WAI262

July 2nd, 2011 at 5:29 am by David Farrar

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

Maori do not own treasures such as flora and fauna but they are entitled to a “reasonable degree of protection” over them, a landmark report from the Waitangi Tribunal says.

It also says that unless Maori are given more say on the use of their culture and taonga – as promised in the – they will continue to figure disproportionately in the ranks of the poor and underproductive.

The Crown “either deliberately or through neglect, has largely supported one of New Zealand’s two founding cultures at the expense of the other”, the tribunal says in a report 20 years in the making.

The report on the WAI262 claim has been described as the most important Treaty development in a generation, but its findings – made public today – are already under fire from both sides of the political spectrum, and nothing is likely to happen to it until after the general election.

Maori Party MP Rahui Katene – the daughter of one of the original WAI262 claimants – said the findings were very political, weak and had missed the point.

Sounds like the Waitangi Tribunal has got it about right, if people on both ends are upset.

Tags:

106 Responses to “WAI262”

  1. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    “the tribunal says in a report 20 years in the making”

    excuse me? Ya f****** what??? 20 years in the making !!!!!! You’ve got to be kidding… t-w-e-n-t-y years to do a report ?
    arrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

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

    It also says that unless Maori are given more say on the use of their culture and taonga – as promised in the Treaty of Waitangi – they will continue to figure disproportionately in the ranks of the poor and underproductive.

    They already have all the say they need in some areas. What are their kids, if not taonga? And look what [some of them] do with them.

    How can you copyright something like a dance? Is the tango copyrighted? What about the knowledge that plant x is good for rheumatism? How can you copyright that knowledge. By all means copyright the process used to take it from a plant to the shelf, but not the knowledge of the plant itself.

    And how can the gummint “support” them better in doing any of that, anyway? Fuck if they don’t even know how to use a phone book to lookup “patent attorney” then WTF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Michael (904 comments) says:

    If an Iwi want to have more say in the conservation of fauna or flora they should be leading projects and digging into their own pockets first. Plenty Iwi/Hapu already do, and they do a wonderful job of it! Expecting the Crown to pay for everything is not going to help as resources are scarce, and expertise gets spread to thinly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    I get annoyed when people apply the logic that if both sides are upset then it must be about right. If both the left and right are upset in NZ then you probably have soft socialism which is wrong. Sometimes what one side wants is more correct than what the other side desires.

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

    It is of course only a tribunal report. The next step would be a government response. It seems unlikely that the present government will rush to make its intentions clear in election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Usual load of politically correct horse shit. Perhaps we should declare we all are Maori because you are if that’s the way you feel or so we are told. Fuck I have Maori mates whiter then I, so who can tell anymore. The lines are so blurred that you would need the wisdom of Salomon to say who is who now days and I include my own circumstances in this mess. Seems to me the treaty was signed by two parties but one side believes it applies solely for their own betterment. Enough already of this madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peterwn (3,242 comments) says:

    reid – a dance can be copyrighted. In some cases the dance instructions are copyright but performing the dance would not be breach of copyright, or more likely the purchase of the instructions may be an implied licence for performance. Think of a musical – dances performed within the musical would be subject to copyright – doing a dance from a musical could well be a breach of copyright.

    Traditional ‘works’ cannot be copyrighted (or patented) since the creator is unknown or died so long ago that the work would be out of copyright or any patent would have expired.

    What some in Maoridom are seeking is legislation to create intellectual property in works and other things (eg plants, animals, etc) for the benefit of Maoridom. Whether or not any such copyright would be recognised under the Berne Convention is another matter. Similarly any ‘intellectual property’ claim on plants or animals is unlikely to be recognised internationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    The “official” English [Treaty of Waitangi] version being used (Busby’s preliminary draft of the 3rd of February 1840) is a radical departure away from the Maori version. They are as different as “chalk and cheese”. Please take time to carefully compare and consider several different older (1800’s) “back-translations” of the Maori text into English. You’ll be shocked to see just how radically different the so-called “official” English text is to the Maori text. There’s simply no-way the “official” English text produced the Maori one. Our government and the grievance industry are deliberately using the wrong English text in order to plunder the country. Both the true English text and the Maori text give equal rights to “ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND – TANGATA KATOA O NU TIRANI”.
    If the Maori text alone were used to formulate government policy, then the grievance industry would cease to exist overnight. The government and grievance industry do not want New Zealanders to know that the Maori version of the Treaty guarantees equality TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, as well as the Chiefs and the tribes, and offers no provision for any special “customary rights” to any singular or exclusive group. The term, “Tino rangitiratanga” or interpretations related to “taonga”, as found within the Tiriti O Waitangi, relate equally to all New Zealanders simultaneously and always have.
    http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TheLittlewoodTreaty3.html (yes I know one academic has debunked the LittleWood Treaty, but I remain unconvinced).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. adze (2,105 comments) says:

    I think it’s right that the report found that Maori do not “own” native flora and fauna, I’m not even sure why that was claimed in the same sense as cultural art and knowledge.

