Mana Party flunks Treaty 101

June 24th, 2011 at 10:10 am by David Farrar

The announced its first official policy this week, the Treaty of Waitangi Policy. It said:

Remove the 2014 deadline for lodging historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.

The only trouble with this policy is the deadline is not 2014, but was 2008. S6A of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 states:

… after 1 September 2008 no Maori may submit a claim to the Tribunal that is, or includes, a historical Treaty claim

So Mana’s presumably most important policy, is wrong on the most critical of details. That is just appalling.

Tags: ,

44 Responses to “Mana Party flunks Treaty 101”

  1. adze (2,105 comments) says:

    No doubt Hone would reject your pakeha logic DPF. Either that or just say &@$#% ?@&%# and invoke Danyl’s principle of tirangiwhai.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. James Stephenson (2,155 comments) says:

    Hone should really take the advice he offered Kelvin this morning and shut his fat mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    One would (charitably) assume that they are perhaps referring to another deadline and merely screwed up the details?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. emmess (1,427 comments) says:

    Hone’s always been a bit slow.
    It’s just now we are able to measure it.
    He’s six years slow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Hone should really just shut up and sit down. His time is up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    “He’s six years slow.”

    Or possibly, 171 years slow

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. queenstfarmer (775 comments) says:

    Hone’s giving away the gameplan a bit early?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    … after 1 September 2008 no Maori may submit a claim to the Tribunal that is, or includes, a historical Treaty claim

    But non-Maori can?! That’s racist!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. chris (644 comments) says:

    Do I understand this correctly? It’s a 1975 piece of legislation that states no claims will be accepted after 2008. So that was 33 years notice back in 1975. But Hone wants to remove the deadline “to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.” Isn’t 33 years enough? How much time do you need to research and state a case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    Do I understand this correctly? It’s a 1975 piece of legislation that states no claims will be accepted after 2008. So that was 33 years notice back in 1975.

    You do not.

    It’s a 1975 piece of legislation that has been amended multple times. The fact that this is section 6A shows that this is an amendment (sections get capital letters after them when they’re inserted between other sections that were already there).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Monty (976 comments) says:

    that is because John Hatfield is a lazy MoFo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. nikolasa (4 comments) says:

    Not flunking out or anything of the sort, I (who content manage Hone’s two websites) simply loaded the wrong draft (i.e. not the final one), I got a growling for it, uploaded the correct version, end of story.

    So, ae Scrubone, you are totally correct.

    Try not to read too much into everything, it was a silly mistake and I take total responsibility for it.

    The correct version is as follows:

    “Remove the Deadline for lodging of claims which was imposed for 1 September 2008 and extend the timeframe for the settlement of historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.”

    http://mana.net.nz/policy/ for the full and correct version.

    Mauri ora,
    Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule
    TangataWhenua.com
    DigitalMaori.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. chris (644 comments) says:

    Thanks for explaining that Graeme. Now that I’ve looked at it again, I see at the bottom of that sub-section it says “Section 6AA was inserted, as from 13 December 2006, by section 6 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 77).” I clicked through earlier on and my eyes glazed over looking at the legislation :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. E. Campbell (90 comments) says:

    I think the appropriate response would be: “Doh!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Why do they need more time? If they don’t already know their history (which according to the courts, they actually don’t, they make it up then get surprised when the courts rule that no, actually bush fairies didn’t exist back then, even if your oral history says they did), why the fuck do they think another few years is going to make the slightest diff?

    The entire country needs A deadline. This process needs an end-date. It simply can’t continue forever in a day however much its beneficiaries would like it to. Since the entire country are the ones paying for it, and since the beneficiaries apparently don’t pay all that much tax anyway, what the fuck makes the beneficiaries think they get to have any fucking say in it, at all?

    It would be nice if the beneficiaries just once expressed gratitude that the rest of the country HAS acknowledged wrongs were done and HAS participated with extreme good faith in a process to redress that. But no. All they do is munt about how tewwible it was that dead people did what they did. Get. Over. It.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. nikolasa (4 comments) says:

    Still awaiting for this to be approved.

    We can always run a story on TangataWhenua.com asking why you haven’t approved it, when other comments that have come through after I posted have been approved.

    It does suit you to not get this out to your readers (i.e. it’s more of a story without my comments, so there you go.

    ========================================

    Not flunking out or anything of the sort, I (who content manage Hone’s two websites) simply loaded the wrong draft (i.e. not the final one), I got a growling for it, uploaded the correct version, end of story.

    So, ae Scrubone, you are totally correct.

    Try not to read too much into everything, it was a silly mistake and I take total responsibility for it.

    The correct version is as follows:

    “Remove the Deadline for lodging of claims which was imposed for 1 September 2008 and extend the timeframe for the settlement of historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.”

    http://mana.net.nz/policy/ for the full and correct version.

    Mauri ora,
    Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule
    TangataWhenua.com
    DigitalMaori.com

    [DPF: First time commenters are held for moderation until their initial comment has been approved. I am currently in Wales and you made your comment at 1 am Wales time. No conspiracy - just a time zone. I can not approve comments in my sleep]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    They need time to make it up reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kingofthejuice (6,062 comments) says:

    Perhaps the treaty claim deadline is a movable feast, like Matariki ;-) So where did the 2014 deadline come from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    DPF

    The policy you have linked to says:

    ‘Remove the Deadline for lodging of claims which was imposed for 1 September 2008 and extend the timeframe for the settlement of historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases’.

    I didn’t see anything about the 2014 date, which is a government target for settling all historical claims.

    Did I miss something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. markm (113 comments) says:

    ditto what mikenmild said

    Have they already changed their policy wording on the website

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. marynicolehicks (24 comments) says:

    Well my browser said the link given contained content from a website known to serve malware. Advertisements gone wrong or can my browser understand politics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    The website is TangataWhenua.com, ‘a Maori owned and operated information and communications technology company, specialising in all things digital and indigenous. We like to think of ourselves at the frontier of the Maori ICT sector.’

    Hadn’t seen this site before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    I didn’t see anything about the 2014 date, which is a government target for settling all historical claims. Did I miss something?

    Yes, it’s fairly obvious from looking at the page David quoted that they have quickly changed references to 2014 to 2008, after David posted this piece. Go down to the comments section and you can see people raising this issue from what was in the article, but the cited date is no longer in the article.

    Where David quoted:

    Remove the 2014 deadline for lodging historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.

    Now reads:

    Remove the Deadline for lodging of claims which was imposed for 1 September 2008 and extend the timeframe for the settlement of historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.

    It’ll be cached somewhere :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    specialising in all things digital and indigenous

    I wonder if one of their next moves on the tiriti chessboard will be to lay copywrite violation charges against everyone who uses the internet on the grounds that all communication vehicles are taonga and therefore require heaps of koha to those who used to treasure all communication vehicles as sacred and special and the white mofos came and took it by telling us we couldn’t use our talky talk anymore and that extends to the internet cause it too is a talky talk thing as well as being a writey write thingy too. To Maori this is a very well known and historical fact as proven by the fact our talky talk says:

    Ko wai tōu ingoa? He reo Māori tōu? Nō hea koe? He aha te utu? Kei hea te wharepaku? Ka Pīrangi koe ki te kanikani tahi tāua? Kī tōnu taku waka topaki i te tuna. Meri Kirihimete me ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koutou katoa.

    Thus proving our claim beyond doubt. Therefore we insist on the NZ Navy invading first Australia then every other country and make them pay us, but first, you have to pay us, and sorry, but it’s fucking heaps.

    Rā Whānau ki a Koe!

    The fact its ridiculous hasn’t seemed to make any difference to them up till now so I just wonder if that’s not actually what Hone’s next announcement might in fact be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Mike Johnson

    It does seem clear that the mistake was published. It’s not clear whether tangatawhenua.com or the Mana Party were responsible for the mistake.

    reid

    Didn’t know there was a treaty claim about that. Sounds scary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    It’s not clear whether tangatawhenua.com or the Mana Party were responsible for the mistake.

    It is very clear that the Mana Party are responsible. Not for a “mistake,” but ignorance. Here is the Google cache of the Mana Party’s policy document which clearly has the policy David quoted.

    It is still on the Mana Party website, here, in those exact same words too. But I’ve linked to the cache in case the Mana website is also quietly changed like tangatawhenua.com was.

    Those words again:

    Remove the 2014 deadline for lodging historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.

    Mana posted the policy two days ago. I wonder why David quoted it from tangatawhenua.com rather than the party’s own website?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    In fact come to think of it, there must be quite a story in how the policy has been abruptly changed on a supposedly independent Maori website, but is still (as I wrote) in its original form on the Mana Party’s own site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Mike

    Given the ability of people to spot these things, you’d think Mana would just come clean, admit they made a mistake and focus on what their policy is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. jaba (2,137 comments) says:

    heard on radio live with JT and the madman, Hone’s main strategic play for voters .. vote Hone and get Hone and Kelvin. As with th error above, and others, the call for getting the two of them is all he has.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    Hmmm. I just got the email below. As the sender clearly has something to add to this debate, but is unable to post here (possibly from not being registered fully yet with DPF in London?) I am therefore posting it.

    I do note that the unexpurgated policy about 2014 is still at this moment on the Mana webpage:

    http://mana.net.nz/news/mana-party-policy-statement-on-treaty-settlements-released/

    Kia ora Mike, saw your comments on Kiwiblog about Mana’s Treaty Settlement policy. I posted this but clearly David doesn’t think it suits his agenda… sad really as I would have thought that the truth was more important…

    Interesting, we noted National supporter and New Zealand Herald reporter David Farrar called the Mana Party out for getting a key Treaty Settlements policy point wrong in his right wing Kiwiblog.

    Fair enough, except when I pointed out that it was my mistake (via comments on his blog) I noticed that he didn’t approve my comments (BUT he approved comments made AFTER mine), making me think that it actually suits him to run the story as it is.

