You are completely wrong that Winston "Is a breath of fresh air". Think it through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Instead of backing Seymour, Winston scuttled Seymour's idea. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's shot it down. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. Winston, in a cowardly way, uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. If he was sincere, he would have backed Seymour. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
Peter's and his side kicks want to treat maori like what America did to the first nation people of America. Put them in a little part of new zealand. So they can just take more land and destroy the country .why is Peter's hiding the true come out and say it he a long with the other two want to Enrich the pockets for the rich and for them selfs they are not out thera to make it better for all nzers its all about setting things up for the next corupt policies they want to do to make them richer not the needs and the country
@@stopcogovernanceAgreed. It's a very confusing issue and all this posturing is not going to resolve anything. It just goes on and on and on. Too much talk and no action. People in NZ are sick of listening to it, sick of this thing called racism, and sick of the huge amount of taxpayers money that is being wasted on the whole thing.
Trying to destroy the treaty won't get us out of the shit our country is in at the moment, caused by the english system😮 English have not the authority to rule over any Sovereign people of any country specially when it comes to a treaty an agreement between 2 countries specially one that has no rights of power over another and one that has rights😮Winston you and shane get your shit together😮keep this crap up you won't get my vote ever again 😮😊
Shaun is right: there will need to be something that says there are no principles and refs them are now null and void, OR we need a bill that limits interpretation of the treaty to the clauses that are in it. Let's call it the Waitangi Treaty Interpretation Bill.
Or adhere to the text itself, which clearly allows for "Kawanatanga" or government of settlers, and allows Maori "Tinorangatiratanga" or sovereignty over our own affairs.
I'll keep this simple for you. If you remove reference to the current principles that have guided decisions since 1987, then you have to refer to the actual treaty articles, which is an agreement between the Crown and Maori and no one else. As for an interpretation as a guide, then you have to be guided by the Maori txt and interpretation, which lists kawanatanga and Tino rangatiratanga because that was txt that the great number of chiefs signed. Not the English txt. Seymour's bill is an attempt at bringing pakeha and non Maori into the mix through the new principles. It's a piss poor attempt at trying to rewrite history and that's why Winnie doesn't want a bar of it
Good, good, good, good, good well done, stay lawful & diplomatic are appropriate responses & show the respect for, lineage, law & history. Great job Winston!
It is about time somebody told the truth: there are no principles in the Treaty. Treaties say what they mean, and they do not mean anything except what they actually say. It is that simple. Activist judges and the Waitangi Tribunal have been trying for years to pull the wool over all of our eyes. Much as I support ACT, I think in this case, they should adopt NZ First's position.
The problem with Winstons argument is, the reasons for the Principles in the first place. The principles were established because there was 2 versions of the treaty signed by both the Crown and Maori. One was English, the other was in Maori, but even though both were signed, they were both different, and they were both contradictory of each other, hence the need to define the principles, because the text itself is unclear.
@@lu-uf8zjBecause it is. Because Maori is the indigenous language of the nation the treaty was signed in, therefor Te Tiriti is the document which takes precedence. It is also the version which was signed by the majority of Maori chiefs in 1840 rather than the English version.
Please allow Sir Winston Peters to speak. He can read the treaty, he is a qualified barrister, he can even read Hebrew and the Torah of Moses. So what Sir Winston Peters says is probably right about the treaty. And Sir Winston needs to be put in charge of this review. Myay my God be with you Sir Winston.
The long and short of it is that all citizens will have equality under the law. It is not a long read and simple enough for lay people to get its meaning. Equality is a pramount condition of democracy and to promote distinction is to destroy that essence and promote supremacy.
too right Winston over this Māori elitism we are all kiwis we are born here and we all should have same rights as the next person stop the cons in the tracks and move on as one people its like a young kid saying this is mine well we all need too learn to shear one people one new Zealand race shouldn't have any thing to do with it
Nope. As in America, the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the US, just as Te Tiriti O Waitangi is the founding document of NZ. NZ was created, it was established by that founding document. You can't just ditch the country's founding document because you don't like it any more. Thats not how a founding document works.
@kedz2295 they get work subsidies. They get kiwi based lones they get onto corses, and they get their own health befits rights to land that European not allowed on fishing companies like sealoard we protested against apatite in south Africa and we got it in our own country but it's not the European doing it but the moari to us if the European did what is being done buy them it would be called racist but thy do it to us and it's called moari rights
@@Arms26 I never read that and I read the whole document, a habit I developed as a union delegate having got fed up with people not reading the whole document/contract and claiming one clause was the document.The treaty has a Sum and it is that everyone is assured of being treated equally, an extremely necessary aspect of democracy and to deviate is to destroy democracy and promote supremacy.
A funny thing my family have been blessed with the leader of the National Maori Council and Winston all be part of us. The truth is he is 110% right in his statements and when the leaders in business and IWI stop lining their pockets the people will be better off. I have seen this first hand and seen how badly some one is treated so others can have more and more.
I like him too, however, his ego has taken over proven by the fact that Winston once (as far back as 2005) supported the David (Seymour) proposed Bill yet, because he does not like David, he chooses to not support the proposal, without offering his own solution?
Winston, not always agreeable but actually a wise head for a long time. But we do need Treaty this Treaty that ripped from the statutes. The grievance gravy train and hijacking of public affairs has gotten too far.
Awesome Winston ❤ so happy to hear this interview 😁💯 so true as well non Maori benefited from proposals made under the treaty and this proposal is just the same💯 an Act to create jobs for non Maori to disadvantage this generation of maoris too 💯
Can we just disband or disestablish the Waitangi Tribunal it is wasting our hard earn money which can go to better deserving causes, like Health and Education. And Winnie you keep this up and I will be voting for your party and ACT and leaving the stupid woke National in the dust, we need more people like you and Seymour leading this country.