    The copyright issue is an interesting one too, because normally copyright on a specific work is understood to lapse after a couple of generations. That’s just a convention of course, but given a double standard would simply create tensions elsewhere it highlights just one of many difficulties managing the interface between different cultures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. KH (695 comments) says:

    ……….DPF says……. “Sounds like the Waitangi Tribunal has got it about right, if people on both ends are upset.” Yeah right.
    If that was a good way of working then the tribunal could have issued a few statements. Tested the response on the “squeal meter” and when the noise readings were about equal, determined their final decision. Could have taken about 20 days not twenty years.
    As for the ownership issue itself: There are several hundred American oaks trees on my drive, with astonishing autumn colour. Spiritual. Ownership and origin of that delight clearly is not maori. So do I set up a collection box down at the front gate for the contibutions that Maori will be compulsorily expected to make as they drive past.
    No I won’t.

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

    peter thank you for that.

    I don’t really understand why the Tribunal spent even any time on this let alone the amount of time it did. Surely we don’t need three volumes to tell us what it is telling us? I would have thought it could be covered off in a few pages. A somewhat pithy judgement issued 19.5 years ago, is what I would have thought should have been the case.

    But no.

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

    I don’t know if anyone here has yet read the report. Maybe we will get some informed comments after that has happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Fletch (6,294 comments) says:

    It’s about time the Govt called a halt to the whole Waitangi claims debacle. Just draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. Tell Maori, you’ve been well compensated (OVER-compensated) for any historical wrongs you might have suffered.

    From now on, you’ll have to work, just like every other New Zealander does, to make your own way in life.
    One country, one people. You want to be treated equally or not?
    Then quit with that hand out.

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

    I don’t know if anyone here has yet read the report. Maybe we will get some informed comments after that has happened.

    Why? What else do you think it’s going to say? Do you think some earth-shatteringly important new legal ground so complicated and difficult it took great minds twenty long years to put together and cost a huge amount in legal and court fees, is going to be broken, after we’ve read all 3 volumes?

    Go for it, mm and report back. I look forward to your informed comments with breathless anticipation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. beautox (420 comments) says:

    Right so the reason that Maori are so downtrodden and poor is because they don’t have full control over their culture and plants. Do people really believe this bollocks?

    The only plants that Maori seem to care about are those that make up what they smoke, and the potatoes that go into KFC chips.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. PaulL (5,965 comments) says:

    I’m with Sonny. Just because everyone’s unhappy doesn’t mean we have a sensible midpoint. That only works when both groups have a legitimate position and are sensible, then somewhere in the middle would be a reasonable compromise. But when there is a legal document to interpret, things are right or they are wrong. Not some middle ground compromise.

    As for copyright on flora and fauna, different countries allow different levels of protection. I think the US has been in the habit of allowing copyright over sequenced DNA. To the extent that other countries are allowing people to copyright this stuff, I have no particular problem if we let Maori copyright it before some large corporate turns up, sequences the DNA, and then copyrights it. If, however, we believe that nobody can copyright it, then I don’t think Maori get special treatment.

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

    I think the US has been in the habit of allowing copyright over sequenced DNA.

    Yes they are, which is anaethema.

    It came about because in the 70’s or 80’s the US Supreme court ruled an oil company could patent a genetically engineered bacterium they had created in the lab to eat up oil spills. Sadly the Justices who made that decision didn’t understand biology for the law had up till then stated you cannot patent living organisms.

    Corporate lawyers being who they are gradually ripped this open so today we have the situation where all of big pharma are busy patenting all the gene sequences for every disease you can think of so say, if when we get gene scans as standard, you find pancreatic cancer runs in your family, the medical insurance people whack up the premiums and the treatment for said cancer goes through the roof, cause they hold the patent, and there is no legally permissible competition for their drugs cause they’re the only company who holds that patent.

    Isn’t that nice. And that’s what’s happening, right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Paulus (2,607 comments) says:

    The proven DNA of Maori goes back to a tribe in South East Taiwan.

    I assume they are going to claim that also.

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

    Yes the NZ SAS after leaving Afghanistan safely once again in the hands of the Taliban, turn toward the problem of invading SE Taiwan after receiving UN backing in order to get the China FTA back on track, just in the nick of time. Fonterra offers to supply an undercover container vessel for the op.

    You can see it coming, can’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Greeks have been around longer than Maori. Egyptians longer still. Do you see Greeks getting “precious” about NZ companies producing Greek-style yoghurt, complete with Greek column motif? Or Egyptians getting hot under the collar about pyramid-shaped casinos?

    I don’t. And I think Maori are merely perpetuating their “victim” mentality, and trying to live in their past.

    Create something new (like Billy T James did), and sell that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,887 comments) says:

    All of New Zealand, black, white, brown and brindle, would be better off were all the denizens of the grievance industry rounded up and bundled off to the place where their ancestors resided in the year 1262.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    Adolf Fiinkensein says: “All of New Zealand, black, white, brown and brindle, would be better off were all the denizens of the grievance industry rounded up and bundled off to the place where their ancestors resided in the year 1262.”

    Exactly!

    Cue the hand wringing, panty-waisted, bleeding hearts in 3…. 2….. 1…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,691 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    “I don’t know if anyone here has yet read the report”

    Well, I think that you actually do know …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    reid: Is the tango copyrighted?

    The Tango has been decalred part of the world’s intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO. link

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    PaulL:I think the US has been in the habit of allowing copyright over sequenced DNA.

