Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Art's avatar

Thank you, Grant, for raising this matter in the way you have.

At its core, I do sense we have to be most careful with our language, which means the way we formulate our very questions, since this will determine the kind of answers we can and cannot come to. It is always the case in any field of enquiry: the very form of the questions determines to a high degree the kinds of answers.

For example, already, when discussing principles, some comments also presuppose a partnership between two parties, namely the crown and Māori. Others speak of a partnership between Maori

and Pakeha. What’s all a bit loosey goosey is the failure to appreciate sufficiently the 1987 Lands case and the due language of the five Judges.

Here’s a link that might assist (and sure; while we’ve all got sundry provenances, I merely try to pay attention to many!):

https://www.nzcpr.com/fairy-tales-for-the-gullible/

Expand full comment
Andrew Riddell's avatar

ACT introducing a bill setting a version of the principles of Te Tiriti is fundamentally at odds with the principle that both parties to an agreement should, if necessary, clarify its content and implications.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts