Regardless, I think as much hate as ACT gets for this - it seems obvious that clarity on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is required so that every New Zealander knows where they stand (legally speaking) and we can move on as a country.

The different interpretations from different groups are distracting from the real issues because the solution gets muddied.

Should we establish group-specific organisations that all do the same thing, just for different segments of society - or should we pour our energy and resources into making organisations work for all New Zealanders?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Im quite surprised by this, isn’t Parliament a crown/british concept?

I wouldn't think of it like that. Virtually every modern government has a parliament of some sort.

According to the RNZ Aotearoa History Show, Māori chiefs thought this separation was how co-governance would work when the signed the Treaty. There would be a Queen figurehead above, then the British would have a Premier and Māori would have an equivalent at the same level (not necessarily a parliament at the time, but it makes sense in a modern context). I'm not sure how accurate that is, but this news doesn't surprise me.

But I also noticed the article covers nothing about how it might work in practice. It seems like a different form of protest rather than a serious bid.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It would just be a different representative body negotiating the relationship with the pakeha crown I guess. Its entirely their choice as to whether they want to represent as individual iwi or as a whole in that relationship.

I think about it like it seems pretty normal that at an official level the NZ Government talks to the Australian Federal Government, not to the Melbourne mayor :)

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I guess my question is - are they just wanting a better negotiating body, or are they planning two sets of laws, where they set their own for Māori?

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 months ago

That I don't know, though my perspective is that's up to them to work out and as Pākehā i'll have to learn how to negotiate that relationship if/when it ever happens.

That's not a position i've always held, but over the years as i've read books like 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' and other stories about the dispossession of indigenous people i've come to a much more complicated understanding of the price that was paid for the privilege I enjoy. It's uncomfortable, but that's a minor inconvenience compared to the cost others paid.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

two sets of laws, where they set their own for Māori?

No way will that ever be allowed to happen.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I wasn't asking what would happen, just what they want to happen 😆

To be fair, there are countries with two sets of laws. One thing that comes to mind is in Malaysia you can go to the pub for a beer, unless you're registered as Muslim and then you can go to prison for drinking alcohol (though a fine is more likely).

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 months ago

I very much doubt they will propose having less privileges than another group though, it will almost certainly be more privileges for us than them.