    Reid:Yes they are, which is anaethema.

    No, they aren’t. You are confusing copyright and patents.

    It came about because in the 70′s or 80′s the US Supreme court ruled an oil company could patent a genetically engineered bacterium they had created in the lab to eat up oil spills. Sadly the Justices who made that decision didn’t understand biology for the law had up till then stated you cannot patent living organisms.

    Again you are confused. The case you are referring to related to the question of whether you can patent novel living lifeforms. This is a seperate question from whether you can patent DNA sequences.

    Corporate lawyers being who they are gradually ripped this open so today we have the situation where all of big pharma are busy patenting all the gene sequences for every disease you can think of so say, if when we get gene scans as standard, you find pancreatic cancer runs in your family, the medical insurance people whack up the premiums and the treatment for said cancer goes through the roof, cause they hold the patent, and there is no legally permissible competition for their drugs cause they’re the only company who holds that patent.

    Again you are confused. Drugs are seperate from DNA sequences. Holding a patent to a gene means you can profit from use of that gene in a test or if it is used in a commercially available living organism. Nothing else. There are often multiple different drugs avaible to treat a disease and each drug is individually patentable if it is novel.

    Back to PaulL’s claim, though it is worth noting that intellectual property protection already exists in many cases for living organisms. PLant breeders who produce a new variety of a plant can seek protection via Plant Variety Rights. If it is sufficiently novel it can be patented. There have been cases here in NZ, and Australia, of plant breeders successfully gaining patents for plants, and, even, of taking people to court for not paying royalties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    I think Maori are merely perpetuating their “victim” mentality, and trying to live in their past.

    You are right: the Stone Age people are mired in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    Wonder how many years of Criminal Legal Aid could be funded with the legal aid grants on this report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    If this isn’t handled properly it will spell disaster for NZ’s indigenous flora.

    Think of plant nurseries currently propagating native plants, what happens if their already significant operating costs now have to include Iwi payments or royalties of some sort.

    Guess which plants won’t be propagated or marketed as much any more.

    What about nurseries or landscapers using NZ native cultivars? what about nurseries and contractors engaged in native restoration and rehabilitation?

    This needs to be very carefully dealt with, and for the record, I consider NZ native flora just as much ‘mine’ is it is anyone else’s, our country has plants and critters like no other, and more than just Maori NZers have a deep appreciation for them.

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

    Some of media coverage, and comments here, focuses unduly on the flora and fauna aspect. As I read it so far, the WAI 262 claim is much, much broader. It goes to the heart of NZ identity and future relationships between the Crown and Maori.

    The claim is actually about ‘mātauranga Māori – that is, the unique Māori way of viewing the world, encompassing both traditional knowledge and culture. The claimants, in other words, are seeking to preserve their culture and identity, and the relationships that culture and identity derive from.’

    This report is about the most important of all Treaty claims. The response to the tribunal’s recommendations could will affect the course of our country’s future for decades to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    I have a problem with a world view that sees oneself as “people of the land” and the rest as “tauiwi” (foriegners).

    A case study of the use of Māori Traditional Environmental Knowledge for sustainable natural resource management [having signed cultural safety agreement]

    “Just as Māori are proud of their TEK, so too we, as practitioners of science are proud of scientific method. It has the potential to discern important predictive relationships from complex natural systems. The first muttonbirder’s diary to be statistically analysed revealed a strong correlation between annual harvest fluctuations and the Southern Oscillation Index (Lyver et al. in press.). Sophisticated statistical methods were able to identify a subtle, but ecologically very important variable influencing titi population dynamics. If a harvest is less than in the previous year, an El Nino weather pattern is predicted for the following 12 months. When a harvest increases compared with the previous year, a La Nina weather phenomenon is predicted. These lagged effects had not been noticed by the birders, and yet they point to a fundamentally important potential mechanism (climate fluctuation) for the decline in harvests and bird numbers observed in the last 10 years (Figure 1).”

    “TEK exists amongst other resource and land-user groups. For example, many farmers hold an intimate local knowledge of the subtleties of their own land which could be better harnessed by environmental management agencies that often tend to apply blanket policies aimed at average expectations. ”

    http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/news/conferences/manaakiwhenua/papers/lyver.asp

    This Dr Mike Joy knows a bit too (him good kaitiaki)
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/mike-joy-answers-the-pm-with-hard-facts

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

    Good post hj, Mike Joy certainly gives one something to think about.

    The environmental issues we face are, if anything, bigger than those treaty-related questions. Until we start to see our environment as an asset, a source of income and future security, instead of an exploitable resource or a conservation cost, then we will continue to struggle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    “Maori do not own treasures such as flora and fauna but they are entitled to a “reasonable degree of protection” over them, a landmark report from the Waitangi Tribunal says.”

    Why do some maori have this romantic notion that they were one with the land and animals. They were as bad as the brits, french and any other invasive group of people… the moas are a classic example. Central otago has never recovered from the fires they lit.

    Instead of giving maori a reasonable degree of protection over flora and fauna, they should give flora and fauna a reasonable degree of protection from maori.