    So just to make things clear, this is what happened:

    I (who content manage Hone’s two websites and coordinate his social networking campaign) simply loaded the wrong draft (i.e. not the final one), I got a mean growling for it, uploaded the correct version, end of story.

    So whanau, do be sure to not read too much into it, it was a silly mistake and I take total responsibility for it.

    The correct point is as follows:

    “Remove the Deadline for lodging of claims which was imposed for 1 September 2008 and extend the timeframe for the settlement of historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.”

    * http://mana.net.nz/policy/ for the full and correct version.

    Check out the screenshot for more details:

    http://news.tangatawhenua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/DavidFarrarGetitWrong.jpg

    This link shows a screenshot of my comments (being held for moderation) while comments after have been approved.

    I submitted my comment twice…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. jaba (2,137 comments) says:

    oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Kelvin just failed electioneering 101. I just him on TV3 being greeted on the campaign by Pete Hodgson, what the fuck is Labour doing??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Mike

    Nice to hear the full story. Not much of a story in the end, was it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,479 comments) says:

    Mike – that sounds like the posts went into spam automatically, maybe because of the number of raw links.

    It would be very odd for DPF to block a post like that, he just doesn’t seem to do it, he’s one of the most moderate moderators around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    It would be very odd for DPF to block a post like that, he just doesn’t seem to do it, he’s one of the most moderate moderators around

    Yes and that is what I told the person who emailed me, whose email I then posted.

    I think the reason for “moderation” is this person has not posted here before and thus did not have a registered account…

    Wouldn’t have gone into spam if it showed “moderation”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SHG (312 comments) says:

    The site (not DPF) doesn’t trust anyone it has never seen post before. This is a sensible policy as it stops people signing up just to post spam. If you have signed up and posted something that was approved in the past the site trusts you and thus allows your post to be published without an administrator’s personal intervention. However if you are new to the site and have never posted before the site keeps your first post as a draft pending approval of an administrator. If the administrator happens to be in another timezone, this approval may take hours. In the meantime the site will continue accepting and publishing posts from known trusted users.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SHG (312 comments) says:

    I notice that the Mana site is running the same content management system as Kiwiblog. I find it hard to believe that the Mana site content manager was totally ignorant of why his comment wasn’t showing up here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nikolasa (4 comments) says:

    SHG, yes we develop wordpress sites, there are various options on the backend that determine moderation rules, some are that each user must have a previously approved comment to post, others are that each comment is moderated individually – there is no way of knowing this unless you have access to the admin panel. And btw, he is a she, interesting assumption tho, what all geeks are male ;)

    With THAT said, all comments (approved or otherwise) are sent to DPF’s email regardless.

    Anyway, I appreciate Mike taking the time to post my comment during the delay, as you all were running wild with assumptions. Have a great day!! Nga mihi!

    [DPF: Comments are not sent to my e-mail address, and have not been for over five years. Bad enough the 200 or so e-mails I already get a day, without an additional 500 from Kiwiblog. I tend to check the comments queue every few hours - but not at 1 am!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. SHG (312 comments) says:

    there are various options on the backend that determine moderation rules, some are that each user must have a previously approved comment to post, others are that each comment is moderated individually – there is no way of knowing this unless you have access to the admin panel.

    And even though you knew that, your assumption was that your post was being deliberately withheld from publication because hiding your post suited DPF’s agenda. Interesting.

    With THAT said, all comments (approved or otherwise) are sent to DPF’s email regardless.

    That’s a crazy policy for a high-traffic site. Hey, didn’t you just say there’s no way of knowing how the admin notifications are set up without having access to the dashboard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. meh (165 comments) says:

    nikolasa, I find it interesting that your immediate assumption was DPF was sitting you in moderation because you assumed he didn’t like what you had say and you then moved pretty quickly to making threats of running an “expose” on your own soapbox. Sounds very similar to the behavior of a certain politician….

    As others have pointed out, even worse that you are a wordpress admin and you immediately discounted the most logical reason for the moderation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. nikolasa (4 comments) says:

    you are totally correct meh (nice login btw) and SHG – I was totally wrong – hey it’s been a long couple of weeks in the run up and it got the better of me, we don’t moderate on our site, nor on any of Hone’s sites.

    so there you go.
    more policies will be posted in the coming weeks, and you can bet I won’t make any of those mistakes again!
    kia ora ra!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. meh (165 comments) says:

    Ah well, learning from your mistakes normally means you won’t make them again! :)

    I’d suggest you follow DPF’s policy of moderating first time commenters only, it’ll save a lot of admin overhead from people who register one-off aliases for trolling purposes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,479 comments) says:

    meh – on a very active and robust site like this it’s understandable to moderate on first post. But I think political parties need to be open to anyone being able to comment without restriction and given the benefit of the doubt. Act only if they are unduly abusive or disruptive.

    Politicians need to be oprn to the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. SHG (312 comments) says:

    nikolasa said hey it’s been a long couple of weeks in the run up and it got the better of me (..) you can bet I won’t make any of those mistakes again!

    Been there, done that :) good luck. Hey, could be worse, you could be using Joomla.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.