustly (and often illegally, cf. the pre-emption clause in the Treaty) "purchased", or maybe even seized, from Maori. To put it bluntly, many New Zealanders are in possession of stolen goods*.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, that line of thought would lead to a large and smelly can of worms. But while we can certainly say none of us alive today were responsible for the misdeeds of the 19th century, and also that handing our land back is impractical (not to mention "over our dead bodies" most likely), what do we do with the outstanding questions of justice and responsibility?<BR/><BR/>* I'm no lawyer, and I suspect a different term applies to land, where good title can be shown. But I picked that phrase because it nicely captures the concept I'm after.Ben Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08547593352989658586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-50433910035945692902009-02-12T10:40:00.000+13:002009-02-12T10:40:00.000+13:00You're argument is very compelling Matt.It makes l...You're argument is very compelling Matt.It makes logical sense.From what I know about the treaty it's basic intentions were honorable.England had gone through the uncivilized world with little regard to the indigenous people of the lands. With New Zealand Queen Victoria wanted to do what was right.The signing of the treaty ended up being hap-hazard and rushed.The crown did not live up to their obligation at that time.The effects of that were devastating and still have had a flow on effect even today.I believe that the crown has a moral duty to do what is right but we can choose whether to agree or disagree with that decision because New Zealand is a free country. Realizing that saying sorry can help to heal a nation so that it can look forward to a brighter future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-25796534447572505942009-02-12T09:28:00.000+13:002009-02-12T09:28:00.000+13:00MadeleineI agree with your general position that a...Madeleine<BR/>I agree with your general position that abstractions like races cannot make commitments and enter partnerships, but a couple of qualifications are relevant.<BR/><BR/>First, people can be affected by the commitments and actions taken by their parents and forefathers. Curses and blessings both seem to be able to pass through generations. We cannot repent on behalf of people in a previous generation, as they are/were accountable for their own actions, but we can stand apart from decisions they made or actions that they took, to be free from the consequences.<BR/><BR/>Second, when people submit to a government (or other institution) they take on the consequences and share in responsibility for the actions taken by that government. Therefore, we should be careful about voting for political parties that are the best of a bad bunch, because in doing so, we submit to their government and commit to sharing in the consequences. <BR/><BR/>I have written more on under the <A HREF="http://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/waitangi.htm" REL="nofollow">Treaty of Waitangi</A>. It is interesting how the people of Israel expereinced the consequences of Saul's actions after he was dead.Ron McKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03989126812730583009noreply@blogger.com