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

    I don’t believe Maori have such a romantic notion. Such notions have tended to be imposed as European stereotypes, ‘noble savages’, etc. James Belich contrasts well the notion of the ‘green Maori’ and the ‘red Maori’ quite well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. jaba (2,136 comments) says:

    who owns the grass?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    The firm Tinkerbell speaks on behalf of this pandering and “brave” government: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5222314/Government-will-consider-whole-Waitangi-report

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    Who owns white clover?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    The problem I have with biculturalism is that you are asking the greater population to prop up a culture that cannot sell itself primarily because it is backward, having evolved in isolation despite being represented as mysterious and superior as by Te Puni Kōkiri’s “Maori cultural advantage”.
    The accounts of life amongst the Maori by Pakeha prior to 1840 paint a different picture. These accounts are criticized by (eg) Dr Tim..? of the Pschological Society as being the work of a “spin master” (in one case), however the various accounts (and there are many) do not tend to contradict each other .

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

    hj

    The concept of biculturalism does not depend on any notion of superiority. No one is making any claim to Maori superiority. The WAI 262 claim is predicated on obligations to protect and preserve Maori culture. That is not the same as an assertion of superiority. The notion of superiority says more about the rationale behind any culture’s claim to be superior than about the culture with which it might be compared.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    If Maori culture encompasses the Maori World view and if Professor Margaret Mutu is an expert on such then her words (below) suggest to me a superior status and condition is implied?:

    5.
    Māori Role in Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Defined by tikanga (our laws)
    derive from a world view that we inherited from our ancestors
    rooted as much in the spiritual aspects of this world as the physical.
    based on underlying values which include
    Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all derived from the gods
    Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force
    Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
    Kaitiakitanga – inherited responsibilities to take care of all our natural resources including our lands, waters, seas and other taonga
    Rangatiratanga – chieftainship including sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.

    6. Our tikanga determines that :
    We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)
    We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
    And if they decide to stay then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.
    We also need a good understanding of our guest’s tikanga so that we know how to look after them properly.
    Pākehā settlement and introduced legal system has not and can not change these fundamental values and principles but it has made it very difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.
    http://www.goingbananas.org.nz/…/Going_Bananas_August_07_Maori_Roots_Multicultural_NZ.ppt

    MARGARET MUTU: For centuries now, Maori have considered themselves to be what we call mana whenua, mana moana, which includes the European concept of ownership. So we do consider ourselves to have been the owners of the foreshore, the seabed and all of our lands.
    http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm

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

    Nothing quoted there seems to imply a superior status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    Margaret Mutu..evil, dangerous peace of work. Nasty nasty nasty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    One of the problems with lefties is that they simply cannot see evil because sometimes they’re actually part of it.

    Mutu wants “sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.”

    And the usual morons (know all / apologists) in our midst think this is OK….

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

    Elaycee

    Seems to me your quote is simply Mutu’s definition of rangatiratanga, the preservation of which was guaranteed in the treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    mikenmild Says:

    Nothing quoted there seems to imply a superior status.
    …………………….

    Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all (?) derived from the gods
    +
    Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
    ……………………………
    Tariana Turia: Te Urewera and Tuhoe are inseparable

    Incomprehensible. Intertwined. You cannot separate the two. It is precisely the same feeling that I have as uri of Whanganui. Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au – literally, I am the river and the river is me.

    It is a powerful, psychological, physical connection with our sense of place.

    This is what it is to be mana whenua, people of the land. The sense of place is so strong, the attachment so profound that it becomes an integral part of our identity.

    We are bonded to our rivers, our mountains, our land in ways which I can only explain as defining the essence of who we are.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644720

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

    hj

    Those are simply aspects of mātauranga Māori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    It isn’t surprising no none has published a book on tikanga (other than F.E. Manning the Pakeha Maori)

    Tika correct
    This was a taua muru (a robbing expedition) in revenge for the leader having been cleaned out by our chief, which gave them the right to rob any one connected with, related to, or under the protection of, our chief aforesaid, provided always that they were able. We, on the other hand, had the clear right to kill any of the robbers, which would then have given them the right to kill us; but until we killed some of them, it would not have been “correct” for them to have taken life, so they managed the thing neatly, in order that they should have no occasion to do so. The whole proceeding was unobjectionable in every respect, and tika (correct). Had we put in our nine-pound shot at the stern of their canoe, it would have been correct also; but as we were not able, we had no right whatever to complain.
    The above is good law: and here I may as well inform the New Zealand public that I am going to write the whole law of this land in a book, which I shall call “Ko nga ture;” and as I intend it for the good of both races, I shall mix the two page 68 languages up in such a way that neither can understand; but this does not matter, as I shall add a “glossary,” in Coptic, to make things clear.

    Some time after this, a little incident worth noting happened at my friend Mr.—’s place. Our chief had, for some time back, a sort of dispute with another magnate, who lived about ten miles off. I really cannot say who was in the right: the arguments on both sides were so nearly balanced, that I should not like to commit myself to a judgment in the case. The question was at last brought to a fair hearing at my friend’s house. The arguments on both sides were very forcible; so much so that in the course of the arbitration our chief and thirty of his principal witnesses were shot dead in a heap before my friend’s door, and sixty others badly wounded, and my friend’s house and store blown up and burnt to ashes.
    My friend was all but, or, indeed, quite ruined; but it would not have been “correct” for him to complain—his loss in goods being far overbalanced by the loss of the tribe in men. He was, however, consoled by hundreds of friends who came in large parties to condole and tangi with him, and who, as was quite correct in such cases, shot and ate all his stock, sheep, pigs, goats, ducks, geese, fowls, &c., all in high compliment to himself: at page 69 which he felt proud, as a well conducted and conditioned pakeha Maori (as he was) should do. He did not, however, survive these honours long, poor fellow. He died; and, strange to say, no one knew exactly what was the matter with him: some said it was the climate, they thought.
    http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ManPake-c4.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    @hj: Good post.

