Guest Post: David Garrett on full and final settlement

June 11th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

A guest post by former ACT MP :

Why Maori grievance settlements are not “full and final” –  and how  they could be.

From  the time of  its election in 2008 this government has done one thing consistently – pay out large sums of taxpayers’ money to supposedly achieve “full and final” settlements of a plethora of Maori grievances. Almost every week the galleries of Parliament are filled by one group of Maori or another who proceed to sing beautifully as the Bill settling “their” grievance, supposedly once and for all,   is passed into law. But that won’t in fact  be the end of it, and all the players know it.

First some history.  In the 1940’s the Labour government of the day made real and genuine efforts to settle Maori grievances which had been festering for years – and they had been, despite the claims of some on the right that “grievance” is very recent  phenomenon.  To take just one example, it is quite true that since their land was confiscated after the Land Wars of the 1860’s, Tainui had been bitterly protesting what they claimed was unjust and unlawful  confiscations of land. And they were right.

Back in 1926, the government of the day set up the Sim Commission – chaired by a [then]  Supreme Court Judge –   to investigate   claims of unjust land confiscations in the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Taranaki. Its report was released in 1927, and recommended  compensation of about $500,000 per annum in today’s money be made. For twenty years, nothing happened, and the grievances festered through another generation.

Then came the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act of 1946, which gave force to an agreement reached personally between Prime Minister Peter Fraser and Princess Te Puea. In his biography “Te Puea”, Michael King describes the settlement negotiations, and in particular the final session, at which Fraser agreed to pay 5000 pounds (a million dollars today) per year for ever, and an additional 1000 pounds per year for 45 years, commencing in 1947. Similar Acts were passed around the same time “settling” the claims by Taranaki iwi and Ngai Tahu. All of those settling Acts were overturned less than 50 years later.

It is now claimed that: 1) the settlements were negotiated with the wrong people; and/or 2) they were for trifling sums; and/or  3) the sums were eroded by inflation. As to the first, it didn’t get any higher than the PM on one side, and the most respected Maori leader of her day on the other. As to the “trifling sums” claim, that is clearly nonsense.  It is certainly true that 6000 pounds in 1946 was not worth anything like the same amount thirty or forty  years later because of inflation. But anyone who retired on a fixed income before inflation became a phenomenon  had that problem. It simply wasn’t considered at the time.

Fast forward into the 90’s, and the Tainui  and other iwi convinced the government of the day  that the “settlements” of 50 years earlier weren’t settlements at all;  the whole issue was revisited, and millions of taxpayer dollars were paid. Again, the new settlements were given force in legislation – the laws passed in the 1940’s simply being repealed because they were no longer convenient.

But we did not learn the lessons of the 1940’s, and we still haven’t. Those prior settlements could simply be written out of existence because the laws which gave force to them were not entrenched; they could be repealed by any government able to muster a simple majority, as any government can.

Now, twenty years on from the settlements of the 90’s, were are still “settling” grievances, and still passing laws which can be repealed when the next generation decides to have a crack.  The Attorney General claimed on National Radio recently that the current settlements will not  be revisted,  yet again, in 40 years time. In making that claim, he is at best being disingenuous.

 Firstly neither he nor anyone else knows what will happen in 40 years – the more honest Maori leaders are now admitting that no generation can bind the next. Secondly, Finlayson is well aware that the legislation he  sponsors now  is no more legally durable than that passed 50 years ago – these most recent laws can also be repealed by any future  government with a simply majority.

 There is at least a possible solution – entrenching  the laws being passed with gay abandon so  they cannot be repealed without a “supermajority” of – say – 75% of MP’s in favour. Or if we really want to be serious,  unless there is a popular referendum with a similar majority.   While legal academic opinion is divided on just how effective such entrenchment attempts  would be, it would at least be a signal that this government was serious; that the settlements of the last 20 years were intended to be full and final, that this was accepted by the grievants, and that any attempt to reopen the can of worms would simply be a venal attempt to get more money.

 Why hasn’t this government entrenched its “settling” Bills? There are various answers, none of them complimentary.  Finlayson and his ilk simply cannot argue, when we go down this path again,   that everything was done at the time to finally close the books. Until that is done – as well as our constitutional arrangements allows – none  of the settlements now being made can be considered “full and final”.  And the Attorney General knows it.

I agree with David Garrett that you can not guarantee what people may try to do in 50 years.  You can’t pass a law banning people from advocating something. However there are a number of reasons why I think the current settlements will be durable, which I’ll do a separate post on at some stage.

79 Responses to “Guest Post: David Garrett on full and final settlement”

  1. Nigel Kearney (1,994 comments) says:

    I don’t understand why a future government needs to repeal anything if they want to hand out more money. The legal basis for the current settlements is a fiction created to allow the government to do something it wants to do for other reasons. Anyway, historical grievances are small potatoes. The big issue is ongoing special treatment and separatism using the treaty as a justification. The government has shown no interest in doing anything about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    .. cue anti-Maori invective in 3 – 2 – 1…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kleva Kiwi (415 comments) says:

    The grievance industry will continue for as long as kiwi’s continue to have an “us or them” view of New Zealand.

    The only way to settle past grievances is to put money into proper integration of the population so that we all can just get along. The past is the past and nobody present here can say otherwise. A start would be removal of Maori electoral roll and Maori seats in parliament. All citizens in New Zealand have equal say in our country.

    There is room in New Zealand to recognise past injustices and to move on to have one society. This cannot happen when you have protagonists like Hone Harawira and racially based political organisations like the Maori Party/Maori Seats.

