this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1648 readers
8 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
Te Pāti Māori wants to establish its own parliament (www.stuff.co.nz)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Im quite surprised by this, isn't Parliament a crown/british concept? And Te Pati Maori are usually quite opposed to Crown concepts.

Regardless, I think as much hate as ACT gets for this - it seems obvious that clarity on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is required so that every New Zealander knows where they stand (legally speaking) and we can move on as a country.

The different interpretations from different groups are distracting from the real issues because the solution gets muddied.

Should we establish group-specific organisations that all do the same thing, just for different segments of society - or should we pour our energy and resources into making organisations work for all New Zealanders?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is not really impossible, and there is clear international precedent for how to deal with these kinds of situations.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[2]

This is the legal equivalent of "you cut, I choose".

The fact there are two versions of the treaty, and they are not equivalent, and the crown provided the wording on both (since at the time there was no written Maori language), contract law would side with the Maori on any ambiguous points.

The challenge is determining what is ambiguous, what can be done with the discovered ambiguities. Obviously the two treaties are not wholly different and both languages have evolved since the treaties were drafted. Te Reo is a modern language, it is (from my understanding) an amalgam of various versions of the Maori languages (see Whanganui vs Wanganui) that were spoken by the separate tribes, they were all very similar but with regional differences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

This is the legal equivalent of "you cut, I choose".

I love this summary of that latin :)