    Maybe milkmilo reads his version of the Treaty from one found in a Weetbix box, but in the signed version, I can’t find any guarantee of self governance, no guarantee of self determination, no guarantee of any privileged status.

    Myopia is alive and well. So is dog whistling.

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

    hj

    You will find the WAI 262 report is a very good start to explore tikanga..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    hj

    Those are simply aspects of mātauranga Māori.
    ………..
    “Similarly, when Europeans arrived, mātauranga Māori changed dramatically in response to such things as new technology, languages and worldview. Hence, it is not possible to say that mātauranga Māori today possesses a single worldview or perspective on the world. It is possible to argue that mātauranga Māori is a body of knowledge that reflects a number of worldviews – for example, pre-contact traditional, 19th century colonial and 20th century modern.”
    http://www.morst.govt.nz/current-work/vision-matauranga/what-is-maori-research/matauranga-maori/

    words are a blank cheque for whoever interprets them ~ and Maori words will, of course, be interpreted by Maori.” David Round
    -

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    I wonder how much I paid for this report that was 20 years in the making? Why am I continually funding maori? It seems to be all a one way street.

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

    Elaycee

    May I presume you are referring to the English version? We have got a long way from any strict construction based on the English text.

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

    hj

    Correct, mātauranga Māori is not locked in some pre-contact timewarp,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    mikenmild – “I don’t believe Maori have such a romantic notion. Such notions have tended to be imposed as European stereotypes, ‘noble savages’, etc. James Belich contrasts well the notion of the ‘green Maori’ and the ‘red Maori’ quite well.”

    It may be a european stereotype, but who was it that laid the WAI262 claim?

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

    Charlie

    I don’t think the claim is founded on stereotypes, it was laid by people who considered that Crown obligations to preserve and protect mātauranga Māori had not been met.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    The treaty (Maori version) only works if non Maori are prepared to hand control to the minority Maori. It reflects demographics in 1840 and immediate contingencies where the British are trying to establish a state while ships of colonists are on the water.

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

    hj

    That’s not my understanding. Treaty relationships do not depend on demographics, past or present. They depend upon our understanding of the reciprocal rights and obligations entered into in 1840.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    “What was entered into in 1840″.

    Exactly. And not some subsequent interpretation by the descendants of one of the signatories. In the original version, there was no guarantee of self governance, no guarantee of self determination, no guarantee of any privileged status.

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

    So I hear the news on the radio today is the report is saying all govt depts need to put Maori at the centre of their thinking.

    What the fuck does that mean?

    Do we all have to have a Maori sitting next to us advising us on how to type our documents so they express appropriate Maoritanga, or what?

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

    Elaycee

    There is not really any ‘original version’ that occupies some preeminent position. Treaties, constitutions, laws are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. See the US constitution for example.

    It has been well established in NEw Zealand that the treaty made guarantees of rangatiratanga. How that is implemented, now and in the future, is the sort of thing that the WAI 262 report drives us towards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    “… well established… that the treaty made guarantees of rangatiratanga”

    Bollocks. There is a Treaty that was signed by all parties. This can’t be denied – even by the apologists who try to rewrite history. Whilst some maori (Sykes et al) are pushing for separate development (with all costs borne by all New Zealanders), that was never guaranteed under the Treaty. Rather, Maori were guaranteed the same rights as for British subjects under the (British) Crown.

    You sure spout some crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    I hear the news on the radio today is the report is saying all govt depts need to put Maori at the centre of their thinking.

    Sure thing. It will be the fastest way to become an extremely violent third-world nation, like PNG.

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

    Elaycee

    Don’t you agree that rangatiratanga is mentioned in the treaty?

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

    Manolo

    Seems very unlikely. We are very lucky in NZ – one of the wealthiest, happiest and most peaceful countries in human history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. starboard (2,523 comments) says:

    Mike…who cares about ranga whatever..the treaty is irrelevant in this day and age. The sooner we dispose of it the better..we can then all move on. If maori dont like it, tough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    Jeez – your comprehension skills are not flash…

    In the signed version, there was no guarantee of self governance, no guarantee of self determination, no guarantee of any privileged status.

    Stop dog whistling.

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

    starboard

    That is indeed a fairly common point of view. I’m of the opinion that while there remains an identifiable group of people who believe that they were guaranteed certain rights under the treaty that we will continue to have these debates.

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

    I’m of the opinion that while there remains an identifiable group of people who believe that they were guaranteed certain rights under the treaty that we will continue to have these debates.

    Yes the fact they have that belief is quite evident, mm. However the question is: is that belief justified, or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    The WAI 262 claim is predicated on obligations to protect and preserve Maori culture. That is not the same as an assertion of superiority.

    That is not what I have seen, there seems to be a motivation to see all native species as strictly Maori property, and that idea is utter bullshit.