    We are all of the same ilk people. Get over yourselves and stop encouraging the protagonists…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chuck Bird (6,602 comments) says:

    I think the issue is much bigger than treaty settlements. New Zealand is almost unique in the developed world. Democracy lasts for one day every three years. The rest of the time a one vote majority can pass any law.

    I went to an interesting talk by David Round on these issues and how things like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be part of a constitution.

    The most worrying thing is that New Zealand can adopt a constitution and it does not even have to be ratified by a referendum even only requiring a simple majority.

    It looks like John Key might like the taste of dead rats.
    I bet Winston Peters would opposed such a constitution forced on a population by such undemocratic means.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Lloyd: We are all still waiting with bated breath for your learned disquisition on “history”, and why those criticising the validity of the Tuhoe “settlement” are wrong. (See yesterday’s post on that subject, and the invitation to you to put up or shut up)

    Go for it my son – the floor is yours. DPF vary rarely censors anything.

    DPF: I will read with interest your post explaining why you think these particular settlements will endure any more than earlier ones. While you are at it, perhaps you could give your view on why Finlayson has not attempted to entrench the most recent “settling” laws. This is the golden opportunity to do so, not just because of the failed settlements enshrined in legislation in the past, but because these recent ones contain long rambling “agreed” accounts of who did what to whom, and when and why. What better opportunity to include an acknowledgement from the claimants that this IS the end of the gravy train, and entrench the legislation? None of that will make it impossible to re-open them again, but it would make it a damn sight more difficult.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. WineOh (1,063 comments) says:

    There are no Maori alive today who were around in the 1860’s, we are 5 generations down the track now. None of my family were in NZ at that time either so it irks me that I am paying money for something that has little benefit to me, to people who were not directly impacted. Few if any of my Maori acquaintances or friends have been on the receiving end of any treaty settlement, so one wonders where all the cash goes.

    Yes there were genuine grievances, and nice to see that the government is making a genuine effort to settle these but surely it must end somewhere. As Kleva Kiwi says above, there must be a day where we see ourselves as Kiwis rather than Tainui or Tuhoe or whitey.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    drag nz down
    crime and dysfunctional socal relationships
    this is due to culture
    a rotten culture based on tribal relationships allows maori to perceive society as something they can pray on as its not their tribe they are infecting crime and violence on.
    Far better to remove the tribal influences on maori culture so they feel a part of nz not just maori.
    Their culture is holding them back from membership of society. The settlement of grievances is making them less not more civilized.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (22,081 comments) says:

    Well said, D.G.

    Thank you for exposing Iwi greed and the gullibility/duplicity of Key’s Labour Lite government (trait shared by its socialist predecessor.)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. All_on_Red (3,538 comments) says:

    A new political party is being formed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (12,583 comments) says:

    Just give the Maori the shirt off your back DG.

    You know they deserve it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (5,020 comments) says:

    The maori have been getting privileges and government payouts as long as I can remember and they are getting more if anything.

    The next maori wet dream is for NZ to dump the queen and adopt a consitution under which the ‘principles of the treaty of waitangi’ will be used to extract further power and wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (22,081 comments) says:

    They can take Aotearoa back to the Third World, just leave New Zealand to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    RRM: Actually I see myself as very much a moderate in this debate. As my post (I hope) makes clear, there were undoubted wrongs done to various iwi way back when, and those needed settling. It should not have taken 20 years for the findings of the Sim Commission – which were damning against the “Crown” as the entity responsible then was, to be put into effect.

    Back in my former life, I was in a minority of one among my oil rigger mates in supporting Eva Rickard’s claim over the Raglan golf course. That is was not returned without huge protest was an outrage.

    But we have now gone far to far in passing cringing legislation which admits all manner or wrongs, pays handsomely for those wrongs – but makes no attempt to prevent the next generation from having another go. For obvious reasons, I am very circumscribed in what I can say, but my conclusions as to why entrenching clauses arent included in Finlayson’s various settling Acts are not flattering ones. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the political process and the law can draw the dots for themselves, I am sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Akaroa (1,333 comments) says:

    Thank you, David Garrett, for clearly setting out the background to Treaty Claims.

    As a comparatively new New Zealander back in 74, and anxious to learn all that i could of my new homeland, I set out to find out all I could about the Maori-Paheka cultural and social interface. Prominent in that was, of course, the question of the Treaty of Waitangi, its history and effectiveness.

    Incidentally, I should add that In this my exploration was helped by a reading list suggested by a Wellington neighbour, one Steve O’Regan – (now known more widely as ‘Tipene’ O’Regan).

    It seemed to me – coming from the UK and with a reasonable grasp of British Colonial history – that the Maori’s experience of British colonial settlement was no worse – and in many respects much better and profitable for them – than some colonial indigenous populations elsewhere – in Africa and parts of India for instance. But I had been brought up to believe that all colonial dependents had at least been treated fairly and could access British citizenship.

    So, after emigrating, and when the periodic generosity of the NZ Government in making – on my behalf and that of all NZ citizens and taxpayers – substantial financial grants to various Maori entities gained pace, I fully expected the matter to eventually reach closure. Everybody satisfied, ‘everybody’ being the aggrieved descendants of the original Maori occupants of NZ as well as those non-Maori NZers who felt a bit uncomfortable about colonisation.

    HJowever! (And there’s always a ‘however’, eh?) I’ve seen no visible improvement in the lot of the Maori people who I see on the bus/train and in the street. So I don’t know where all this largesse is going. And, more importantly – (MUCH more importantly) – how many times are claimants going to be allowed to come to the money-pot?

