The Waitangi Tribunal

July 12th, 2012 at 1:11 pm by David Farrar

My column is on the Waitangti Tribunal. An extract:

The Government knows that its policy to sell minority stakes in the power companies isn’t the most popular of policies. It is tolerated by most of their supporters, rather than beloved. The one thing which could turn that tolerance to opposition would be the Government doing a deal with Iwi to give them cheaper or even free shares in the power companies. They are keen for Iwi to invest in them (as Ngai Tahu has indicated they are keen to), but paying the same share price as “Mum and Dad” investors.

So the Government would have to say that they will not accept the findings of the . Any Government which retreated from the principle that no one owns the water (and the air) would face political oblivion at the next election.

This would then put huge pressure on the Maori Party. Would their members and activists want them to remain Ministers in a Government that ignored a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation? Their fear is that if they do not do something, then Mana would use the issue to try and win seats off them in 2014.

On this issue, can I recommend this excellent Q&A by Joshua Hitchcock on the Maori Council water claim.

Tags: , , ,

40 Responses to “The Waitangi Tribunal”

  1. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Interesting to read Joshua Hitchcock’s take on the strategy behind the claim and the Maori Council’s motives.

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

    The trouble with this claim (as it would be with air etc) is this : which water is one talking about?
    The water that was in the river on Feb 6 1840, or the water that was in the river on Jan 1 2012, or what.
    Water is always on the move. For some to say “I own the water” means that one has to have control over all water all over the earth.
    The water that falls on NZ today was evaporated from Australia a week ago. Its not like land or other im-moveable objects.

    And if one owns the water in the rivers and lakes then what happens if someone collects the water before it gets into the rivers and the lakes? who owns it before it gets to the rivers? and whose liable when the water in the rivers and the lakes decides to play up and invade surrounding lands and wash land and houses away?

    Its far more complicated than what first appears. The clarity of the western concept is that ownership carries with it rights and responsibilities. The clarity is that if you own it you can make money from it – but youre also liable for the item going a bit crazy and doing damage.

    Now I cant see anyone wanting to own water if it carries with it liabilities….. ie: the original western concept that no one owns the water and thus no one is liable for floods etc.

    There are lots in Unknown consequences in this little discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Joshua lost me when he said the legal position was “simple”. He exacerbated the problem when he said the government is selling only “a few shares”. Obviously not an unbiased commentator…which might explain the link from DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    @ross69 – ROFLMTO, perhaps you should do some research into Joshua Hitchcock, I think you’ll find if there is any bias it’s not the way you think.
    I suspect your ingrained bias means you can’t walk clockwise round a mountain without tipping over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Cunningham (845 comments) says:

    My concern is this will just create yet more disharmony and extend the grevience process for many more years. Next it will be airwaves. When will it end?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Here’s another excellent addition to issue, by Pita Sharples:

    Honouring our ancestors, leading with our hearts

    It is about an investment into building a better future for our next generation. It is also an investment into bridging relationships across Treaty partners. If there is anything that I hope that we can take away from this week, it is the knowledge that tangata whenua do have a deep connection with the taonga around us, that we do value the processes which allows us to grieve and to heal and, ultimately, that we are prepared to stand up for what sits in our heart.

    This helped me understand where Sharples (and other Maori) are coming from, and helped me understand where I fit in to. I don’t have the same feelings about culture or taonga, but I have come to realise I have stong feelings about water.

    And I agree that we need to work on “bridging relationships across Treaty partners”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    Fact in if the Horis can con their way to ‘owning” the water the next move will be’owning” the air. And that folks means you will be paying thru the nose (pun intended) to live.
    And thats just what many Horis want.
    Ever heard the saying “cunning as a Maori dog”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    barry barry you miss the point. The Horis want the BENEFITS of ‘owning the water However they will make the Gumint wear the liabilities.

    That what they are all about. Take Take Take

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. OneTrack (3,218 comments) says:

    When a stoneage culture meets the modern Western world of science and technology, who wins?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Let them own the water.

    Next time there’s a flood, sue their arses off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    lastmanstanding – ‘Horis’ and ‘Cunning as a Maori dog’
    OneTrack – ‘stone age culture’

    Just lovely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    mikenmild … which part of “Stone Age culture” is inaccurate?

