https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the
Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
--Yes I agree. I have never supported ACT and Seymour has not impressed me in the past but that is changing.
Crash McBash
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of what the bill says is a problem for anyone.
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the
Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them
express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things
that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back
to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different
ways.
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the
Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the
Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things
that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back
to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different
ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking of >any terms of any contract.
Do please show otherwise.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote again. What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things
that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back
to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking of >>any terms of any contract.
change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori.
That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
Do please show otherwise.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote again. What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the contrary.
Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking of
any terms of any contract.
That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
Do please show otherwise.
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>>>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking >>>>of
any terms of any contract.
That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says >that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
Do please show otherwise.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>>>>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking >>>>>of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says >>that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
Do please show otherwise.
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:The idiot that claims it is OK to change a contract without the
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>>>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking of
any terms of any contract.
That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says >that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.Nobody claims that, as the Treaty does not use the term co-governance.
Do please show otherwise.
On 7 Feb 2025 07:03:54 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Who are you spewing at now?
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:The idiot that claims it is OK to change a contract without the
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>again.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples of >>>>>what
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>ways.
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the breaking >>>>>of
any terms of any contract.
agreement of the other party to the contract should justify that lie .
. .Nope.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says >>that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.Nobody claims that, as the Treaty does not use the term co-governance.
The Treaty does however grant sovereignty to Maori over their land.
ANope.
way of Maori to work with the government for common interest has been
to arrange co-governance arrangements - from memory the National
Government while Chris Finlayson was Treaty Minister made a number of
such arrangements to reach agreement between Maori and the Crown in >accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Do please show otherwise.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 07:48:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am stating that you are.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >>racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Sorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>>again.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples >>>>>>of
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>>ways.
what
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>>contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the >>>>>>breaking
of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says >>>that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
You are an idiot, Tony. Co-governance arrangements were made before Te
Pati Maori existed - through arrangements agreed between Maori and the
Crown during parliamentary terms of both Labour and National. Are you >claiming that Chris Finlayson for example is a greedy racist?
Do please show otherwise.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 07:48:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am stating that you are.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >>>racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Sorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>>>again.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples >>>>>>>of
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>>>ways.
what
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder. >>>>>>
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>>>contrary.Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the >>>>>>>breaking
of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty says
that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
You are an idiot, Tony. Co-governance arrangements were made before Te
Pati Maori existed - through arrangements agreed between Maori and the >>Crown during parliamentary terms of both Labour and National. Are you >>claiming that Chris Finlayson for example is a greedy racist?
There have been no co-governance agreements approved by any National >government., That is you lying.
Do please show otherwise.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:55:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. what you have provided was co-management.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 07:48:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am stating that you are.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >>>>racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Sorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>>>>again.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples >>>>>>>>of
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have >>>>>>>>>>ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>>>>ways.
what
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder.
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>>>>contrary.
Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the >>>>>>>>breaking
of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty >>>>>says
that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
You are an idiot, Tony. Co-governance arrangements were made before Te >>>Pati Maori existed - through arrangements agreed between Maori and the >>>Crown during parliamentary terms of both Labour and National. Are you >>>claiming that Chris Finlayson for example is a greedy racist?
There have been no co-governance agreements approved by any National >>government., That is you lying.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0129/latest/DLM6830851.html
Now you will probably identify that the term "co-governance" was not
used in that Bill, but first read clauses 19 to 22, and then look at >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-governance#:~:text=The%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%20has,include%20the%20co%2Dmanagement%20of
which provides the common expression used to cover such arrangements.
For other examples, that wiki article includes:All co-management.
"Notable co-governance arrangements for resource management include
the Waikato River Authority, the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority managing the Auckland volcanic field, the Te Waihora
Co-Governance Agreement governing Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, the
Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group, Tauranga's Nga Poutiriao o
Mauao, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust in Waikato, the Ngati
Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board,
Ngai Tuhoe and the Department of Conservation's shared management of
Te Urewera's forests and lakes, and the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River >settlement).[2][5][9]"
Do please show otherwise.
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpne
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the
Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad.
Well you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . .
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them
express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things
that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back
to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different
ways.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:55:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. what you have provided was co-management.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 07:48:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I am stating that you are.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >>>>>racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Sorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>>>>>again.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>>>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of examples
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpneWell you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>>>>>
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad. >>>>>>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them >>>>>>>>>>express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back >>>>>>>>>>to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>>>>>ways.
of
what
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try harder.
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>>>>>contrary.
Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>>>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>>>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the >>>>>>>>>breaking
of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty >>>>>>says
that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
You are an idiot, Tony. Co-governance arrangements were made before Te >>>>Pati Maori existed - through arrangements agreed between Maori and the >>>>Crown during parliamentary terms of both Labour and National. Are you >>>>claiming that Chris Finlayson for example is a greedy racist?