    This is potentially going to be very destructive to our indigenous flora and fauna if not dealt with appropriately.

    And the notion that Maori are somehow better stewards of these resources is utter unadulterated crap, where is the evidence?

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

    Elaycee

    Here are the three accepted version of article 2: English, Maori and English translation of the Maori.

    Article the Second
    Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

    Ko te Tuarua
    Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangtiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

    The second
    The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

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

    Shunda

    The claim, and the report do not appear to be about ownership perse. It is more about recognition, and protection, of Maori interests.

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

    reid

    It’s not a question of whether I believe it to be justified. If a sufficiently large group in a society hold particular views then those views will inevitably be a political issue. The whole tribunal process is extended political negotiations between groups with contrastnig views of rights and obligations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    We should not lose sight of the fact that this issue is not about IP protection or ‘ownership’ of flowers and fauna, but rather the strong desire by a few to maintain the supply of very regular, scoop size portions of cash from the gravy train owned by all New Zealanders.

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

    It’s not a question of whether I believe it to be justified.

    Yes it is, mm. It’s the whole question. For if we as a country don’t see the justice, what’s the point? There is, whether or not Maori believe it, a willingness to sit down and discuss and there has been for quite some time. It’s now at the point however, where what people are starting to hear, is some Maori are attempting to say: it’s not full and final and we want more and more.

    If this is allowed to happen and grow until it becomes a widely accepted national sentiment, it will completely negate the entire treaty process and no-one wants that to happen.

    I think the entire country quite honestly, would like a bit of Maori saying thank you for the recognition you have displayed that history and dead people treated us unjustly and we thank you both for recognising it and entering into the reconciliation process with great and open genuine good faith and we hope it will continue. In return we as Maori acknowledge this was all done to and by, people who are long since dead and since we are now all equal under the law and there is no official racism in any of our laws, we gratefully accept your settlement money and land as full and final. I haven’t ever heard Maori as a group say that. What I have heard and keep hearing is how awful it all is and how even today, Maori are oppressed and second-class citizens in their own land.

    When places like Victoria University Law School are required to accept 15% of Maori intake every single year regardless of their grades relative to the other 85%, and furthermore we taxpayers pick up all their fees as well so they don’t have to incur loans, when we do things like that, I expect some thanks and praise. Even if Maori don’t want to, cause their feelings are still hurt, I still expect it.

    The settlement process has got to a point where it’s pandering to every ill in Maoridom, and if Maori can’t take ownership of their own culpability for their social situation, that’s their problem, not the taxpayers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. hj (6,915 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    That’s not my understanding. Treaty relationships do not depend on demographics, past or present. They depend upon our understanding of the reciprocal rights and obligations entered into in 1840.
    …..
    I think that is the whole point about the treaty. It was made on the fly whiles ships of colonists were on the water and Maori were the dominant force, hence the chiefs wouldn’t have given up tino rangitiratanga (territorial control and authority). That’s why we have two versions and various interpretations. Suggesting that it interprets to some benign form is dreaming as it depends on what ever degree people who qualify as Maori are prepared to take it and where a final point is reached (and the sky tends to be the limit).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Paulus (2,607 comments) says:

    Is WAI 262 written in a language 98% of New Zealanders can read,
    or is it also in maori, interpretable by good maori lawers only to mean whatever they want it to mean ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    The Wai 262 report is written in english.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    On the other hand, checking one section, it contains creationist gibberish. And I see that ERMA’s big big problem is that it apparently has a science bias. Imagine that – a risk management agency basing their work on facts and the real world rather than on prescientific supernaturalistic belief system that is demonstrably false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    The really good thing about Waitangi Tribunal reports is that they bring to mind why the fuck we got rid of Indigenous People Shoots! :)

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

    checking one section, it contains creationist gibberish. And I see that ERMA’s big big problem is that it apparently has a science bias.

    Well that’s encouraging chiz. I wonder if mm has got to that bit yet?

    If that’s what it says, I’m also wondering why it took them twenty years to write it. I mean War and Peace probably didn’t take that long plus I think Tolstoy wrote it without income in a cold hut somewhere on the steppe so it didn’t cost the Russian taxpayer a whole hell of lot, either. So apparently, our War and Peace has cost a hell of a lot and it’s not even as good as the real War and Peace despite an army of lawyers and wise, wise nay great minds and twenty + years of thinking and deliberating and polishing and re-writing, I’m verging on becoming somewhat disappointed in the Tribunal’s deliberations…

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

    regarding the ‘creationist gibberish': that could be a reference to some of the introductory material, contrasting the ‘Kupe’s people with ‘Cook’s people’.

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

    A brief summary:

    Wai 262 concerns the place of mātauranga Māori in contemporary New Zealand law, and government policy and practice.

    Mātauranga Māori includes language, science and technology, laws, history, systems of property and value exchange, and rituals and ceremonies. It also includes forms of expression and art forms such as weaving, carving, tā moko, haka, whaikōrerero and so on. More fundamentally, it incorporates core Māori cultural values, including whanaungatanga, or kinship – the philosophy that explains the intimate relationships between iwi and hapū and the natural world. Another core value is that of kaitiakitanga, or cultural guardianship – the system of law through which iwi and hapū are obliged to nurture and care for taonga (treasured things).