    There’s a reason Maori loved greenstone, and hadn’t worked out how to make metals. They were a … Stone Age culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Um, they left the stone age some time ago. It is usually deployed as a term of abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    As you said yesterday, Mike… a racism-free kiwiblog is aiming a little too high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    basically Joshua Hitchpenis is saying is everything was owned by Maori and the Pakeha arrived and everything remains owned by Maori because of “tikanga”. Essentially it comes down to who says? and the Pakeha say:
    “nickers!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Who’s this Hitchcock fella anyway?

    And I recommend my comment to DPF’s column at the NZH.

    One recommendation deserves another!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wiseowl (928 comments) says:

    Owned because of ‘tikanga’.
    This is another one of those terms that can mean anything and everything and never gets challenged.
    As I said yesterday the understanding of the treaty is not settled and has been has been interpreted in many different ways.
    It has been made into something it is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    Here’s another excellent addition to issue, by Pita Sharples:

    “It is about an investment into building a better future for our next generation. It is also an investment into bridging relationships across Treaty partners. If there is anything that I hope that we can take away from this week, it is the knowledge that tangata whenua do have a deep connection with the taonga around us, that we do value the processes which allows us to grieve and to heal and, ultimately, that we are prepared to stand up for what sits in our heart.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    No it is all about not establishing bounderies. This is what happens when you make a treaty which isn’t clear to the principle people and wouldn’t be acceptable to the other party. Maori might be “tangata whenua” but non Maori are neither “tangata tirti”: or “tauiwi” (foreigners in this land) we are “New Zealanders” (the people who live on this land mass). So to the people who think we can make progress by accepting the view of “tangatawhenua” I say: “wank, wank, wank”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    Mikenmild

    Since the Waitangi Tribunal hear claims revolving around & resulting from the TOW signed in 1840 we are discussing the intentions of the Maori who signed it. They are, for the main part, up to speed with everyone else nowadays but in 1840 they were Stone Age.

    Only those of the thinnest skin, perhaps those who go through life full of regret for living, maybe those who think everything aboriginal is wonderful yet everything European is bad would suggest that offense could be taken & immediately shift into apology mode.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I say: “wank, wank, wank”.

    Indeed, HJ: exactly as conquerors would say.

    Do you have the imagination to put yourself in the shoes of the conquered?

    Thought not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    Under tikanga land was lost through battle and then you no longer were mana whenua. Under tikanga you could kill and eat whoever you wanted (if you could get away with it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I guess hj has never looked at European history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (14,030 comments) says:

    The Waitangi Tribunal is an anachronism. Just abolish the quango and ask iwi to move forward to the 21st century.

    About time the greedy buggers are forced to drop the victim facade and catch up with the rest of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wiseowl (928 comments) says:

    PG.
    I don’t think you have read any books on the treaty, the latest being The Great Divide.
    Have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    I have three main problems with treaty claims of this sort:

    (1)
    The Maori who were around 170 years ago were ripped off big time. But the Maori who are now receiving the compensation are NOT the victims of the crimes of the colonial era. And the taxpayers who are now paying compensation are NOT the perpetrators of the crimes. yet we continue to pay. It’s a nice scheme if you’re one of the Maori recipients. But it seems highly unfair to me, please explain?

    One of the standard responses to (1) is But Maori have been disadvantaged ever since, and that is the root of all social problems… To which I would say:

    (2)
    Oh utter bullshit. My English ancestors who arrived here 140 years ago didn’t have anything either. (They were penniless unskilled agricultural labourers from Warwickshire as I understand it.) They arrived here with NOTHING. Despite having NOTHING (and next to nothing to pass on) there’s no tradition of domestic violence, family dysfunction etc there.
    Maori making the post-colonial-trauma card need to own the fact that some Maori are just scumbags, as some Pakeha are just scumbags.
    I could blame post- savage frontier settler trauma for the actions of any Pakeha criminal in 2012, but I don’t. It’s so dishonest as to be actually ridiculous.

    Meanwhile, on a completely separate note:

    (3)
    Oh no it’s not about money, it’s never about money (and SHAME ON YOU for suggesting it is about money) but the rights asserted are always so selective. Water rights? I wonder if the local Iwi is interested in ownership rights to the water after it falls on my property as rain, but before it makes its way into a watercourse such as a stream or river?

    (Because if they do, then I think they might be liable for the damage THEIR WATER is doing to the framing around my laundry window. To whom do I address the invoice please, it’s Te Atiawa around most of Wellington isn’t it?)