There have been no co-governance agreements approved by any National >>>government., That is you lying.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0129/latest/DLM6830851.html
Now you will probably identify that the term "co-governance" was not
used in that Bill, but first read clauses 19 to 22, and then look at >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-governance#:~:text=The%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%20has,include%20the%20co%2Dmanagement%20of
which provides the common expression used to cover such arrangements.
All co-management.
For other examples, that wiki article includes:
"Notable co-governance arrangements for resource management include
the Waikato River Authority, the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority managing the Auckland volcanic field, the Te Waihora >>Co-Governance Agreement governing Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, the
Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group, Tauranga's Nga Poutiriao o
Mauao, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust in Waikato, the Ngati >>Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board,
Ngai Tuhoe and the Department of Conservation's shared management of
Te Urewera's forests and lakes, and the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River >>settlement).[2][5][9]"
The difference between governance and management, as I have patiently explained
to you more than once in the past, is profound.
Do please show otherwise.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 06:17:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbject nonsense. There is no co-governance in this country, there never has been and you do not even begin to understand what the phrase means. You are wrong and you are lying.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:55:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo. what you have provided was co-management.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 07:48:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:No I am stating that you are.
Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-07, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:Well, it doesn't. And therein lies the issue - TPM, and the other greedy >>>>>>racists just made that up.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Sorry for your lack of intellect. I suggest that you read what I wrote >>>>>>>>again.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The Bill does not give any such examples Tony - what on earth were you >>>>>>>>>thinking?
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 07:25:04 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>Absolute nonsense. If you are so sure then provide a couple of >>>>>>>>>>examples
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/mpjmfpneWell you won't find any opponents anywhere near "The Centrist" . . . >>>>>>>>>>>
Generally I consider ACT to be a sideshow but the reaction to the >>>>>>>>>>>>Treaty Principles Bill has got my attention because no opponents >>>>>>>>>>>>have
ever been able to cite what wording in the bill is so bad. >>>>>>>>>>>
Just listen to submissions on the Bill - about three quarters of them
express very clear objections to the Bill, pointing out many things >>>>>>>>>>>that are wrong with it. Most of those things that are wrong stem back
to it effectively breaking the terms of a contract in many different >>>>>>>>>>>ways.
of
what
the bill says is a problem for anyone.
What does the bill provide that causes any body a problem? Do try >>>>>>>>harder.
That is a lie. The bill does no such thing. Provide evidence to the >>>>>>>>contrary.
Do tell.Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a contract - the bill seeks to have parliament >>>>>>>>>change the provisions of that contract without agreement from Maori. >>>>>>>>>That is contrary to the terms of the Treaty.
As for a contract. there is nothing in the bill that suggests the >>>>>>>>>>breaking
of
any terms of any contract.
The "Evidence" is in the (Maori) Left wingers mind set, that the treaty >>>>>>>says
that Maori are entitles to co-governance with the Crown.
You are an idiot, Tony. Co-governance arrangements were made before Te >>>>>Pati Maori existed - through arrangements agreed between Maori and the >>>>>Crown during parliamentary terms of both Labour and National. Are you >>>>>claiming that Chris Finlayson for example is a greedy racist?
There have been no co-governance agreements approved by any National >>>>government., That is you lying.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0129/latest/DLM6830851.html
Now you will probably identify that the term "co-governance" was not
used in that Bill, but first read clauses 19 to 22, and then look at >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-governance#:~:text=The%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%20has,include%20the%20co%2Dmanagement%20of
which provides the common expression used to cover such arrangements.
All co-management.
For other examples, that wiki article includes:
"Notable co-governance arrangements for resource management include
the Waikato River Authority, the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau >>>Authority managing the Auckland volcanic field, the Te Waihora >>>Co-Governance Agreement governing Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, the >>>Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group, Tauranga's Nga Poutiriao o
Mauao, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust in Waikato, the Ngati >>>Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board,
Ngai Tuhoe and the Department of Conservation's shared management of
Te Urewera's forests and lakes, and the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River >>>settlement).[2][5][9]"
The difference between governance and management, as I have patiently >>explained
to you more than once in the past, is profound.
Indeed it is, <abuse gone> you have missed quite a
bit of the material I referred to above - for example:
"In 2008, the Waikato-Tainui tribe (iwi) and the New Zealand
Government reached a settlement over the tribe's claim to the Waikato
river. This settlement was reviewed and out of that came the
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010,
which established the Waikato River Authority as part of a
co-governance and co-management framework between the Crown and five
local iwi (Tainui, Te Arawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Raukawa, and
Maniapoto). Reflecting the Authority's co-governance structure, its >ten-member board consists of five tribal members and five Crown
members (including one regional council member and one territorial
authority member).[3][11][12] The board operate under consensus >decision-making and their vision and strategy is long-term, further
than a political cycle, to restore and protect the health of the river
for generations to come.[3]"
And in relation to the Whanganui River arrangements, you have missed
the difference between the body set up by Clauses 18 and 19, and
confused them with the body set up through Clauses 29 and 30.
and specifically in relation to
Do please show otherwise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:06:44 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,550 |