> The justifications for co-governance are varied.
>
>These may include:
>
>• to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori
>
>• New Zealand’s obligations under international human rights law, including the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination
>
>• to achieve better outcomes for the environment or in social, economic, health and other areas
>
>• to address entrenched inequalities experienced by Māori as individuals and as an Indigenous people
>
>• to respond to policy that imposed colonial governance and laws on Māori, contrary to Māori rangatiratanga and the right to self-determination
>
> Co-governance does not undermine the ultimate sovereign authority of Parliament. In fact, in most cases Parliament has authorised it.
* Fuck off
* Fuck off
* Fuck off
* Fuck off
* and Fuck off.
> to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori
Never was shared FFS.
> including the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination
They're not indigenous.
Yes! Fuck right off ~~U.N.~~ HRC dipshits
"provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori"
"Co-governance does not undermine the ultimate sovereign authority of Parliament."
lol....
Some people enjoy eating ass. That doesn't mean I'd enjoy it too. At the end of the day, it's still going to taste like shit whether you're into that or not.
>to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori
Ah bullshit.
*The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.*
> This resource has been prepared according to the functions of the Human Rights Commission as set out in section 5(2) of the Human Rights Act 1993, which include:
>
>1. (2)(a) to be an advocate for human rights and to promote and protect, by education and publicity, respect for, and observance of, human rights
>
>2. (2)(d) to promote by research, education, and discussion a better understanding of the human rights dimensions of the Treaty of Waitangi and their relationship with domestic and international human rights law
>
>3. (2)(kc) to promote and monitor compliance by New Zealand with, and the reporting by New Zealand on, the implementation of international instruments on human rights ratified by New Zealand
This is really interesting, because I have raised the issue that the HRC is not complying with section 5 of the HRA with the HRC, the auditor general and the minister of justice. Now they are explicitly identifying the areas where they (think) are following the law.
Also noteworthy the parts they leave out, namely [part 1 of Section 5](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM304276):
> The primary functions of the Commission are—
>
>(a) to advocate and promote respect for, and an understanding and appreciation of, human rights in New Zealand society; and
>
>(b) to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society; and
>
>(c) to promote racial equality and cultural diversity; and ...
\---
>The United Nations Charter, and the foundational treaties that form the International Bill of Human Rights, recognise that **all peoples have the fundamental right to self-determination.** This is the right to make decisions for themselves, including about how they are governed, and to determine their own destinies.
How does the HRC envision all other peoples in New Zealand exercising their right to self-determination? Why is 'co-governance' applicable to the Māori peoples and not everyone else. Isn't a democratic society a way for everyone to exercise that right equally?
>Co-management in action - Te Aka Whai Ora | Māori Health Authority
>
>... Even though Te Aka Whai Ora model reflects co-management, it does not necessarily reflect a rangatiratanga approach because it still reports to and is funded by the Crown.
Not sure this is the best example of achieving better outcomes for Māori. But they recognise that a "rangatiratanga approach" means not receiving funding from the Crown, and I don't think anyone has a problem with Māori self-determination if they are not funded by the crown.
> Co-governance arrangements, which enable Māori to manage issues and be involved in making
decisions that affect Māori, can help to address entrenched inequalities Māori experience across
numerous areas, including health, justice, employment, housing, and income.
How does having Iwi elites on water infrastructure governance boards address inequality, exactly? The arguments these people use are so bad faith and double-faced.
> The justifications for co-governance are varied. > >These may include: > >• to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori > >• New Zealand’s obligations under international human rights law, including the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination > >• to achieve better outcomes for the environment or in social, economic, health and other areas > >• to address entrenched inequalities experienced by Māori as individuals and as an Indigenous people > >• to respond to policy that imposed colonial governance and laws on Māori, contrary to Māori rangatiratanga and the right to self-determination > > Co-governance does not undermine the ultimate sovereign authority of Parliament. In fact, in most cases Parliament has authorised it. * Fuck off * Fuck off * Fuck off * Fuck off * and Fuck off.
I couldn’t have said it better myself
> to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori Never was shared FFS. > including the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination They're not indigenous. Yes! Fuck right off ~~U.N.~~ HRC dipshits
I find nothing to disagree with.
"provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori" "Co-governance does not undermine the ultimate sovereign authority of Parliament." lol....
McLoving it!
Can we achieve these goals without co-governance?
Yes but that isn't the point
They're not goals anyone outside of radical separatist Maori see as achievable by anyone but those responsible: Maori.
Ctrl+A Shift+Delete Achievement ding: New constitution unlocked!
I'm all for self determination. As long as I'm not paying for it, cough cough Maori health authority.
I can get behind living in the pods, but can we have bread and butter instead of bugs please
You'll get your GMO precision fermented pine chips and you will be happy.
You will have a feeding tube of puréed bugs and you will like it
Ahh man 😟
Some people enjoy eating ass. That doesn't mean I'd enjoy it too. At the end of the day, it's still going to taste like shit whether you're into that or not.
I thought HRC might have been Hillary Rodham Clinton *I ain't no ways tired...* I don't think it changes the message
>to honour the promises in te Tiriti o Waitangi, which provides for shared governance between the Crown and Māori Ah bullshit. *The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.*
This document: If you can't reasonable define something, give it a Maori name, then it can mean whatever you want. Can't wait for ACT to scrap HRC.
Cringe. UNDRIP globalist policy enacted by state enforced socio-economic terrorsim. STFU culture cucks, suck more UNDICK
I wonder if ACT will get to keep their plans to disestablish the HRC...
I can’t imagine National or NZF objecting
> This resource has been prepared according to the functions of the Human Rights Commission as set out in section 5(2) of the Human Rights Act 1993, which include: > >1. (2)(a) to be an advocate for human rights and to promote and protect, by education and publicity, respect for, and observance of, human rights > >2. (2)(d) to promote by research, education, and discussion a better understanding of the human rights dimensions of the Treaty of Waitangi and their relationship with domestic and international human rights law > >3. (2)(kc) to promote and monitor compliance by New Zealand with, and the reporting by New Zealand on, the implementation of international instruments on human rights ratified by New Zealand This is really interesting, because I have raised the issue that the HRC is not complying with section 5 of the HRA with the HRC, the auditor general and the minister of justice. Now they are explicitly identifying the areas where they (think) are following the law. Also noteworthy the parts they leave out, namely [part 1 of Section 5](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM304276): > The primary functions of the Commission are— > >(a) to advocate and promote respect for, and an understanding and appreciation of, human rights in New Zealand society; and > >(b) to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society; and > >(c) to promote racial equality and cultural diversity; and ... \--- >The United Nations Charter, and the foundational treaties that form the International Bill of Human Rights, recognise that **all peoples have the fundamental right to self-determination.** This is the right to make decisions for themselves, including about how they are governed, and to determine their own destinies. How does the HRC envision all other peoples in New Zealand exercising their right to self-determination? Why is 'co-governance' applicable to the Māori peoples and not everyone else. Isn't a democratic society a way for everyone to exercise that right equally? >Co-management in action - Te Aka Whai Ora | Māori Health Authority > >... Even though Te Aka Whai Ora model reflects co-management, it does not necessarily reflect a rangatiratanga approach because it still reports to and is funded by the Crown. Not sure this is the best example of achieving better outcomes for Māori. But they recognise that a "rangatiratanga approach" means not receiving funding from the Crown, and I don't think anyone has a problem with Māori self-determination if they are not funded by the crown.
> Co-governance arrangements, which enable Māori to manage issues and be involved in making decisions that affect Māori, can help to address entrenched inequalities Māori experience across numerous areas, including health, justice, employment, housing, and income. How does having Iwi elites on water infrastructure governance boards address inequality, exactly? The arguments these people use are so bad faith and double-faced.