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?
I guess my question is - are they just wanting a better negotiating body, or are they planning two sets of laws, where they set their own for Māori?
That I don’t know, though my perspective is that’s up to them to work out and as Pākehā i’ll have to learn how to negotiate that relationship if/when it ever happens.
That’s not a position i’ve always held, but over the years as i’ve read books like ‘Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee’ and other stories about the dispossession of indigenous people i’ve come to a much more complicated understanding of the price that was paid for the privilege I enjoy. It’s uncomfortable, but that’s a minor inconvenience compared to the cost others paid.
No way will that ever be allowed to happen.
I wasn’t asking what would happen, just what they want to happen 😆
To be fair, there are countries with two sets of laws. One thing that comes to mind is in Malaysia you can go to the pub for a beer, unless you’re registered as Muslim and then you can go to prison for drinking alcohol (though a fine is more likely).
I very much doubt they will propose having less privileges than another group though, it will almost certainly be more privileges for us than them.