Treaty Principals Bill

[Oh_hunnihunni]

These are the people who despite not needing it, will sign up for super, and not opt out of the winter energy payment, because it is their right and they've paid for it in their taxes...

Beer money for their overseas holidays.

[Lilith7]

These are the people who despite not needing it, will sign up for super, and not opt out of the winter energy payment, because it is their right and they've paid for it in their taxes...

Beer money for their overseas holidays.

I have a friend who did that; I was quite shocked until she told me why - they're still supporting two of their children. 

And one week before Xnas, her postion was 'disestablished;...

[C_T_Russell]

Some Maori,  through iwi or maraes have access to dental or gp clinics, funded and staffed by those providers. I was a patient at one for a time, so they are not purely for Maori. They have been established because access to dental and health care has often been a struggle for Maori, because of poverty, distance, lack of education, or other social impediments.

Trying to balance out these access issues by providing remedies is no more racist than universities providing the same services for their students. Or providing subsidised laptops, or libraries, or gyms, or pools... Some companies do the same thing, providing benefits for employees.

There are enough structural racist, age, and gender based underpinnings in our community that serve to funnel people into social classes, industries, job classifications and careers, and health and education statistics without insisting these fake ones exist. Why is it though, that instead of fighting those very real barriers, there are political parties determined to not only maintain them, but to gaslight anyone who stands up and points them out?

The answer is pretty obvious. Because they represent, and are funded by, the people and organisations who benefit from those barriers. Who profit from cheap uneducated labour. Who profit from increased prison populations. Who do not want healthy strong passionate voices challenging their positions in the community.

Who do not want to share the wealth.

Or learn te reo...

---

Is it crap?
Why are NZF and ACT campaigning against all this if its a fabricated thing? What are the maori so unhappy about that they are protesting against it?
Are they worried about loosing more handouts?

Either way, my friends tell me its real, and take advantage of these services, so it must be a thing, thinking about it, i have seen such clinics when driving about.
Dental care should be free or heavily subsidized anyway. Could easily be done if the govt didnt blow money elsewhere.
A sugar tax on fizzy drinks would easily fund it, i wouldnt have an issue with that if it meant free dental care for everybody.

What services would you be willing to give up to pay for free dental care for everybody? Understanding that there is funding for dental care for all children, and for all low income people in need of basic care through WINZ (and at rates increased by the Labour government just last year)...

Or would you be happy to pay more income tax? Or maybe, increase the taxes for those at the top end of the wealth pyramid?

Don't need to give up any essential services, but I already said how it could be funded by a sugar tax.
And cut the wasteful spending, labour has employed so many bureaucrats its not funny, there is a lot of work that needs to be done.
Getting rid of race based policies is a good start too and treat all of us as humans.
The scrapping of the maori health authority will save a ton of money, it's just sad that so much has been wasted.

Do you also know that the treaty principals bill is really only about questioning the principals that Jeffery Palmer introduced in 1989.
Who are the ones who rewrote the treaty? It appears to have been labour.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

A sugar tax isn't going to happen. It is too complicated a task to draft legislation to apply it, like taking gst off certain items.

The only race based policies we have, like age based and gender based ones, are there to balance inequities that exisit. What you are asking for is to maintain those inequities which actually benefit others at the expense of minorities. If we treat everyone as humans, with no differentiation then children, old people, disabled people, non male genders, and ethnicities will also lose those protections and policies that make their lives safer and easier.

Instead , why can't we be grateful for the blessings we enjoy as individuals, and stop scrutinising the blessings others get for also being individuals, and understand that we are not all the same and our life challenges are different?

[C_T_Russell]

A sugar tax isn't going to happen. It is too complicated a task to draft legislation to apply it, like taking gst off certain items.

The only race based policies we have, like age based and gender based ones, are there to balance inequities that exisit. What you are asking for is to maintain those inequities which actually benefit others at the expense of minorities. If we treat everyone as humans, with no differentiation then children, old people, disabled people, non male genders, and ethnicities will also lose those protections and policies that make their lives safer and easier.

Instead , why can't we be grateful for the blessings we enjoy as individuals, and stop scrutinising the blessings others get for also being individuals, and understand that we are not all the same and our life challenges are different?

Its a piece of cake since it's already done to alcohol and tobacco.
Taking GST off only some grocery items with a loose definition on what is considered fruit and vegetables is much more tricky. Would have been easier to remove GST off all food.

As far as policies around health, age and disability.
Well that's a no brainer isn't it? Again based on need.

[Lilith7]

A sugar tax isn't going to happen. It is too complicated a task to draft legislation to apply it, like taking gst off certain items.

The only race based policies we have, like age based and gender based ones, are there to balance inequities that exisit. What you are asking for is to maintain those inequities which actually benefit others at the expense of minorities. If we treat everyone as humans, with no differentiation then children, old people, disabled people, non male genders, and ethnicities will also lose those protections and policies that make their lives safer and easier.

Instead , why can't we be grateful for the blessings we enjoy as individuals, and stop scrutinising the blessings others get for also being individuals, and understand that we are not all the same and our life challenges are different?

Why?  Because dogs are right, & humans really are nuts...


I think its just an unfortunate part of human nature to question what looks as though someone else may be getting more, or better than, what we might be getting. Probably better education may eventually help with that, pointing out the reasons for something someone else gets  which we do not; it seems slightly immature really to moan because someone e;se in need may get slightly more, or slightly different.


https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/f...5_2021.pdf

[Oh_hunnihunni]

A sugar tax isn't going to happen. It is too complicated a task to draft legislation to apply it, like taking gst off certain items.

The only race based policies we have, like age based and gender based ones, are there to balance inequities that exisit. What you are asking for is to maintain those inequities which actually benefit others at the expense of minorities. If we treat everyone as humans, with no differentiation then children, old people, disabled people, non male genders, and ethnicities will also lose those protections and policies that make their lives safer and easier.

Instead , why can't we be grateful for the blessings we enjoy as individuals, and stop scrutinising the blessings others get for also being individuals, and understand that we are not all the same and our life challenges are different?

Its a piece of cake since it's already done to alcohol and tobacco.
Taking GST off only some grocery items with a loose definition on what is considered fruit and vegetables is much more tricky. Would have been easier to remove GST off all food.

As far as policies around health, age and disability.
Well that's a no brainer isn't it? Again based on need.

Based on need?

Maori show need in every stat we collect.

That's a no brainer.

[C_T_Russell]

Its a piece of cake since it's already done to alcohol and tobacco.
Taking GST off only some grocery items with a loose definition on what is considered fruit and vegetables is much more tricky. Would have been easier to remove GST off all food.

As far as policies around health, age and disability.
Well that's a no brainer isn't it? Again based on need.

Based on need?

Maori show need in every stat we collect.

That's a no brainer.

The same needs can apply to anyone regardless of race.
All Seymour is doing is wanting to remove the treaty principles that Jeffery Palmer introduced in 1989.
it was labour that rewrote the treaty.

[Lilith7]

Based on need?

Maori show need in every stat we collect.

That's a no brainer.

The same needs can apply to anyone regardless of race.
All Seymour is doing is wanting to remove the treaty principles that Jeffery Palmer introduced in 1989.
it was labour that rewrote the treaty.

Oh for pitys sake - open eyes & do a bit of looking;Maori outcomes are considerably worse than those for Pakeha, which is what was to be addressed but thanks to this govt will now not be.

What Seymour wants is to prevent a better outcome for Maori; the man wants to let children go hungry rather than allow free school lunches, & no one who can want such a thing can be said to have a shred of empathy & clearly is not a man of principle.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

But he'll trade on his Maoriness, no matter how distant.

[C_T_Russell]

The same needs can apply to anyone regardless of race.
All Seymour is doing is wanting to remove the treaty principles that Jeffery Palmer introduced in 1989.
it was labour that rewrote the treaty.

Oh for pitys sake - open eyes & do a bit of looking;Maori outcomes are considerably worse than those for Pakeha, which is what was to be addressed but thanks to this govt will now not be.

What Seymour wants is to prevent a better outcome for Maori; the man wants to let children go hungry rather than allow free school lunches, & no one who can want such a thing can be said to have a shred of empathy & clearly is not a man of principle.

So you are saying that it's OK to rewrite the treaty if it suits a particular race, or in these days ancestry?

[Lilith7]

Oh for pitys sake - open eyes & do a bit of looking;Maori outcomes are considerably worse than those for Pakeha, which is what was to be addressed but thanks to this govt will now not be.

What Seymour wants is to prevent a better outcome for Maori; the man wants to let children go hungry rather than allow free school lunches, & no one who can want such a thing can be said to have a shred of empathy & clearly is not a man of principle.

So you are saying that it's OK to rewrite the treaty if it suits a particular race, or in these days ancestry?

Can you explain how you got that mistaken impression from my post? I'd be fascinated as to how you managed it...


https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/f...5_2021.pdf

[C_T_Russell]

So you are saying that it's OK to rewrite the treaty if it suits a particular race, or in these days ancestry?

Can you explain how you got that mistaken impression from my post? I'd be fascinated as to how you managed it...


https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/f...5_2021.pdf

Labour rewrote the treaty by introducing the principles that's all I'm saying, I don't care what the reasons are.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Don't care? Or don't want to know?

[C_T_Russell]

Don't care? Or don't want to know?

Of course I know, but I don't care because it's not a good enough excuse.

[Lilith7]

How exactly did Labour 'rewrite the treaty?'

[Praktica]

How exactly did Labour 'rewrite the treaty?'

You won't get a coherent answer...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Someone is unaware all treaties have principles. That is the point.

[Wainuiguy]

Always nice to see honesty from unapologetic sceptics, lol...

---

Not even sure whats so divisive about it, there is nothing in this bill that takes away rights from anyone.
If anything, it should be a good thing for Maori, as it for once will recognize the treaty at face value, rather than many of its many interpretations to suit different agendas over the years.
The treaty ensures equal treatment for everybody and thats what the point is of this bill.

ACT have now created a new website to address the concerns, due to the media spreading misinformation.

You can check it out here at www.treaty.nz

The idea that a bunch of politicians can redefine the terms of an ancient document that founded this nation doesn't bother you at all? What other history would you like rewritten, universal sufferage maybe? Child labour law?

After all, if fair pay legislation - you know, the stuff about paying people fairly - can be chucked out by politicians, I guess anything is fair game...

Well to be fair the Treaty has been redefined by politicians , beauracrats and Iwi many times over the last 170plus years.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

The Chris Bishop interview on Q& A this morning was illuminating. Very defensive he was. Aggressively so...