    The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the right to govern and enact laws, but that right was qualified by the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (full authority) for iwi and hapū over their ‘taonga katoa’ (all their treasured things). The courts have characterised this exchange of rights and obligations as a partnership.

    In this context, tino rangatiratanga means that iwi and hapū are entitled to exercise authority over their mātauranga, and to exercise authority over their relationships with taonga such as cultural works and parts of the environment that are significant to their culture and identity, so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.

    WAI 262 makes recommendations for forms of partnership in many areas of Crown activity, including education, science, culture and heritage, conservation, resource management, indigenous flora and fauna, language, and patents.

    This does not seek to elevate Māori cultural interests inappropriately above the interests of other New Zealanders. In a modern, democratic New Zealand, the ‘full authority’ envisaged by the Treaty will no longer be possible in every case. But the framework does seek to ensure that Māori interests are at least at the table when decisions are made – so they can be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, rather than sidelined as they often are now.

    In the Tribunal’s view, partnership is urgently needed, not only because it reflects the constitutional promises made in the Treaty, but because New Zealand’s future depends on it. The path that ignores partnership leads to the growth of an ever-larger cohort of poor and underproductive working-age Māori, who are perceived, and know they are perceived, as a problems to be managed with a seemingly endless stream of taxpayer-funded programmes. This is the path of ongoing Māori anger and non-Māori resentment.

    The path that embraces partnership recognises and values Māori culture as one of New Zealand’s founding cultures. In so doing, it provides Maori with a positive platform from which they can address social issues and contribute to national prosperity; it moves the Crown-Māori relationship from one based on grievance and negativity to one based on mutual advantage; and it provides the basis for future in which all New Zealanders can look forward with optimism to a shared future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Everybody knows that the Tuhoi should own the hunting and fishing rights for the Paheka introduced Trout, Red Deer, Rusa, Sika, etc.etc.

    Fuck when are you honky cunts going to recognise the indigenous peoples rights? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    milkmilo forgot to mention that the text he has used is from the media release that chiz linked to at 4.11pm.

    I’ll repeat the link here: http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/news/media/wai262.asp

    Thanks chiz. :)

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

    But the framework does seek to ensure that Māori interests are at least at the table when decisions are made – so they can be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, rather than sidelined as they often are now.

    Thanks mm for that summary, it is appreciated and I realise it is only the overview, there is much much more underneath.

    My question is what everyone’s is I imagine: what does it mean? What does it mean to extend the consultation beyond what we already do. You may have noted I’m a supporter of Maori representation on local govt boards and this is because I recognise Maori do have a need to be consulted and that doesn’t in the main stem, as some people apparently think, from a desire for koha, but from a need to be invited to the table as tangata whenua and I completely understand that need. Thus I think Maori representation should be built into local body democracy. Beyond that however, I don’t know what this is suggesting and why.

    Is it suggesting for example that if an NZ company genetically engineers say a solar-cell from say a Tuatara gene and a Koru fern gene and comes up with free energy, that the company needs to pay Maori for that? If not, what is it saying, in terms of any usage of say moko, or whatever? What does it expect the taxpayer NZ govt to do for example, if say a rock star get’s a moko? What are we expected to do then? Take a case to the Hague?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Thank the Lord we have people on line who can interpret Jigaboo! :)

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

    reid

    I dson’t know. I’m not sure the report even attempts to get down to that level of detail. I think it is more making a case for improving and deepening the involvement of Maori in decision making in all areas that can affect Maori interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    Jigaboo to UN speak?

    Who do we have as a resource Helen?—- How about reid?

    He’ll do. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    @johnboy – Given your post of 5.50pm, you won’t be impressed to learn where the money paid for a trout licence in Lake Taupo goes then….

    :P

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

    I think it is more making a case for improving and deepening the involvement of Maori in decision making in all areas that can affect Maori interests.

    Yes it certainly sounds like it is mm. However, Maori sometimes conflate “Maori” interests with “human” interests and that’s my worry, really.

    Johnboy, I’d certainly serve at the UN. Why I’d be critiquing the UNDP no end. Asking why, precisely, was it doing such a very appalling job, by almost every measure. I’d be doing that a lot…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    Yes, more gravy-train money for the natives, so they can raise their kids to become law-abiding and peaceful citizens: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10736158

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Seems to me that this report just might be the new ‘Treaty’ in terms of ongoing grievences.

    There are some sensible outcomes – eg: ownership of flora and fauna – they were here long before maori arrived (actually lots more were here then – things like Moa and other birds went before others arrived)

    But as for the requirment for recognition of religious beliefs and incorporation of maori health systems i have some doubts about. Firstly are they serious? – if so then they are just up to the old tricks. There is no incorporation of any religious beliefs (yes there is incorporation of Christian beliefs – as the whole legal system comes from that origin and I certainly dont want to change to a muslim based legal system. But there are not religious – ie: which particular variety, incorporated)
    And maori health ideals – well maybe but that wont help cancer and diabeties and maori wont use the existing system to help them – so I think thats both a waste of time and a step backward into the realms of superstition.

    Hopefully the whole thing will be slowly cut into its parts and each bit carefully anaysed. I think the first step is that maori become New Zealanders – that might help.