No, because the Waitangi tribunal deals with the injustices perpetrated on Maori and the reparations and compensation owed to maori for those injustices. You can't just say "Who cares about maori's" because that in itself is racist.
Winston i agree their are no Principals in the treaty of waitangi, but why have consecutive Governments which you've been involved in been using Principals since 1990 why haven't these Principals been removed. The Act party is at least trying to bring back the original meaning of the treaty with its treaty Principals bill. I'm awaiting to see what NZ First is going to do in this space.
@@heylouie17 any 'damage' is a manufactured threat by those who stand to lose their monetary benefits handed to them by successive governments who just wanted them to keep quiet and not make a fuss
My understanding from Uni was that the principals of the treaty were first presented as a way for Maori and non-Maori to engage in practice. It was a sign of the times where there was often blatant disregard for indigenous customs, such as those around birthing just as an example, where Maori may want to keep the placenta as opposed to throwing it in the hospital burner. The principals at that time were a guide for practice in such situations, to foster an environment of mutual respect. Just like in so many situations however, the anti-smacking bill for instance, we have allowed the pendulum, that needed to swing in my view, go too far the other way. Surely we no longer need laws to engender respect... we need that respect to be exampled, and as Winston does point out, the "gesturing" and divisive fear-mongering some are inciting in our people is sad to see... but then we never know what the government may get up to these days after the covid horrors... Trust and respect, how can that be better exampled so it can grow?
You are 100% right. You've thought it through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man. Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's shot it down. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. The fact that Winston cannot produce an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
@@heylouie17 The principles are basically a summary of the Treaty. The existing principles don't reflect the true meaning of the Treaty at all. This is what David is on about.
@@heylouie17 The 'principles' have been talked about since the 1980s, without definition. Seymour is just asking 'what are these principles'.Winnie has answered 'there are none'. Effectively agreeing with him. It's all semantics
There is a difference: Take the first of Seymour's principals, Govt vs Crown, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Leave the thing as it is but demand it is adhered to. I'll stop there shall I.
I attended law school when G Palmer was lecturing.....he taught as fact what was his own opinion. In class I challenged him....he was not interested ....we were all there to take his words as gospel and regurgitate them. Winston is spot on.
There are a lot of things in your coalition agreement, Mr Peters, that have not been actioned, AS YET. It was in the coalition agreement to take all references to "the principles of the treaty" out of NZ law. You've had nine months to do so. It has not been done. WHY NOT just make a law saying there are no principles in the treaty? Disestablish the Waitangu Tribunal. Disestablish the Maori Roll, as advocated by the commission that established MMP. Just shut down the whole "Partnership" scam once and for all.
Too simple for some. The people who signed weren't thick or gullible. Several had been to England or Australia, knew what the options were and weighed up their immediate violent past with the musket wars, with another (hopefully better) way of doing things. There were vigorous arguments about whether to sign or not as recorded by W Colenso, and the vast majority eventually agreed to cede sovereignty to Queen Vic. with protective rights for them. Most of It was all done and dusted in a day or thereabouts. Unlike today, they didn't muck around back then.
This is the 1st article the Maori chiefs signed....There is no mention of tino rangatiratanga which is sovereignty there is kawanatanga katoa which is ceding governance to the British crown but governance and sovereignty are two different things!!!Anyway the Waitangi Tribunal already declared many years ago that Māori didn't cede sovereignty but here you are thinking you know better!!! Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu - te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua. Keep crying as it is written so it is. The English version didn't even exist until years after 1840 just another way the British tried to rip us off 😂😂😂The principle bill is gone none of the parties are supporting it so build a bridge 😂😂😂
@@CatherineAugust Hello. regarding your comments above. "One Sun in the Sky" by Ewen McQueen is worth a read. Whether you agree or disagree here and there.
@@CatherineAugust maori were illiterate....british version existed first, The brits had to create a written language for maori....this whole puzzle has less than 4 pieces.... Suck it up princess
Even if there were no principles in the Treaty, it does not mean you cant establish principles based on commonly understood meanings and reduce any confusion. The fact that that the current government appear unwilling or unable to enunciate treaty principles, should not deter people of good faith and reasonable intelligence from doing so.
A great Interview. I voted for the NZ First representative of Ngaruawahia. We need change of policy on many issues. One being Ill renters and landlords with no rights to defend their property. The previous Ardern government promised more housing but failed, and yet the council is going after Landlords over delinquent renters, when it is the owners renting out housing that help fill the gap in affordable housing and end up not having any rights. Please help me make sense of this?.
David Seymour's 3 principles are faithful to the meaning and intent of the Treaty as it was understood by all parties in 1840. It deserves our full support. Winston is a huge disappointment by not supporting this Bill. He has personal issues with Seymour which he is allowing to get in the way of doing something for the betterment of New Zealand. Shame on him for being such a little man on the inside. He always pontificates about Sir Apirana Ngata, and how Ngata is his authority, but he RARELY gives any specifics about where he agrees with Ngata. This is telling. For example, Ngata believed that Maori ceded sovereignty. Ngata believed that in ceding sovereignty, the Chiefs handed over to the British the management of all the resources of this country, except those which were privately owned. Maori went on to sell 92% of their land. Ngata believed that the land confiscations were justified. In combination, these three opinions alone would derail today's gravy train. But will Winston cite them? Answer? No. Does he argue the point? No. Does he go in to bat? No. Why? He doesn't know enough about the Treaty to defend Ngata's opinions. Shame on Winston again for being so history ignorant. At his age, and with all his experience, he ought be the most Treaty savvy MP in our parliament, but he's not. He only has two corks in his Treaty pop gun, and that is that the Treaty is not a partnership and Maori ceded sovereignty. Once these two corks are fired, it seems he has nothing else to say. Unbelievable. Both these point (i.e. that the Treaty is not a partnership and that Maori ceded sovereignty) need to be teased out, explained, extrapolated, otherwise they are meaningless. Does Winston do that? No. Why? He doesn't know any more than the bullet points. Has Winston offered an alternative to David's Bill? Answer? No. Again, Winston doesn't have any answer. He will shoot down another man's idea, with no alternative idea of his own. In other words, sour grapes. That too is shameful. I say it again, shame on Winston again for having NO solution after 50 years of parliamentary experience. He too fears the activists, inspite of all his huff and bluff and tough talk. All his bravado promising to deal to Maorification and co-governance at the opening of parliament in 2023 has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. I can see now why Seymour was so critical of Peters prior to the 2023 election. At that time, I defended Peters. Now I don't. Seymour's criticism of Peters has proven to be justified. As for Luxon? He is $#%^ scared of Maori activists, and is, from the activists point of view, a sure bet for an easy cave in. He is an easy beat. Luxon is conflict averse, and when he sees it coming, and the whites of the eyes of the activists flashing, he is quick to push his big read 'appease' button which sits front and centre on his desk. He is a dream PM for the activists. Why? He is cowardly, easy bullied, and he came into parliament with a secret agenda to further Maorification and co-governance under the radar which he did not campaign on. He cherry picked Potaka to do the heavy lifting for him. This is why the activists give Luxon 3 big ticks. Shame on him for being like that. His only handbrake in the coalition talks was NZ First and Act. If they hadn't been there, Luxon would have put the peddle to the metal on Maorification and co-governance. So we have two cowardly "leaders" in the coalition, and one very brave courageous soul - David Seymour. He ought to have been the PM. I am not a member of the Act Party but I love Seymour for his guts, tenacity, and courage. These character traits are sorely missing in our current crop of MPs, so Seymour is a rare bird. His battle is truly epic, not unlike the legendary story of David (ironically) and Goliath. Let's get behind him and encourage him as he goes in to battle against his giant. Abandoned by Peters and Luxon, we, the public, are his only hope. Collectively, we have enourmous power. I believe the public of New Zealand will turn out in huge numbers to support him when they read his 3 principles, and take time to think them through carefully and deeply. Watch THIS video which explains how. He deserves to win, and he can win, for what he is fighting for not only honours the Treaty but his 3 principles are the best thing for all New Zealanders. Activists have been milking 'the principles' for decades to bleed the country, and as soon as Seymour comes along to define them, all hell breaks loose. Why? The activists prefer the undefined principles because they can then make the Treaty say whatever they want. The plundering can then go on, unhindered. David wants to bring this to an end. Peters knows this, but he won't back Seymour's Bill because it wasn't his idea. Ego. This too is shameful. Seymour's Bill will put an end to the gravy train once and for all. It will end this gigantic racket that's been going on since the Sim Royal Commission in 1927. This Bill has GOT to succeed or our country is finished.
Amusing when the full-time racists get upset with the part-time racists. And for reference your comment that Sir Apirana Ngata agreed that the land confiscations were justified is completely wrong. As I'm sure you know.
@@drinkingup2157 “Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty” (Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty Of Waitangi. An Explanation. pp 15-16)
Principles can mean the truth,so is the wording of the Treaty kept true or false,that is what needs to be clarified.So what is the two renegades Parties afraid of.
NZ First is supporting party ACT to introduce it harmful ideas. ACT said, "we need to give it a go in the Kiwi way" when referring the bill concerning the Treaty, but the government did give a number of laws passed in 2023 a chance to see if they would have positive effect. The government is selective in how it uses words!
Hobson should have gone back like he was instructed to instead of signing a failure of a contract as it clearly is.look at the mess its created on so many levels!
Every business is based on a declaration other governments are set up with a declaration to some have other documents to guide them to their outcomes when would it be time to create leading statutory documents 🙃
How many treaties does NZ have? New Zealand is currently party to more than 1,900 treaties, as well as many others that are not yet in force. A treaty is an international agreement between countries or international entities (eg the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, or World Bank) that's legally binding under international law. Ova
at 6.06min: "...for elitists at the top who bleed off their people in terms of their income...and never EVER pass the money down". Now we got the facts from the horse's mouth, a champion for NZ, first. He will get plenty votes on this alone and be re-elected on what he succinctly shows to all of us, the things that some people do that are bad for NZ. Only benefit the elitists. Equal and one for all NZ, that's what should be.
Meanings change with political realities. Back in Buck and Pomare's time they were happy to interpret the treaty in a way that was good for national unity (ethnic groups absorp other ethnic groups; if you can't beet them join them). Since then there have been thousands trained in Fanon, Cesare, Gramsci (etc). There is a constituency in the universities and professional Maori (being Maori is a job for some), because the treaty is ambiguous any interpretation reflects the political realities of the day.
Interesting, but the treaty wasn't ambiguous at the time. It was vigorously argued beforehand including by chiefs who had been overseas and clearly understood the implications against the background of the devastating, debilitating musket wars. People of today really ought to give peoples of the past more credit. They weren't stupid.
What the principles seek to define is the blurred line between interpretations .. Specifically because so much time is wasted across ministries with conflicting views of interpretation including Tino Rangatiratanga which in isolation argues for separatism, whilst in confluence with both sides aka all New Zealanders might clarify personal responsibilities & freedoms
Then why don't YOU do something about it then? You said you wanted to get rid of the Waitangi Tribunal, stop posturing on the subject of principles and get rid of this 'myth' as you call it!
The FACT is, the "Principles" came about because there was 2 Treaties signed by the same 2 peoples at the same time. There was the English version, and there was the Maori version, and both were very different, and it came down to Article 1 of the Treaty and Article 2 of Te Tiriti. Both versions are different, but both versions were signed which clearly contradicted each other which is the entire reason for the wars of 1863 -64. Apart from the fact that Grey wanted what wasn't his, because he believed the Treaty gave him full sovereignty over the entire country and its population, which was in clear contradiction of Article 2 of Te Tiriti which allows Maori Tinorangatiratanga over our own affairs. Both articles contradict each other in every way, hence the need to establish "Principles" because the text itself contradicts itself.
A very sloppy bit of 1980's law-making by Sir Geoffrey "Principles" Palmer. He was warned at the time. Now every man, woman and dog think they know best, including me.
Stop spreading misinformation, the two are identical and you know it. Cut it out sweetie, what you are doing is now highly illegal in the UK at least, and you would be arrested for it.
You are a Breath of Fresh Air Winston a Wealth of New Zealand knowledge people should wake up and Listen to you Thank you Sir and Best Wishes
You are completely wrong that Winston "Is a breath of fresh air". Think it through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Instead of backing Seymour, Winston scuttled Seymour's idea. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's shot it down. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. Winston, in a cowardly way, uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. If he was sincere, he would have backed Seymour. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
He talks alotta windaah! 🥴
Peter's and his side kicks want to treat maori like what America did to the first nation people of America. Put them in a little part of new zealand. So they can just take more land and destroy the country .why is Peter's hiding the true come out and say it he a long with the other two want to Enrich the pockets for the rich and for them selfs they are not out thera to make it better for all nzers its all about setting things up for the next corupt policies they want to do to make them richer not the needs and the country
@@stopcogovernanceAgreed. It's a very confusing issue and all this posturing is not going to resolve anything. It just goes on and on and on. Too much talk and no action. People in NZ are sick of listening to it, sick of this thing called racism, and sick of the huge amount of taxpayers money that is being wasted on the whole thing.
@@jimbray3812 David's principles were clean it up once and for all.
Winston is right! The Waitangi tribunal has reached its used by date and should be dissolved.
Thats wot 99.9 % of New Zealanders want
Yebo!
Winston Peters has passed his use by date.
Trying to destroy the treaty won't get us out of the shit our country is in at the moment, caused by the english system😮 English have not the authority to rule over any Sovereign people of any country specially when it comes to a treaty an agreement between 2 countries specially one that has no rights of power over another and one that has rights😮Winston you and shane get your shit together😮keep this crap up you won't get my vote ever again 😮😊
It's da Shree Amigos, Nacho, Taco & Tortilla. Luxon, Seymour & Peters.
Shaun is right: there will need to be something that says there are no principles and refs them are now null and void, OR we need a bill that limits interpretation of the treaty to the clauses that are in it. Let's call it the Waitangi Treaty Interpretation Bill.
Or adhere to the text itself, which clearly allows for "Kawanatanga" or government of settlers, and allows Maori "Tinorangatiratanga" or sovereignty over our own affairs.
I'll keep this simple for you. If you remove reference to the current principles that have guided decisions since 1987, then you have to refer to the actual treaty articles, which is an agreement between the Crown and Maori and no one else. As for an interpretation as a guide, then you have to be guided by the Maori txt and interpretation, which lists kawanatanga and Tino rangatiratanga because that was txt that the great number of chiefs signed. Not the English txt.
Seymour's bill is an attempt at bringing pakeha and non Maori into the mix through the new principles. It's a piss poor attempt at trying to rewrite history and that's why Winnie doesn't want a bar of it
Let the devil and his Minions put themselves in dishonour.
They can delete comments.
They can't delete Truth.
@@Arms26 You sure have spouting garbage pretty good there bro.
@@warriorsfan1602 There is NO interpretation needed. Read it, understand it, agree with and honour it. Is that too much for you Petal.
Good, good, good, good, good well done, stay lawful & diplomatic are appropriate responses & show the respect for, lineage, law & history. Great job Winston!
It is about time somebody told the truth: there are no principles in the Treaty. Treaties say what they mean, and they do not mean anything except what they actually say. It is that simple. Activist judges and the Waitangi Tribunal have been trying for years to pull the wool over all of our eyes. Much as I support ACT, I think in this case, they should adopt NZ First's position.
You have no idea unless you can translate the actual document that was legally signed, which this old fool certainly can’t.
I think Winston may have snookered Luxon andLuxon will have no choice but to agree that there are NO principles or he will look very foolish in deed.
The problem with Winstons argument is, the reasons for the Principles in the first place. The principles were established because there was 2 versions of the treaty signed by both the Crown and Maori. One was English, the other was in Maori, but even though both were signed, they were both different, and they were both contradictory of each other, hence the need to define the principles, because the text itself is unclear.
@@Arms26 - could be... but they are insisting it's the Māori one that is the definitive text, so they can't have it both ways.
@@lu-uf8zjBecause it is. Because Maori is the indigenous language of the nation the treaty was signed in, therefor Te Tiriti is the document which takes precedence. It is also the version which was signed by the majority of Maori chiefs in 1840 rather than the English version.
@@Arms26 read Sir Apirana Ngata's Treaty of Waitangi!
@@Arms26 The English Version shall prevail.
Please allow Sir Winston Peters to speak. He can read the treaty, he is a qualified barrister, he can even read Hebrew and the Torah of Moses. So what Sir Winston Peters says is probably right about the treaty. And Sir Winston needs to be put in charge of this review. Myay my God be with you Sir Winston.
Hebrew? wow 😂
Thank you for telling us those truth
#SirWinstonPeters. ..
The long and short of it is that all citizens will have equality under the law. It is not a long read and simple enough for lay people to get its meaning. Equality is a pramount condition of democracy and to promote distinction is to destroy that essence and promote supremacy.
WINSTON FOR KING.
There's no one that comes close to Uncle Winston in regards to acknowledging Maori Affairs in it's entirety, he's a national treasure Kia Ora ❤
Lining his own pockets.
@@Kult365 Now what makes you say that Kult..?
@@auintogold4725haha gold
@@auintogold4725 all the parties are lining their pockets from the same trough aunty
Bull shit.
too right Winston over this Māori elitism we are all kiwis we are born here and we all should have same rights as the next person stop the cons in the tracks and move on as one people its like a young kid saying this is mine well we all need too learn to shear one people one new Zealand race shouldn't have any thing to do with it
Nope. As in America, the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the US, just as Te Tiriti O Waitangi is the founding document of NZ. NZ was created, it was established by that founding document. You can't just ditch the country's founding document because you don't like it any more. Thats not how a founding document works.
Perpetual land leases. Tell me how that is right!??
We are all immigrants to nz, maoiori, Danes,Maori, European, and Chinese
????? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Māori are getting that non Māori are not or can't?
@kedz2295 they get work subsidies. They get kiwi based lones they get onto corses, and they get their own health befits rights to land that European not allowed on fishing companies like sealoard we protested against apatite in south Africa and we got it in our own country but it's not the European doing it but the moari to us if the European did what is being done buy them it would be called racist but thy do it to us and it's called moari rights
Take them out of the treaty now, Winston, action is what we want!
But they are not in the treaty.
And what I have read of it it assures the citizens of NZ equality under the law.
It also gives Maori sovereignty over our own affairs, INCLUDING land.
@@Arms26 I never read that and I read the whole document, a habit I developed as a union delegate having got fed up with people not reading the whole document/contract and claiming one clause was the document.The treaty has a Sum and it is that everyone is assured of being treated equally, an extremely necessary aspect of democracy and to deviate is to destroy democracy and promote supremacy.
The issue behind the Treaty Principles Bill will not go away no matter how much cowards like Luxon try to ignore it..
This is the reason I voted for Winston.
A funny thing my family have been blessed with the leader of the National Maori Council and Winston all be part of us. The truth is he is 110% right in his statements and when the leaders in business and IWI stop lining their pockets the people will be better off. I have seen this first hand and seen how badly some one is treated so others can have more and more.
What a wonderful fellow Winston is ..
I like him too, however, his ego has taken over proven by the fact that Winston once (as far back as 2005) supported the David (Seymour) proposed Bill yet, because he does not like David, he chooses to not support the proposal, without offering his own solution?
They created the principles as a device to not honor the treaty.
Never give psycho lawyers a crack to drive a wedge into, lawyers only get wealthy when basic facts get fudged.
There are NO principles, they are ARTICLES ......... a completely different meaning.
I wonder if tuku Morgan still has a selection of fancy boxers paid for by the taxpayers.
I'm Māori and I support you Mr Winston sir ❤
Winston Peters is correct.
This is why we need to get it sorted
Great to see New Zealand 🇳🇿 First supporting & appearing regularly on The Platform ✅
Sort it out please- enough talk!
Three sentences....no principles...no partnership. cant someone sort this out ???? Its pretty simple. Just another gravy train!!!!!!
The only gravy train is all the confiscated land that needs to be returned
@@rikimackey7984 then what???
Great Winston, fantastic, real NZ is right behind you. Glad i voted for you.❤❤❤
At last, about time. The gravy train needs to end.
Winston, not always agreeable but actually a wise head for a long time. But we do need Treaty this Treaty that ripped from the statutes. The grievance gravy train and hijacking of public affairs has gotten too far.
There were 3 articles signed and agreed on.... principles do not appear on the signed document
Mr. Winston has always had common sense.
Awesome Winston ❤ so happy to hear this interview 😁💯 so true as well non Maori benefited from proposals made under the treaty and this proposal is just the same💯 an Act to create jobs for non Maori to disadvantage this generation of maoris too 💯
If any knows about the treaty Winston knows and he is Maori get rid of Waitangi tribunal past its use by date
LMAO he can't even SPEAK MAORI so your comment is stupid
I dont think Winston is answering your Question Sean. He seems to skirt around it.
Or maybe you're too thick to understand his answers.
@@heylouie17 perhaps you are too thick to say anything other than accuse people with differing views to you of being too thick
Can we just disband or disestablish the Waitangi Tribunal it is wasting our hard earn money which can go to better deserving causes, like Health and Education. And Winnie you keep this up and I will be voting for your party and ACT and leaving the stupid woke National in the dust, we need more people like you and Seymour leading this country.
No, because the Waitangi tribunal deals with the injustices perpetrated on Maori and the reparations and compensation owed to maori for those injustices. You can't just say "Who cares about maori's" because that in itself is racist.
@@Arms26ah rubbish, it's become a lying perpetual grievance gravy train! They exaggerate at best and also lie. Vile.
@@Arms26 All B'S 🤣🤣🤣
@@Arms26 The original task of the tribunal is long since done. Reparations have been made multiple times over my life time. enough is enough.
Winston i agree their are no Principals in the treaty of waitangi, but why have consecutive Governments which you've been involved in been using Principals since 1990 why haven't these Principals been removed.
The Act party is at least trying to bring back the original meaning of the treaty with its treaty Principals bill.
I'm awaiting to see what NZ First is going to do in this space.
I dont think Winston would read any of the comments ,but you did make a good point. I wont to see it all sorted for the better of New Zealand,
So glad I voted for you Winston
This is winstons way of coping out of having to actually atand behind acts treaty principles bill.
Or maybe you're just too thick to understand the damage Seymour's bill will introduce.
@@heylouie17 any 'damage' is a manufactured threat by those who stand to lose their monetary benefits handed to them by successive governments who just wanted them to keep quiet and not make a fuss
Apirana Ngata was indeed a genius but social engineering narxits wantvto remove his legacy from the history of NZ.
Winston Peters is a NZ Legend
God bless our Winston....cant pull the the preverbial wool over his eyes..I now understand the Treaty is unprincibilled...
If there are no "principles" there can be only "rights".
And duties.
My understanding from Uni was that the principals of the treaty were first presented as a way for Maori and non-Maori to engage in practice. It was a sign of the times where there was often blatant disregard for indigenous customs, such as those around birthing just as an example, where Maori may want to keep the placenta as opposed to throwing it in the hospital burner. The principals at that time were a guide for practice in such situations, to foster an environment of mutual respect. Just like in so many situations however, the anti-smacking bill for instance, we have allowed the pendulum, that needed to swing in my view, go too far the other way. Surely we no longer need laws to engender respect... we need that respect to be exampled, and as Winston does point out, the "gesturing" and divisive fear-mongering some are inciting in our people is sad to see... but then we never know what the government may get up to these days after the covid horrors... Trust and respect, how can that be better exampled so it can grow?
I think the fact that there are no principles is the point that David Seymour is making.
You are 100% right.
You've thought it through. Seymour and Peters both came into Parliament with the same intention to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance. Seymour comes up with a good idea to get the job done. Winston comes up with nothing, only 'tough talk' to rid the country of co-governance and Maorification. Winston's rhetoric has turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Of the two of them, Seymour is the action man. Instead of backing Seymour, which would help realise a mutual goal, Winston shoots him down. The reason? Winston is like a little kid on the inside. What do I mean? Because the Treaty Principle's Bill was not Winston's idea, he's shot it down. And what's behind that? Ego. Winston is a very small man on the inside. It's also well known that Seymour and Peters do not get on on a personal level. So instead of being the bigger man, Peters has let his personal issues with Seymour get in the way of doing what's best for New Zealand. Winston uses the line "There are no principles in the Treaty" as a smoke screen to hide this shameful stuff going on inside him - his personal beef with Seymour. It's disgraceful behaviour from Winston Peters and he needs to be called out. The fact that Winston cannot produce an alternative better plan than Seymour's Bill is proof that what I am saying here is true. Anyone with half a brain will see through Winston's rhetoric to what is REALLY going on here. Clearly, Winston's pre-election tough talk on ridding the country of co-governance and Maorification was nothing more than Oscar winning acting. Winston has turned out to be a shallow characterless little wind bag who is prepared to put his ego and his personal issues with Seymour before what's best for the country.
And yet he wants to define it? If there are no principles, what are you defining?
@@heylouie17 The principles are basically a summary of the Treaty. The existing principles don't reflect the true meaning of the Treaty at all. This is what David is on about.
@@heylouie17 The 'principles' have been talked about since the 1980s, without definition. Seymour is just asking 'what are these principles'.Winnie has answered 'there are none'. Effectively agreeing with him. It's all semantics
There is a difference: Take the first of Seymour's principals, Govt vs Crown, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Leave the thing as it is but demand it is adhered to. I'll stop there shall I.
Brilliant !
Knowing the TRUTH IS REAL POWER !⚔️⚖️🙏♾️
IN ORDER FOR JUSTICE TO PREVAIL mmmmmh !?🤔
👍😎🎱⚔️⚖️🙏♾️
Thank you Winston
I attended law school when G Palmer was lecturing.....he taught as fact what was his own opinion. In class I challenged him....he was not interested ....we were all there to take his words as gospel and regurgitate them. Winston is spot on.
There are a lot of things in your coalition agreement, Mr Peters, that have not been actioned, AS YET. It was in the coalition agreement to take all references to "the principles of the treaty" out of NZ law. You've had nine months to do so. It has not been done. WHY NOT just make a law saying there are no principles in the treaty? Disestablish the Waitangu Tribunal. Disestablish the Maori Roll, as advocated by the commission that established MMP. Just shut down the whole "Partnership" scam once and for all.
A lie told from the top ruins all below.
Ceded Soveriegnty an thats that !!! BLOODY SIMPLE !!!!
👍
Too simple for some. The people who signed weren't thick or gullible. Several had been to England or Australia, knew what the options were and weighed up their immediate violent past with the musket wars, with another (hopefully better) way of doing things. There were vigorous arguments about whether to sign or not as recorded by W Colenso, and the vast majority eventually agreed to cede sovereignty to Queen Vic. with protective rights for them. Most of It was all done and dusted in a day or thereabouts. Unlike today, they didn't muck around back then.
This is the 1st article the Maori chiefs signed....There is no mention of tino rangatiratanga which is sovereignty there is kawanatanga katoa which is ceding governance to the British crown but governance and sovereignty are two different things!!!Anyway the Waitangi Tribunal already declared many years ago that Māori didn't cede sovereignty but here you are thinking you know better!!!
Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu - te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
Keep crying as it is written so it is.
The English version didn't even exist until years after 1840 just another way the British tried to rip us off 😂😂😂The principle bill is gone none of the parties are supporting it so build a bridge 😂😂😂
@@CatherineAugust Hello. regarding your comments above. "One Sun in the Sky" by Ewen McQueen is worth a read. Whether you agree or disagree here and there.
@@CatherineAugust maori were illiterate....british version existed first, The brits had to create a written language for maori....this whole puzzle has less than 4 pieces.... Suck it up princess
Even if there were no principles in the Treaty, it does not mean you cant establish principles based on commonly understood meanings and reduce any confusion. The fact that that the current government appear unwilling or unable to enunciate treaty principles, should not deter people of good faith and reasonable intelligence from doing so.
Number 1 principle,money for nothing.
A great Interview. I voted for the NZ First representative of Ngaruawahia. We need change of policy on many issues. One being Ill renters and landlords with no rights to defend their property. The previous Ardern government promised more housing but failed, and yet the council is going after Landlords over delinquent renters, when it is the owners renting out housing that help fill the gap in affordable housing and end up not having any rights. Please help me make sense of this?.
cause you did
@jinjaman101 of course I did you mean..... what a intellectual and profound reply to my post. Bruh....
HERE HERE
David Seymour's 3 principles are faithful to the meaning and intent of the Treaty as it was understood by all parties in 1840.
It deserves our full support.
Winston is a huge disappointment by not supporting this Bill.
He has personal issues with Seymour which he is allowing to get in the way of doing something for the betterment of New Zealand.
Shame on him for being such a little man on the inside.
He always pontificates about Sir Apirana Ngata, and how Ngata is his authority, but he RARELY gives any specifics about where he agrees with Ngata. This is telling.
For example, Ngata believed that Maori ceded sovereignty.
Ngata believed that in ceding sovereignty, the Chiefs handed over to the British the management of all the resources of this country, except those which were privately owned. Maori went on to sell 92% of their land.
Ngata believed that the land confiscations were justified.
In combination, these three opinions alone would derail today's gravy train.
But will Winston cite them? Answer? No.
Does he argue the point? No.
Does he go in to bat? No.
Why? He doesn't know enough about the Treaty to defend Ngata's opinions.
Shame on Winston again for being so history ignorant.
At his age, and with all his experience, he ought be the most Treaty savvy MP in our parliament, but he's not.
He only has two corks in his Treaty pop gun, and that is that the Treaty is not a partnership and Maori ceded sovereignty.
Once these two corks are fired, it seems he has nothing else to say. Unbelievable. Both these point (i.e. that the Treaty is not a partnership and that Maori ceded sovereignty) need to be teased out, explained, extrapolated, otherwise they are meaningless. Does Winston do that? No. Why? He doesn't know any more than the bullet points.
Has Winston offered an alternative to David's Bill? Answer? No.
Again, Winston doesn't have any answer. He will shoot down another man's idea, with no alternative idea of his own. In other words, sour grapes. That too is shameful.
I say it again, shame on Winston again for having NO solution after 50 years of parliamentary experience.
He too fears the activists, inspite of all his huff and bluff and tough talk.
All his bravado promising to deal to Maorification and co-governance at the opening of parliament in 2023 has turned out to be nothing more than hot air.
I can see now why Seymour was so critical of Peters prior to the 2023 election. At that time, I defended Peters.
Now I don't. Seymour's criticism of Peters has proven to be justified.
As for Luxon?
He is $#%^ scared of Maori activists, and is, from the activists point of view, a sure bet for an easy cave in. He is an easy beat.
Luxon is conflict averse, and when he sees it coming, and the whites of the eyes of the activists flashing, he is quick to push his big read 'appease' button which sits front and centre on his desk.
He is a dream PM for the activists. Why? He is cowardly, easy bullied, and he came into parliament with a secret agenda to further Maorification and co-governance under the radar which he did not campaign on. He cherry picked Potaka to do the heavy lifting for him.
This is why the activists give Luxon 3 big ticks.
Shame on him for being like that.
His only handbrake in the coalition talks was NZ First and Act. If they hadn't been there, Luxon would have put the peddle to the metal on Maorification and co-governance.
So we have two cowardly "leaders" in the coalition, and one very brave courageous soul - David Seymour. He ought to have been the PM.
I am not a member of the Act Party but I love Seymour for his guts, tenacity, and courage.
These character traits are sorely missing in our current crop of MPs, so Seymour is a rare bird.
His battle is truly epic, not unlike the legendary story of David (ironically) and Goliath.
Let's get behind him and encourage him as he goes in to battle against his giant.
Abandoned by Peters and Luxon, we, the public, are his only hope.
Collectively, we have enourmous power.
I believe the public of New Zealand will turn out in huge numbers to support him when they read his 3 principles, and take time to think them through carefully and deeply. Watch THIS video which explains how.
He deserves to win, and he can win, for what he is fighting for not only honours the Treaty but his 3 principles are the best thing for all New Zealanders.
Activists have been milking 'the principles' for decades to bleed the country, and as soon as Seymour comes along to define them, all hell breaks loose. Why? The activists prefer the undefined principles because they can then make the Treaty say whatever they want. The plundering can then go on, unhindered. David wants to bring this to an end.
Peters knows this, but he won't back Seymour's Bill because it wasn't his idea. Ego.
This too is shameful.
Seymour's Bill will put an end to the gravy train once and for all. It will end this gigantic racket that's been going on since the Sim Royal Commission in 1927.
This Bill has GOT to succeed or our country is finished.
Amusing when the full-time racists get upset with the part-time racists. And for reference your comment that Sir Apirana Ngata agreed that the land confiscations were justified is completely wrong. As I'm sure you know.
@@drinkingup2157 “Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws.
Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled.
The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen.
The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”
(Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty Of Waitangi. An Explanation. pp 15-16)
Why not get the country out of wef we are being divided on purpose and tell England to pay new Zealand for the hate crimes they committed
England instigated “hate crimes” in all of her Colonies. That’s how these bastards ruled for soo long. “Divide and Conquer” was her main policy!
Administrator of New Zealand is concerned, they want to continue Administration. Do they have a right?
Kia kaha NZFrist!
Well said Winston
Seymour has to go through with the process because nobody takes Peters seriously.
Yes Uncle Winnie
Totally agree its been happening forever
Luxon is weak
Principles can mean the truth,so is the wording of the Treaty kept true or false,that is what needs to
be clarified.So what is the two renegades Parties afraid of.
If indeed principles need to be drawn from history let them be from the mouths of the Treaty Chiefs.
NZ First is supporting party ACT to introduce it harmful ideas.
ACT said, "we need to give it a go in the Kiwi way" when referring the bill concerning the Treaty, but the government did give a number of laws passed in 2023 a chance to see if they would have positive effect. The government is selective in how it uses words!
Hobson should have gone back like he was instructed to instead of signing a failure of a contract as it clearly is.look at the mess its created on so many levels!
Peters is full of it NZF want to review the relevance of the principles in legislation Not remove all of them FACT
David wants to nurture that sentiment with Winston and partner up on it.
Every business is based on a declaration other governments are set up with a declaration to some have other documents to guide them to their outcomes when would it be time to create leading statutory documents 🙃
How many treaties does NZ have?
New Zealand is currently party to more than 1,900 treaties, as well as many others that are not yet in force. A treaty is an international agreement between countries or international entities (eg the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, or World Bank) that's legally binding under international law. Ova
at 6.06min: "...for elitists at the top who bleed off their people in terms of their income...and never EVER pass the money down". Now we got the facts from the horse's mouth, a champion for NZ, first. He will get plenty votes on this alone and be re-elected on what he succinctly shows to all of us, the things that some people do that are bad for NZ. Only benefit the elitists. Equal and one for all NZ, that's what should be.
Meanings change with political realities. Back in Buck and Pomare's time they were happy to interpret the treaty in a way that was good for national unity (ethnic groups absorp other ethnic groups; if you can't beet them join them). Since then there have been thousands trained in Fanon, Cesare, Gramsci (etc). There is a constituency in the universities and professional Maori (being Maori is a job for some), because the treaty is ambiguous any interpretation reflects the political realities of the day.
Interesting, but the treaty wasn't ambiguous at the time. It was vigorously argued beforehand including by chiefs who had been overseas and clearly understood the implications against the background of the devastating, debilitating musket wars. People of today really ought to give peoples of the past more credit. They weren't stupid.
God ble
I agree with you Sean
The question has to be asked of the National Party "Is there NO principles in the" " Treaty Of Waitangi"
All i can say God help NZ, to much racial problems, the country only go down
Their is no true "Maori" blood left! All watered down with "white" blood. Breath of fresh air Sir pete
that maori speaks for this maori tks cuz
Make no bones about it. The only one Winnie looks after is Winnie.
What the principles seek to define is the blurred line between interpretations .. Specifically because so much time is wasted across ministries with conflicting views of interpretation including Tino Rangatiratanga which in isolation argues for separatism, whilst in confluence with both sides aka all New Zealanders might clarify personal responsibilities & freedoms
Wish this country would get over itself ..ad move on... banging on about the same stuff for decade's now.... .
Winnie is so cool..
nose diving this country straight to hell - NZ Last
should call your party Pakeha First
The treaty was signed while all were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Any court that follows the law would toss the treaty out.
The crown created the principles. Maori is just utilizing them...Now you want to get rid the Tribunal for doing their job, that the crown created....
corruption by abuse of meanings of words ... treaty... principals. its all so tiresome.
Then why don't YOU do something about it then? You said you wanted to get rid of the Waitangi Tribunal, stop posturing on the subject of principles and get rid of this 'myth' as you call it!
The FACT is, the "Principles" came about because there was 2 Treaties signed by the same 2 peoples at the same time. There was the English version, and there was the Maori version, and both were very different, and it came down to Article 1 of the Treaty and Article 2 of Te Tiriti. Both versions are different, but both versions were signed which clearly contradicted each other which is the entire reason for the wars of 1863 -64. Apart from the fact that Grey wanted what wasn't his, because he believed the Treaty gave him full sovereignty over the entire country and its population, which was in clear contradiction of Article 2 of Te Tiriti which allows Maori Tinorangatiratanga over our own affairs. Both articles contradict each other in every way, hence the need to establish "Principles" because the text itself contradicts itself.
A very sloppy bit of 1980's law-making by Sir Geoffrey "Principles" Palmer. He was warned at the time. Now every man, woman and dog think they know best, including me.
Stop spreading misinformation, the two are identical and you know it. Cut it out sweetie, what you are doing is now highly illegal in the UK at least, and you would be arrested for it.
@@paulmeersa7162watch out sweetie....your ego is showing
@@debbiestaite3184 Only just a tiny weenie little bit, but I think I got away with it because nobody noticed - except for you. :)
Well said...😅
"There are NO Principles" Full stop....
There are no principals in our western alliance
go to crown I bet they have a gd copy of it treaty of waitangi
Excellent interview 🎉🎉
He's a Koro of kai
He’s our resident grifter.He’s always got something negative to say about any topic under the sun.You say no he says yes.. simple as that.
Lol, Chur Uncle Winnie...😊❤
we know you cancelled them all
What does peters know about the treaty😂😂😂😂
Grandpa Simpson Winston barking at the clouds again.
Gravy train?