    Settling Maori claims – it seems to me at least – is like you buying something on the never-never, and, after the final payment is made and the car/house/or whatever is fully paid for – the supplier then coming to you and saying: “Ah no! You still have to carry on paying!”

    Come on people, is this cloud-cuckoo-land or what? When you’ve paid off an agreement then that’s it.

    What’s all this ‘You still owe us’ about?

    Just asking, is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    WineOh (152) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Your family may not have been here during the 1860’s however if they arrived since, then your family has benefited from the actions that saw Maori largely disenfranchised by being removed from their land and possession. This country was built on those actions, and therefore, like it or not, has to pay for them. However there are and should be limits, and I agree with Mr Garrett’s article.

    One of my great-grandfathers arrived here in 1849. From there he proceeded to amass a large amount of Maori land by targeting their vulnerabilities. He then set about destroying that land by using intensive farming methods he knew nothing about. In fact, he is mentioned in one of NZ’s first environmental books for his destructive methods. He went on to be a very successful business man, who has been attributed as one of the founders of our meat export industry. His family’s success is directly linked to his unscrupulous actions, but there is also an entire industry that benefited from those actions, and in turn, the country has benefited. As members of this country, you have also benefited, and now, like it or not, must pay the cost for that. Your ancestors, no matter when they arrived made you responsible, by staying here.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. WineOh (1,063 comments) says:

    So Judith, perhaps we should have a graduated tax system where your family pays a much higher tax rate to pay for the treaty settlements, seeing as you have disproportionately benefited, whereas mine get a discount?
    [edit, this is tongue in cheek, in the case that you don’t get my brand of humour]

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lilman (1,180 comments) says:

    In a perfect world things are sort once and for all.
    Unfortunately we dont live in that space,or ever have for that matter.I can live with compensation based on fact and seeing the use of compensation for the betterment of all New Zealand.
    What makes me vomit with disgust is when I see Maori Women and men chanting and stamping their feet and roaring with pride at their past and future journey to only hear a defining silence on abuse,drugs,thieft and other social ills that are hampering not only Maori but all of New Zealand.
    Leaders lead, but no leaders can be heard to say what needs to be said!!
    you and you only are to blame for you situation,not past deeds or future promises can be held up as an excuse.
    White and black communities are becoming more and more intertwined,good thing I feel as my Wife is Tanui and her family have many interracial unions which are fraught with all the good and bad we all know of.
    But dont blame anyone else for your short comings, as I say to my kids Never accept the fact that you cant change your situation ,own it and change it but dont dodge it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Judith: A very interesting potted history of your family’s dastardly deeds in the dim and distant. I suggest you wear a very large carved fish hook as part of your atonement.

    I don’t think the man is arguing that payment for wrongs done must be made; rather he is asking when that payment might be at an end..which is of course the subject of my post, and the issue you have completely failed to address.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Black with a Vengeance (2,196 comments) says:

    Which iwi haven’t yet settled and how many still have claims that need processing?

    Perhaps some sort of cut off date might be in order, if there isn’t already one.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Longknives (6,414 comments) says:

    Excellent post David- Very well written.
    Except I believe you are pissing into a very strong wind, and the horse has well and truly bolted.
    The gravy train rolls on and gains momentum with every smiling Chris Finlayson handout-To the extent that some Maori are now claiming to be guardians of the ‘Sun,Moon and the Stars’ (Get that cheque book ready NASA!).
    Not to mention they go unchallenged when they make laughable claims to the invention of everything from Rugby Union to Tattooing (Thank Christ no one outside NZ would listen to these loony tunes!)
    And if you think things are bad now- The shiny new Constitution will have some very,very nasty surprises for Non-Maori New Zealanders….

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. MT_Tinman (4,396 comments) says:

    What’s all this ‘You still owe us’ about?

    I can answer that.

    It’s about taking advantage of a pathetic few. The pathetic few who, unfortunately, represent the NZ taxpayer

    I don’t blame Maori (or pretend Maori as most of them are). It’s not even greed but simple opportunism.

    Who among us would not continue to go back for more as long as you know that more will be forthcoming?

    The NZ taxpayer representatives are, literally, the gift that keeps on giving and until NZ elects representatives who have learnt to say “NO!” this situation will continue.

    Your views are well put and appreciated Mr Garrett, unfortunately you failed to make this conclusion.

    Until NZers elect and support people who can do the job we require instead of those who have not lived life, those who will run away when faced with completely irrelevant prior peccadilloes or those who can’t handle revelations about where they’re putting their dicks Maori and anyone else who think they can will happily come back for more.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Judith (2,701) Says:

    Your family may not have been here during the 1860′s however if they arrived since, then your family has benefited from the actions that saw Maori largely disenfranchised by being removed from their land and possession. This country was built on those actions, and therefore, like it or not, has to pay for them. However there are and should be limits, and I agree with Mr Garrett’s article.

    One way to look at it is that Europeans brought food species and increased the carrying capacity through farming. Maori spirituality (coincidentally) strengthens a connection with what we may claim as “wasteland”… Their religious beliefs always seemed to be a bit flexible as they don’t appear to care about conquered peoples spiritual connection with the whenua.

    I think you could agree to Maori ownership of particular areas at time of colonisation, but what they claim is a wider territorial area and so you get Willy Jackson talking $B’s for Ngai Tahu as previous owners of the whole South Island.

    Dr Eliabeth Rata had a good point about claims of aboriginal title being a call to antiquity (Back in the past *similar* situations were chewed over by the wise, given the test of time… etc, etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Tariana Turia : Tribes Treaty Claims 1.5% of what was taken. Settlements can’t be full and final.

    Nati apa Treaty Claims. Our young people have taken that settlement through and because I have particular views about settlements I’ve had to remain [“ “] or I’ll put our young people off. But they have worked constructively with our government and they’ve got about

    1.5% of what was taken. TT says “no government cant expect people settlements to be full and final if justice isn’t served.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    You can see in this discussion why the player “Maori” needs to admit Pakeha into the team, hence yesterdays discussion where Meteria (Bone in Nose) Turie chastises the interviewer for asking Hekia P for asking “how Maori are you”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Underlying Maori (ancestry) claims are the treaty (tino rangitiratanga) and aboriginal title. It is a shame the media couldn’t cut the crap rather than let them hide behind the language.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Chuck Bird (6,602 comments) says:

    David, you talk about entrenching legislation. Have you any examples? Would it be impossible for a future overturn it with a simple majority?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. nickb (3,765 comments) says:

    Thanks David Garrett for this interesting (but not wholly surprising) post.

    I still do not adequately understand why I have to indirectly fund payouts (which inevitably gravitate towards the hands of lawyers, consultants, and iwi elite instead of ordinary Maori) when I was not born in the 1800s, and when my ancestors did not even live in New Zealand.

    I presume it is something to do with the fact that most people who propagate welfarism and other left wing ideas like “compensation” seem to think that the government’s money sits in a pot of gold under the rainbow greedily guarded by John Key, rather than being extorted off the backs of ordinary New Zealanders.

    National. Outflanking Labour on the left since 1936.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,908) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 11:43 am

    It was pointless addressing further David – as I said, I agree with what you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Jack5 (9,314 comments) says:

    Judith (11.19 post) rubbishes her great grandfather for his farming techniques, with the implication that European settlers destroyed the environment. They weren’t alone in changing the environment, Judith. New Zealand was inevitably going to be changed by the arrival of human beings. The European settlers came later. They didn’t wipe out the moa or the NZ eagle, Judith, nor were they were responsible for the massive bush fires that raged before they arrived. They are, however, responsible for creating the arable land that provides the country with a First World standard of living.

    Judith says further:

    ….Your ancestors, no matter when they arrived made you responsible, by staying here…

    The corollary is that Judith must judge today’s Maori to be responsible for the cannibalism and slavery that was the standard in pre-European days and Taranaki Maori to be responsible for the genocide of Moriori in the Chatham Islands 160 years ago. What a load of bullshit, Judith.

    IMHO, Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson is similar to Judith. A self-confessed (gay) celibate, he is flailing the back of the whole of New Zealand in penance for the imagined sins of white ancestors.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    WineOh (153) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Well yes, but then you see we could open it up to all sorts of ‘paper rip-off’ fees. Finders fee, invention, depreciation, emotional harm etc. I’m sure there’s a way we could cook the books to ensure you keep paying! 😛

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. KapitiCoast (114 comments) says:

    Tis why you never pay a blackmailer (No not saying Maori claims are blackmail per se), initial payment is agreed payment for silence with a blackmailer, in Maori cases it’s for past grievence and signed off as ‘agreement’ with both parties are happy with the settlement….but when the blackmailer spends/fritters away the 1st installment (sorry the final, one and only installment it’s believed at the time)…they come back for more knowing when that payment is again frittered away there is more where that came from….I see no difference between past claims being signed off and paid and a blackmailer, only difference is Maori take longer to come back and ask for more (a generation usually, when the elders that negotiated the initial claim have passed on….rinse and repeat)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,056) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Well you see Jack, that is why I find it a little bit funny, because my great-grandfather, (and I am proud of him for what he achieved within his context), did destroy the ecology of that particular area by attempting to make ‘arable’ land. Instead he overstocked the land, wiped out various variety of natural feed that existed, and then when news of the Te Kooti scare reached his workers, they left the lot to go wild, causing even more damage to almost an entire range, which according to the environmentalists, has never recovered. So in this particular instance – which I realise is probably reasonably unique, the land would have been better left as it was.

    I am fully aware that change was inevitable, and that in a vast majority of cases for over a hundred years, what the settlers bought with them, has been beneficial to this country and acknowledge that Maori also caused damage. However, the evidence is not looking too good in recent years so I will reserve my opinion about our on-going capacity to ‘claim’ our current lifestyle is not also doing damage to the wild-life and the ecological system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. WineOh (1,063 comments) says:

    Judith, to prevent any spurious finders fees or lawyers, suggest that we avoid all that by just starting an AP from your bank account to mine, say $1,000 per month should cover all my hidden emotional distress.

    However, this should not be considered full & final settlement, as 20 years down the track I may find that I was more offended than I thought (because someone else got paid more than me).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Chuck: You ask if there are any examples of entrenched legislation in New Zealand. I know there are some, or at least parts of some Acts are entrenched, but on a quick scan of the likely ones (the Electoral Act; the Constitution Act) I cannot find which provisions of those Acts – or others – are entrenched. Graeme E is probably the authority on this, or perhaps the Professor will deign to share his knowledge. Sadly I have a living to make, so can’t spend more time looking.

    Whether there is or is not such legislation is irrelevant however: parliament is sovereign, and can make such legislation as it wishes, containing whatever provisions regarding subsequent repeal or amendment it wishes.

    An example of an entrenching provision would be:

    (X) Neither this Act nor any section of it, may be repealed or amended unless there is a majority of 75% of members voting in favour of such repeal or amendment.