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

    barry

    I think the report puts Maori religious beliefs and health traditions in the same category as other aspects of the culture: worthy of protection.

    I think you are right that the report will be addressed piecemeal. Some areas might find broad support and others pretty much complete rejection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    One of the more salient points was covered this morning when NewstalkZB’s Mike Hosking asked the Prime Minister “Was this report a waste of time and money?”

    After a long pause, Key responded along the lines that the course of time had overtaken many of the issues in this report and that it was a non-binding recommendation anyway. Exactly. This report took 20 years to see the light of day and is a total WOFTAM.

    It should be consigned to the scrapheap – along with the Waitangi Tribunal itself.

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

    Elaycee

    Nice to see you making a substantive contribution.

    I feel the report is very useful, especially as it takes such a constructive, forward-looking approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    milkmilomoron: DILLIGAF?

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

    Elaycee

    Does it look like I’m worried about more mindless abuse from you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Elaycee (4,372 comments) says:

    Well, you keep responding, moron.

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

    As do you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    milkenmild:regarding the ‘creationist gibberish’: that could be a reference to some of the introductory material, contrasting the ‘Kupe’s people with ‘Cook’s people’.

    No. I’m referring to bits like this from page 78:

    A number of claimants expressed abhorrence at the whole idea of transferring genetic material from a member of one species to another, whether or not that species is indigenous. They said this corrupted the whakapapa of those species and destroyed their mauri.

    This is nonsense. It looks a lot like the argument that you get in creationist circles where species are fixed and distinct from each other (and therefore can’t change, let alone evolve).

    Nature quite happily transfers DNA between species. Plant DNA has been found in marine molluscs, animal DNA has been found in bacteria, and two of the genes that help form the placenta in humans come from viruses that infected out primate ancestors. Nature would appear to have already ‘wh’ucked up our whakapapa and destroyed their mauri.

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

    chiz

    I’m quite happy to agree with that. Respect for a culture does not need to entail blind acceptance of any particular tradition. I’m sceptical of the relevance of Maori ‘science’ to modern-day research, but I’m happy to see traditions maintained where they do no harm.

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

    Hi

    Apologize all well meaning and democratic people , but ladies and gentleman , can we be that naive not to know what comes next regarding the latest Maori requests ???

    The whole Maori issue is a only a good business for the National party ( of which I am member ) or any other party which thinks that to get majority in Parliament is the most important thing in the world ( regardless of any moral and ethics) , for several lawyers , academics and judges as as well as for their bigle boys .

    Just follow the money and everything will be very clear to anyone . Of course all that is well camouflaged behind various rhetoric and principle . They are not stupid

    Why do I think that Don Brash would not sacrifice his moral and ethics just for the sake of having a majority in Parliament with the help of Maori party ? Maybe I am wrong but we shall not know unless we choose him to govern the next goverment . Don should only cut on the Maori grievances industry and , voila. the country saves a billion dollar a year

    And then we can negotiate our free trade agreements not before

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. chiz (1,133 comments) says:

    milkenmild:I’m sceptical of the relevance of Maori ‘science’ to modern-day research, but I’m happy to see traditions maintained where they do no harm.

    But thats just it. Some maori people object to genetic engineering because it is “unnatural” and corrupts their whakapapa. If they had their way a number of projects would be shut down. Why should we pay attention to their beliefs, as the report reccomends, when those beliefs are demonstrably false. The wai262 report seems like a recipe for cultural ossification.

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

    I’m not sure that will be a runner. I think it’s fine to take note of cultural sensitivities, to a point, but it seems doubtful that those kind of veto powers would ever make it out of the starting gate. I’m not sure that too many cultural beliefs can remain completely static in that way.

    Maybe I’m a bit naive. Did the royal commission on GE take account of the cultural arguments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Let’s face it, the members of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Tribunal itself – they are all vested interests. There is no chance of anything balanced coming out of it. Particularly as they are looking at the wrong version. Which is – the Littlewood Treaty.

    Sad to see that Ross Nixon’s post about the Littlewood Treaty got zero reaction out there.

    The Treaty of Waitangi, or what passes nowadays for the real thing (but isn’t) should be ripped up right now and all and any claims outstanding be declared null and void.
    For a great many reasons. Not least being that the Maori were most definitely *not* first on the soil that is now NZ. There were Moriori (not just “another tribe”), there were Waitaha (again, not just “another tribe”), and then there were also Celts. Evidence that the Celts existed, found in the Waipoua Forest, is locked up somewhere in Wellington, that other vested interest. But if you yourself were to try looking for evidence out there in the wilds of that Forest, then you’d better be on the lookout for some guys who will do their best to scare you off of your endeavours. And guess what, they’re Maori guys. Funny, that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    mikenmild, you’re quoting James Belich, but I think you need to be aware that he’s been discredited as a historian, since he makes things up. Historians aren’t supposed to do that. Read some reviews of his fiction on the amazon website.

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

    spiritfree

    I’d be quite happy to debate specific criticism of Belich’s work, if you like. His work is certainly not above criticism, but is firmly with mainstream opinions. At the other end of spectrum though, may I suggest that you look at some more works before repeating the discredited nonsense about Moriori, Waitaha and Celts? Try Howe’s ‘The Quest for Origins’.

    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.