    But I bet the Iwi does not want to talk about ownership OBLIGATIONS, just ownership RIGHTS…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (14,030 comments) says:

    It’s comforting to see RRM turning the right corner. Good on you for seeing the light.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Time to put this to bed.

    Referendum on…..TOW, Maori Seats and if it’s that bloody contentious, asset sales.

    If the fricken Swiss can do it,so can we.

    It’s called democracy, let’s have some for a change.And then implement the peoples expressed wish on that smacking nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen (3,985) Says:
    July 12th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
    I say: “wank, wank, wank”.

    Indeed, HJ: exactly as conquerors would say.

    Do you have the imagination to put yourself in the shoes of the conquered?
    ………………………..

    I imagine my ancestors were conquered at some stage but I live in the present and except the reality of life today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Furthermore the Iwi might like to think about contributing to the council’s costs in piping THE IWI’S WATER away from people’s backyards and the public roads?

    (After all, if I spilled a bottle of old engine oil or a bunch of dead car batteries all over the road, I’m sure the council would take an interest in finding out who I was and making me pay… )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    wiseowl – I haven’t read The Great Divide, what I’ve seen of it make me a bit dubious:

    That, contrary to the claims of the Waitangi Tribunal and modern Treaty scholarship, Maori at Waitangi realised they were surrendering ‘absolute sovereignty’ to the British and understood what it meant .

    Not surprising that some want to believe that. But…

    The scientifically-documented discovery of stone tools five metres underground, beneath ancient forests in the South Island and beneath volcanic lava flows in Auckland city, shows New Zealand may have been settled by humans between two thousand years ago and 14,000 years ago – overturning accepted modern theories about a 1280AD migration.

    Ah, yeah, right. I’d like to see some corroboration from an alternative source. Where can I see that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Don’t bother looking – there is, of course, no corroboration for such a ludicrous claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Paul Marsden (999 comments) says:

    Its these type of absurd notions by some Maori, that stirs the blood of others, against them. Unless the government (any government will do) bites the bullet and disestablishes anything and everything, that favours Maori in any way, this country is not going anywhere

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    When you consider that the Treaty was ‘signed’ by a ‘one’ group that did not have written language, while the other party had both written language and recorded laws, you can see why the Treaty will leak for years to come, maybe centuries. To this point it is not even clear who the signatories were representing, or on what authority, and to what ends, the Crown understood that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Warren Murray (313 comments) says:

    I thought some of what Joshua wrote v interesting, particularly about the motivation of the Maori Council and his criticism of their tactics to use this issue to disrupt the Government’s agenda. I had been thinking the same before I read his piece, there has been ample time for this claim to be lodged. Why not raise it when Contact Energy was established? If the action was grounded in principle, it was very badly timed. But the politics of it is pretty clever and I’m a little surprised that John Key has walked into what could become a serious rift between National and the Maori Party. I also wondered if Tariana had another fight in her or whether she might resign.

    I agree with Ganesh Nana, the controversary will create a climate of uncertainty and this will have an adverse impact on the value of the shares. Removing the uncertainty will also have a cost, but I wonder about the implications beyond the partial sale of the state owned companies.

    The motivation of those behind this action was laid bare when I heard someone demand money for the water during a TV report, clearly these people are not motivated by any principles, it’s just chaos and money.

    I do not agree with Joshua’s assertion that Maori own the water based on a Maori equivalent of english common law. The best that can be argued on this line is that Maori’s customary use of natural water resources has been interferred with or usurped, and this can only be brought when a local authority is considering the issuing or reissuing of a water right (either to take water, or discharge to water. The powers exercised by local authorities under the RMA are not those of owners and Maori have a special (some would say privileged) role to play as part of such processes. I would be interested to hear what evidence is brought to the Tribunal, alas I dont have the time to follow it except by media reports.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    Whatever is in books such as “The Great Divide” the public need to hear both sides given the preponderance of left-wing academics in “Aotearoa/New Zealand”. Wishart does quote a lot from actual participants at the treaty signing (as I understand it).
    I recommend this book by artist Augusts Earle
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11933/11933-h/11933-h.htm
    A NARRATIVE OF A NINE MONTHS’ RESIDENCE IN NEW ZEALAND
    IN 1827
    ………….