    A double entrenching would include a provision which required, in addition to an amendment or repeal supported by 75% of Members of Parliament, a referendum on the question as to whether any such amendment or repeal should be ratified. As I said in the post, legal academia is divided on the effectiveness of such provisions, but to include them would be to send a clear signal to future parliaments that this or that peice of legislation was passed on the understanding that those who benefited from it accepted that they would not be permitted to come back to the trough for another go, and their descendants ought not to either.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    WineOh: You may be on to something! Apparently my ancestors were quite substantial landowners in the BOP until Grandfather Arthur Garrett had his land confiscated – by the BNZ – during the depression. Being a man of little education, I feel certain he wouldnt have understood all those mortgage documents, replete with archaic legalisms, which purported to give them the authority to take the land.

    But being a generous sort of cove, I am prepared to accept – say – $20,000 a year for the next 50 years in full and final settlement of any and all claims which either I or my children, or their childrens children, may have against the BNZ for the shameful way they treated old Arthur. I’ll even put a clause in my will precluding any of my descendants suing for compensation.

    ( I have tried camping at the gate of the land, but the present owners didn’t like that much and called the Police. Funnily enough, they backed the current owner…)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (6,602 comments) says:

    Thanks David. I have asked David Round whose talk I attended yesterday. Your answer seems to make sense. Such legislation would not be 100% binding but a party that ignored would pay the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. OTGO (729 comments) says:

    What nobody seems to mention is that the Maori are all about what the Crown “took” from them. Well how about some recognition of what the Crown “gave” to them. Things like a written language for example which in my opinion was priceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Komata (1,769 comments) says:

    It’s an odd thing, although several here have already alluded to it, but does anyone actually KNOW where the ‘settlement’ monies go?

    It would seem that no-one is actually asking the question, but merely ‘coughing-up’ when it runs out, and when pressed, those who do dare ask are told ‘it’s just the maori way’ (to ‘fritter-away’ the money) and are given the ‘suggestion’ that to enquire further woud not be wise. Evidently good accounting is seen as being a European -trait and should therfore be studiously avoided.

    Seriously though, IF there are substantial monies changing hands (and there are as we know), why is it that it doesn’t seem to sink down to those who really need it; the maori who are at the bottom of the heap – those who put out their hands with monotonous regularity every week to WINZ?

    Surely the object should be to help EVERY tribal member to get up and off and to get them off welfare, yet this is not happening, yet noticably (Curiously) there are members of the ‘ruling classes’ who now have very late model cars, new homes, and frequently travel overseas. Very odd indeed, and would seem to indicate that, despite all the ‘golden words’ the money is merely floating on the surface……..

    No doubt BWAV, with his ‘insight’ into ‘the maori way’ despite not being one of the ‘favoured few’ can enlighten us?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Colville (3,126 comments) says:

    There would be a few BMW dealerships do it hard if the settlements gravy train derailed!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Graeme2 (107 comments) says:

    “What nobody seems to mention is that the Maori are all about what the Crown “took” from them. Well how about some recognition of what the Crown “gave” to them. Things like a written language for example which in my opinion was priceless.”

    The list of what they received is very long but as you say it never gets mentioned. Probably the top of that list is law and order.
    During the 30 years or so prior to the treaty being signed civil war between the various tribes wiped out 40 to 50,000 out of a population estimated at 100-120,000. Whilst there may have been some issues following the treaty without it Maori who knows where they would have ended up. Also what is often overlooked is that a very large number of tribal Maori were either slaves or second class citizens. Tell me that the descendants of these people are worse off as a result of colonisation. They weren’t all
    chiefs as they would now have us believe!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Komata: good point. with regard to the million dollars or so a year that were paid to various iwi under the Settlement Acts of the 1940’s, those Acts also set up various Maori Trust Boards which received and administered the money.

    The Tainui case provides an interesting example of competing interests within “Maoridom”. When it became clear Peter Fraser was going to agree to make annual payments by way of settlement, there was much debate about what the money would be used for. One faction within Tainui wanted the money to go into a dedicated fund which could only be used for two purposes: purchase farms in the tribal rohe when they came up for sale, and to provide scholarships for young Tainui to attend university. That faction was overruled by …wait for it…the Mahuta family, then as now, the Tainui elite.

    So God knows what actually happened to the money. Interestingly, Michael King notes in his work on Te Puea that the settlement included a couple of Packard limos, and 500 pounds ($100,000 odd today) to King Koroki “for his personal use.” Again, ‘plus ca change, plus ca meme chose’ and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    The translation of Rangatira sic is suspect
    some early accounts give it as meaning citizens as in
    not a slave
    using that translation changes the treaty no end.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    What’s happened to “Lloyd”? He’s come in here two days running on matters Maori, muttered about racism, and then buggered off, despite being asked a couple of specific questions, and to contribute his knowledge..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Komata (1,769 comments) says:



    The ‘Mahuta’s’ are an interesting lot aren’t they? The fact that one of their number is currently a Labour MP is of course ‘accidental’ and I’m sure she got ther entirely on her merit…

    Given th actions of the ‘erlier’ Mahuta clan vis-a-vis ‘eductiona and scholarships’, IMHO it is aways seemed somewhat unusual that her father (?) Sir Robert Mahuta’s had as a ‘pet project’, a ‘Maori’ (more probably Tainui) university on the site of the old Hopa Hopa Army camp near Taupiri. This apparently had vast sums of the ‘folding stuff’ thrown at it (by both Govt and from the 1990’s settlement) yet it never eventuated, and if enquiries were made concerning the funding, things became ‘a little bit testy’ – especially if the enquirer was European. The ‘Uni’ of course, quietly subsided on the death of Sir Robert; no doubt the funds were used for other ‘more profitable’ things, such as…….

