Daily Poll

Should National hold firm on removing treaty obligations from SOEs being sold?

  • Yes (89%, 552 Votes)
  • No (11%, 67 Votes)

Total Voters: 619

Loading ... Loading ...
 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • GAM

    Ditch the treaty altogether.

  • EX Navy Greg

    I think it is about time the country grew up and had a long hard look at the constitution.
    I’m not certain of the precise wording of section 9, but my gut feeling is, until the “relevance of the treaty and do we still need it” discussion is held, we are going to be stuck with it.

  • Petal

    I don’t see a constitution / republic during my life time.  Too many vested interest riding the gravy train.

    • Pete George

       The current state of play suggests you may be right, which is a shame.

  • Agent BallSack

    We need a constitution that takes into account all New Zealanders. Even the American Constitution has been added to and challenged in law. Hence the Amendments. We have a piece of toilet paper only the Maori can decipher, and surprise, It seems to be all about them.

  • Pete George

    With a long weekend looming it raises the question: Waitangi – day of pride or protest?

    http://yourdunedin.org/2012/02/03/waitangi-day-symbol-of-grievance/

    • Groans

      Two countries have solemn national days, New Zealand and Israel.  At least we’re in good company.

      • Anonymous

        That is so true…look at how much fun 4th of July is, or even Australia Day. It’s like we’re ashamed of celebrating it – no one I know has a party in its honour. It’s all very solemn and all anyone cares about is that we get a day off work. 

      • Gazzaw

        That’s a matter of opinion.

      • I certainly don’t feel very celebratory on Waitangi day. I don’t want to be construed as racist, but all I see the treaty has caused is ill-feeling. 

        My “ancestors”, the white colonists (the ones that raped your lands, depending on point of view), did some pretty bad stuff in the name of the treaty – but in the last few decades, the reverse has hampered our countries social and economic development for everyone.There will never be racial unity while the taxes of the whole, of people who never condoned or committed these so-called atrocities, are used to “compensate” an ethnic group’s members who were never directly the victim of them. Let’s all move on, and accept that we are no longer a bicultural society. There are other people here too.

  • Euan Rt

    I’m sure some would call me an ignorant pakeha, but I would prefer the term ‘contributing member of 2012 NZ society’. For me I can’t fathom what the treaty has to do with the partial sale of a relatively recent business which is set to benefit all NZers. The sale is certainly not racist or detrimental to iwi, other than an opportunity for what can only be described as ingrained NZ form of bribery. I am happy for resources to be channeled to uphold Maori culture, I believe we have a moral obligation to not be part of the demise of Maori culture. I was under the impression that we were having final compensation (treaty settlements) and then drawing a line and saying lets get on with now being New Zealand for New Zealanders. Heck even the most recent immigrant from Tonga has the same rights as me – a decendant of 1840 settlers, and so they should. They are committing to being a New Zealander. I say it is time for some ‘Line drawing’ in permanent ink.

  • Richard B. (formally poorman)

    I say this is just common sense.
     
    These partial sales are going to the general public, basically competing with private companies.
     
    What other company in New Zealand has to include a clause regarding the ‘Tweety’ in its constitution?
     
    NONE!!!! So why should these?

    • Hakimofphut

      What ‘general public’ , Key was talking about  keeping ‘institutional investors’ happy.
      See the difference, one phrase was used before the election the other after the election.

      Before the wedding Key is such a ‘sweet and reasonable bride’ but once the ceremony is over its the ‘wife from hell’

      • ‘Institutional investors’ represent the money invested in: Kiwisaver, Private superannuation, investment funds; by the ‘general public’. Yes some of them are rich pricks/John Key’s friends. 

        But others are people with a few spare dollars, who live frugally, save for retirement and want to earn something from their savings. Shock horror – some of them vote Labour. 

  • Anonymous

    The Treaty is completely irrelevant to any private entity running (say) a power station. WTF has the Tweety got to do with that? Nothing. It would do nothing except get in the way.

    I think a constitution (which would supercede the Treaty) is a great idea, and well overdue. 

  • EX Navy Greg

    One could argue the treaty was between the British crown and Maori, when NZ went independant, it should have been sorted then.
    The vagaries surrounding it should have no part in business, and will reduce the value of the business and add costs.

  • jay cee

    now i would be a lot happier if someone could spell out to me just what are the “principles” of the treaty.havng said that the crown did sign a treaty with maori which gives them a say in these matters,to try and say that you don’t like that fact and the treaty should be dumped whenever its inconvenient puts you in the same waka as that guy who said he doesn’t recognise the authority of the courts in this country. 

    • Euan Rt

      You can be sure that there is nothing in the treaty about hydro electric dams, or publicly owned companies for that matter.

    • Thorn

      Lord Robin Cooke decided  the Treaty ought to be a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown, something neither contained nor intended in the Treaty itself. Elias has very profitably followed through with this perversion of the actual agreement. 

      She believes the Courts, meaning herself, may lawfully over-ride the will of parliament so expect more confusion and graft while she is around.

31%