    A Maori professor working for Te Puni kokiri devised the notion of “the Maori Cultural Advantage” which seems to give gloss to ideas about stewardship, a “sacred duty” to look after guests and other reasons used to justify ownership of foreshore and seabed etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    John Key has been deliberately provocative in his comments that no one owns the water and also in that the government is not bound to any findings from the Waitangi Tribunal. His comments were directed at the marketplace to allay any fears that a claim for water from Maori may impact on the value of assets soon to be sold.
    John Key is also being disingenuous knowing that his comments would incite anti Maori rhetoric, which it has, and also for undermining the valuable role the Waitangi Tribunal performs in clarifying disputes between Maori authorities and the government of the day.
    In New Zealand post Treaty there are several unresolved issues such as proprietry rights over resources such as water and minerals that need to be researched and discussed, the Crown has for many years assumed sovereignty over those resources on the basis that the Treaty conferred those rights to the Crown automatically which is not the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    “which is not the case”
    ………..
    Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party: Kevin Hague
    2008年8月29日17:42

    You don’t have to look very deeply within the Green Party to see that one of the values that unites us all is an absolute commitment to integrity – both personal and collective. Every aspect of our processes, our policies and our behaviour as Greens testifies to a fundamental commitment to acting in ethical ways.

    The principles of the Green Party Charter are an embodiment of our collective commitment to values like honesty, fairness and respect for one another and for the planet.

    Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.

    We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.

    Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.

    The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.

    Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.

    This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.

    It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.

    Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.

    As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.

    Nineteenth century colonisation worked pretty well the same way the world over: a beach-head of traders and missionaries was established and stalling tactics like treaties used to negotiate a safe space for the colonisers while numerically fewer. The coloniser then increased military strength until it had superiority (sometimes misjudging this, or almost doing so, in fact), at which point the treaties could be set aside and power secured by force.

    In our determination to breathe life into our Charter’s commitment, guilt and hand-wringing are unhelpful. Our particular contribution must be a resolute determination to do what is right and our toolbox of Charter principles that equips us to step into a leadership in this new discussion. Now’s good.

    This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    One of jh’s themes has been dis-satisfaction with the Green Party for not being specific about the outcomes of our policy in relation to the Treaty. “What, specifically, will this country be like if we go down this course?”. It’s a question I have heard many times over the years, and it usually speaks from a position of fear and insecurity for Pakeha: what if I’ll be worse off? or even what if there’s no place for me?
    I want to acknowledge that actually we are asking people to do something (and we are doing it too) quite different from what we usually ask with our policy. Normally we have a very clear idea of the outcome we are seeking, and establish a policy to reflect how we will get there.
    But the Treaty is different. The words all have the potential to sound pretty hammy, but fundamentally the outcome being sought is a process: the process of absolute good faith negotiation, in which we Pakeha engage from a position of honour – acting ethically and morally.
    That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/05/03/my-speech-at-blackball-2010/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    “A willingness on the part of Pakeha leftists to be guided by the Maori nationalist advocates of tino rangatiratanga had by the mid-1980s become the litmus test of authentic revolutionary praxis. As proof of their commitment to the cause of the tangata whenua individuals and institutions were required to elevate Te Tiriti o Waitangi to the status of holy writ. In these matters, the Greens proved to be no exception.

    Commitment to the cause of tino rangatiratanga is, however, incompatible with a commitment to the fundamental principles of representative democracy. In pledging to uphold the rights of an indigenous minority, the Greens have rendered themselves incapable of upholding the right of an ethnically undifferentiated majority to pursue a course of action to which the indigenous minority is opposed.

    Consider the following Parliamentary speech from the Green List MP, Catherine Delahunty. Responding to criticism of legislation establishing Crown/Tainui “co-management” over the Waikato River, Delahunty declared:

    I was not going to take a call on the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, but sometimes the rhetoric around one is overwhelming. I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pakeha that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa. I stand as a Pakeha, proud to live with Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document, and absolutely committed to finding new ways through the colonisation effects of the past. Only people who do not understand what colonisation means would say that this is not a step forward, and that the co-management that is being proposed is not an incredibly positive model for Pakeha, for tangata Tiriti, for tauiwi katoa as well as for Maori.

    Had an Act MP publicly suggested that his party was moving beyond the “limited concept” that “one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa” it would have been headline news. Act – unlike the Greens – is taken seriously by journalists, and so are the statements of its representatives.”
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    tauiwi katoa=
    all the foreign New Zealanders (born here or not).
    Cheers!

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