    No journalist has, of course, asked the obvious questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Just heard on The Panel that there was no child abuse in Maori society prior to colonistaion (Neville Robertson):

    “I had not rambled far before I witnessed a scene which forcibly reminded me of the savage country in which I then was, and the great alteration of character and customs a few days’ sail will make. The sight to me so appalling was that of the remains of a human body which had been roasted, and a number of hogs and dogs were snarling and feasting upon it! I was more shocked than surprised, for I had been informed of the character of the New Zealanders long before my arrival amongst them; still, the coming suddenly and unexpectedly upon a sight like this completely sickened me of rambling, at least for that day, and I hastened back to Mr. Butler’s, eager to inquire into the particulars of the horrid catastrophe.

    That gentleman informed me that the night of the arrival of our ship, a chief had set one of his kookies (or slaves) to watch a piece of ground planted with the kumara, or sweet potato, in order to prevent the hogs committing depredations upon it. The poor lad, delighted with the appearance of our vessel, was more intent upon observing her come to an anchor than upon guarding his master’s property, and suffered the hogs to ramble into the plantation, where they soon made dreadful havoc. In the midst of this trespass and neglect of orders his master arrived. The result was certain; he instantly killed the unfortunate boy with a blow on the head from his stone hatchet, then ordered a fire to be made, and the body to be dragged to it, where it was roasted and consumed.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Graeme2 (107 comments) says:

    HJ Yes they are much worse off now of course. Some of them actually have had to go to school without breakfast.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    hj: No no, you have been taken in by racist pakeha propaganda….the unfortunate thing for that argument is that there are numerous accounts like that, written at different pre colonial times, by people who had no connection with, or knowledge of, each other…As the saying goes, life for the pre-colonial Maori was nasty, brutish, and short, and had very little to do with waiata, stick games and poi dances.

    But none of that is to deny that a lot of shonky dealings went on between coloniser and colonised in the times after contact between the races: but I have never argued otherwise. The question now is “have we, and are we going to, fully and finally settle all this?” and despite Finlayson’s….statements ….to the contrary, the answer to that question is clearly “NO, and we are never going to, until some political party cries ‘enough of this shit’ and makes laws that cant be overturned next year or the year after that. “

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (6,602 comments) says:

    hj, while I think it does not help our cause be referring to cannibalism in respond to a moron with the title Dr.
    Did you know Robertson is part of the Glenn inquiry on child abuse. I cannot see why Sir Owen Glenn is happy to pay this clown who thinks nearly all domestic violence is initiated by men.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    They killed kids if the need arose
    no food kill the kids
    invaded by a neighboring tribe kids slow your escape easy fixed. infanticide was part of the culture.
    they tattoo slaves including kids for the trade in heads. We now pay for them to get these heads back. All sorts of huha around slave heads the ancestors butcherd for sale.

    fs some of the crap spurted about maori pre contact is drivel they lived in fortified villages because the life was so peaceful. All ahora and warmd fuzzys. Another is cannibalism was symbolic eating of warrior to consum mana .
    In my extensive reading of early literature this is not mentioned as the reson for eating people. Its a modern justification of an abhorrent culture practise.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Lloyd eh…another one who comes in, throws a damp squib, and then runs off….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    The arguments of multiple ‘settlements’ uses a small sample because they are in fact rare. No doubt DG has the percentage which I would estimate at less than 5%. He also makes no mention of iwi that have not settled and makes this argument shortly after Tuhoe signed a settlement, not a second or third but a first settlement. Those may not be the major problems however, because the BORA must surely withstand what appears would be discriminatory legislation. What it could do however is generate hundreds of millions of dollars of litigation, something which apart from some criticism here, is being currently avoided.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Why dont you just f…k off, consult the standard table of drops, and do the right thing…for once in your miserable benighted life…

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (23,688 comments) says:

    That’s just sad DG. Nostalgia made some debatable points, which didn’t deserve that response.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Do you know who he is? I paid a price for what I did 30 years ago…he should pay a much bigger one…DPF lets him comment here…ultimately he chooses whose comment(s) stay…Others are intimidated by the prick – “Nostalgia” not DPF -..I am not one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    So we see again why Garrett isn’t in Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Yeah, you’re a brave boy…hiding behind DPF’s skirts…I am not allowed to name you if I want to stay here, but by God I am not going to be intimidated by you, you prick…It would be an exaggeration to say that everytime I represent a murder victim I think of you…but it sure does happen…you are out here, anonymously commenting on a blog….they live with the consequences of people like you, every day of their damaged lives….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Well, that must support your flawed argument David. Grow up old son.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Graeme2 (107 comments) says:

    Actually Nostalgia whoever you are this was in fact the third settlement that Tuhoe have received.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    You can tell me to grow up you prick….Margaret B never got the chance to do that…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (6,435 comments) says:

    Thus so falls over your ‘argument.’
    I suppose you expected great things from not making any sense. But of course you’ve shown how to defend the great gaps, well, sort of.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Longknives (6,414 comments) says:

    “Do you know who he is? I paid a price for what I did 30 years ago…he should pay a much bigger one…”
    “Everytime I represent a murder victim I think of you ”

    Well I for one am intrigued!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. frankdb (150 comments) says:

    Baby, dummy, spit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (7,553 comments) says:

    Dave Garrett#

    Well researched and written David, anyway I got this of the Waitangi Tribunal website:

    “……The Principles of the Treaty

    Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as it is embodied in the two texts (Māori and English) and to decide issues raised by the difference between them.

    The term ‘Waitangi Tribunal’ is used to refer both to the total membership and to the individual Tribunals that inquire into claims by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty. It is through its reports that the Tribunal provides its account of the Treaty principles.

    In the appendix to the Rangahaua Whanui National Overview report, Dr Janine Hayward discussed the emergence of four reconciling Treaty principles, namely the principle of active protection, the tribal right to self-regulation, the right of redress for past breaches, and the duty to consult. The recognition and adherence to these principles ensure the ‘active protection’ of Māori language and culture. …..”

    So why don’t you just put the Tribunal on the spot publicly and ask them if they are full, fair & final?

    It is protocol – and it’s their job.

    And besides, if they say anything other than ‘no’, then Finlayson and National have a fucken lot of explaining to do!

    BTW: 😎

    Maori weren’t hunted down and shot dead to exterminate them from their land – unlike the ones in Tasmania.

    Maori weren’t ever legally classified as ‘native fauna’ and so denied the vote till the 1970’s. Unlike the ones in all of Aust. How long have Maori had the vote for now?

    Maori had ‘settlements’ as early as the 1940’s, where the ones in Aust haven’t yet started talking of one single fucken dollar – let alone recieve one dollar! [other than the Mabo land deal in the ’90’s]

    Maori have been treated pretty fucken well by successive NZ governments and by the general public in anyone’s books – legal or otherwise. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,919) Says:
    June 11th, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Still up to the same ol’ eh Garrett?

    You paid the price, and so did he. As you have demonstrated above, and in many other threads, he continues to pay the price, and yet when anyone reminds you of your crimes (note the plural) you spit the dummy and get all obnoxious, coming up with the ‘his crime was worse than my crime’, as if it is some excuse for your own three lapses of legit behaviour, the last of which was not decades ago, but just a couple of years.

    What would have happened if the person you assaulted had fallen, hit their head and died – or when driving drunk, you had hit another car, and killed someone – that would have made you a killer – as they say, “but for the grace of god go thee.

    We’ve had this argument before but I’ll repeat it. The difference between you two, is one has demonstrated remorse for their actions, served their time, and made every attempt to turn their lives around and make it into something honest, good and worthwhile – constantly giving to others and making amends for the stupid mistakes they made as young person. You on the other hand under-estimate the seriousness of your crimes, think that you’ve been hard done by, because they were ‘found out’.

    One of you is a supercilious prick that is at high risk of re-offending – the other is not.

    It is extremely sad that when people disagree with you, rather than sustain a discussion, instead you have to attack them, their careers and anything personal you can find out about them – “do unto others as you would have done unto you” – except you don’t like it when that happens – you whinge like a baby because people choose to throw you crimes back in your face – and yet think you have the right to not only do it to other people, but actually prevent them from posting on a blog because “you aren’t as bad as criminal as they were”. How bloody pathetic.

    If you can’t cope with people who you don’t like posting on a blog – then perhaps it is you who should think about where you would be better off – I am sure there are many people that would take great pleasure in telling you where to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,898) Says:
    June 12th, 2013 at 5:24 am

    So Maori should be grateful they weren’t treated as badly as Australian aboriginals, and not complain nor expect compensation for those things that were done to them, against them, and taken off them?

    Interesting concept that one – so if the police came on to your property and took your car to ‘carry out the law’ and in doing so damaged it – you wouldn’t expect any compensation – because they are the ‘authority’ and represent the Crown, and because, well, lets face it, losing a car isn’t as bad as someone who has lost their house is it? You would just be grateful instead.

    I love the theory behind what you say – truly amazing logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Graeme2 (107 comments) says:

    The point is Judith that Maori land that was taken was done so as a punishment for breaking the law by rebelling against and fighting the government. No different to seizure of property under the proceeds of crime act. The amount of land taken under these provisions was actually quite small and the vast majority of land acquired from Maori was bought and paid for. Maori interests often got paid for land more than once. They were often very willing sellers as they wanted to acquire European goods. The land that Kaingaroa Forest sits on is a classic example. Bought and paid for at a price that was very fair at the time to the delight of the sellers. Didn’t stop Michael Cullen giving it all back though despite being presented with the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. itstricky (3,980 comments) says:

    Garrett a? Another who throws in a damp squib and then runs off…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Judith: Do you know the killer, personally? If not, then you haven’t a clue whether he is has “turned his life around” or what risk he is of reoffending. Ten years in jail for shooting a young girl and depriving her of all the joys of life is sufficient? You think? But I am certainly foolish to engage with the POS – or you for that matter. I generally just ignore the both of you. Mea culpa.

    Harriet: Knowing that my time in parliament would be limited, I used to take every opportunity to learn stuff Joe Public doesn’t get to see or know about the place. I used to wander around looking at old pics of Parliaments and Legislative Councils past – it was fascinating to see that from very early in the 20th Century, Maori faces stare down from those old group portraits, replete with the same cigars and watch chains of their pakeha colleagues. A very different picture from across the Tasman, where the indigenous people didnt get to even vote until 1967.

    Grame2: You need to differentiate between the confiscation grievances, and the “we wuzz robbed” grievances, although the dividing line can be very fuzzy. That doesn’t actually affect my central argument of course, which is if these are indeed supposed to be final and binding settlements, the laws that give effect to them should be difficult if not impossible to overturn.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Longknives (6,414 comments) says:

    Ten years in jail? That explains a hell of a lot….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Longknives (6,414 comments) says:

    “So Maori should be grateful ”

    More than grateful. They should be on their knees, puckering up and kissing the Crown’s arse for saving them…(from themselves more than anything)
    Nobody ever mentions Charles Darwin’s summation on them..that seems to have been wiped from New Zealand History books.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (7,553 comments) says:

    Judith don’t be silly now – I never said nor implied that. Of course people should have grievances setteled.

    I was just pointing out that Maori make out that they were ‘persecuted’. They never ever were.

    They were instead accomodated – as all their women had sex with races other than their own – their current ‘blood’ shows this – and they don’t now cry ‘rape’.

    It’s all a fucken fraud! 😎

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    Longknives: …and that is only the half of it….

    Harriet: I must disagree…the Sim Commission’s report is pretty damning – especially for a document of its time. It basically accuses the government of the day – and finds it guilty – of defrauding Waikato and Taranaki Maori of their land because they were “rebels” against the Crown…the report specifically finds that the iwi whose lands were confiscated were not rebels, and that the confiscations under the Acts of 1865 and onwards were unlawful. It was obviously too hard hitting for the day, because nothing was done about it for 20 years, until Te Puea was able to put pressure on Peter Fraser.

    And sadly such “persecution” – that is a mild word for stealing land, I would have thought – is not confined to the sorry affairs after the Land Wars..100 years later Maori dwellings – on Maori land – in Tamaki and Kohimarama were bulldozed and their inhabitants “resettled”….a very ominous word. Some say the excuse was that the Queen was coming on her Coronation Tour, and the Holland government didnt want her to drive past “Maori hovels”…

    Put shortly, and colloquially “lotsa bad shit went on”…but once again, the whole point of my post was “How to we ensure that settlements that are being made now are durable?” Because sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, those Finlayson has been making won’t be…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Longknives (6,414 comments) says:

    “Longknives: …and that is only the half of it….”

    Go on….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (10,994 comments) says:

    I can’t Longknives…for his own reasons, our host won’t allow the prick to to be named…

    Let’s put it this way….when asked, most people are surprised to hear that more than 20 people in New Zealand have killed, been imprisoned, and come out and killed a second time….Back in the day of course, you didn’t get the chance to do it twice…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    often quoted about the state of the settler society around the late 1830 as a reason for signing the treaty.
    This comes from letters sent to the missionary society pleading for British intervention in nz.
    This is obviously just “conservative” Christian moaning as we are exposed to on kbt from similar sources.
    What makes me most amused is moari were at the time enjoying massive genocidel warfare wiping out up to half the population and all we get told
    Of is a few grog shops and brothels on a frontier 6000nm from home.
    The yanks idealized their frontiersmen
    we degenerate often the same people.
    Nantuket whales gold rush followers woodsmen and all we aknowledge is the vague term settler.
    A day at any local mesum will tell tales of bravery perseverance and imagination used to wrest a country from raw bush.
    Do we look back in wonder at the people who forged our nation.
    No we degenerate and blame heaping modern guilt on those who operated tp vastly different norms.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,926) Says:
    June 12th, 2013 at 9:55 am

    As you should know, and if you don’t then perhaps should find out, there is a lot more to the circumstances than a few words in the sentence that you cared to portray. The sentences he received were appropriate to the circumstances. I notice how you like to exaggerate the details, and fail to accurately represent the offences. Quite the lawyer aren’t you?

    He has served and completed his time and therefore deserves the same rights as everyone else in society providing he continues to lead a legitimate life. His offending history was sometime ago when he was young, and short in duration, unlike your own which has spanned approximately 30 years. It appears, he has learned that living within the bounds of the law is the proper way to conduct himself. I wonder how long it will take for you to demonstrate you have learned that lesson?

    I know enough about the person to know that he is been a hard-working, law abiding member of the community for a lot longer than you can boast too. I also know that he contributes to the community in a positive manner and takes care of his family, loved ones, and is socially conscientious. What is more, he does not troll the internet looking for the identity of people who disagree with him, nor does he make inquiries trying to ascertain who it is that speaks against him. He conducts himself with a hell of a lot more diplomacy and politeness than you do.

    As I said before Mr Garrett, for someone who is guilty of assault, a violent crime, and I presume represents criminals guilty of a variety of crimes, your stance is someone hypocritical. Your criminal history does not afford you the right to be ‘judge’ of others. Nor does it give you the right to persecute someone in the manner you do.

    You persecute a person that is an excellent example of how the system works. A person who like I said has turned his life around and is leading a positive, legitimate, hard working life. According to the example you set, people who commit crimes should be hounded forever, not allowed to enjoy the freedoms that others do, and not be entitled to an opinion, let alone share it, despite having served their time and leading a legitimate lifestyle. For someone that also has an offending history, that is quite a bizarre stance to take. What is more bizarre is that you claim to advocate for a safer society, which requires the effective rehabilitation of offenders. This person is an example of effective rehabilitation, and yet, you don’t like that.

    I wonder why that is? I wonder how you have the cheek to advocate for something, you clearly do not believe in yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. nasska (16,783 comments) says:

    ….”people who commit crimes should be hounded forever, not allowed to enjoy the freedoms that others do, and not be entitled to an opinion, let alone share it, despite having served their time and leading a legitimate lifestyle”….

    Pray tell us Judith….just how do you reconcile the way that you have hounded DG over his past with this statement?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    nasska (6,591) Says:
    June 12th, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Your above quote is of course taken out of context, such a pathetic practice. However, I’ll bite.

    Garrett opened the dialogue – and continues to keep it open at every opportunity. If Mr Garrett insists of pointing out the failings of a select few, then surely he is intelligent enough to know that in doing so he opens discourse on his own criminality. It is a door he opens, if he doesn’t like the draught, then perhaps he should stop being a hypocrite, and keep it closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. frankdb (150 comments) says:

    Well as DG is a HYPOCRITE, he really has no moral ground to stand on and to say anything to do with what should happen to anyone else as he is a three striker himself and should be taken with the grain of salt that he, DG is worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote