Talk:Waitangi Tribunal

Untitled

This Article is a stub, how do you get that stub thing put in?

Copyright?

Is this copy and pasted from the Waitangi Tribunal website; is that text public domain? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:56, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Concerns around introduction piece

I have concerns around the statements that the Waitangi Tribunal is "empowered to compensate", using the phrase "Māori people" and that the Tribunal makes judgments on "land obtained by fraud or by force".

empowered to compensate

The Waitangi Tribunal is not empowered to compensate, it is empowered to investigate and make recommendations on a claim by a Māori or a group of Māori that feel they have been prejudiced by laws and regulations or by acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown since 1840 that are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. See question 11 of the Waitangi Tribunal FAQ for verification.

I suggest that the statement "empowered to compensate" be removed and replaced by "empowered to investigate and make recommendations on claims by".

Māori people

Standard nomenclature where referring to people of an ethnicity is to use the title of there ethnicity not to add "people" on the end of the statement (i.e. Asian or Asians) not Asian people. Also the a in Māori should have a macron above it.

I suggest that the statement "Maori people" be modified to "a Māori or group of Māori" (as a claim can be made be either a individual or a group).

land obtained by fraud or by force

Firstly this statement only refers to land, the Waitangi Tribunal looks at all incidents where the Treaty of Waitangi has been infringed, this can be on a range of issues from repression of the Maori language through to treatment of Maori by Governmental forces (see question 4 of Waitangi Tribunal FAQ for verification). As well as this the original statement misses one very important element, the infraction of the Treaty must have been performed by agents of the Crown as the Treaty was only signed between the Crown and Maori.

I suggest that the statement "land obtained by fraud or force" be removed and replaced by "that their rights under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been infringed by actions of the Crown in the period since 1840" Adam 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a court

I made a minor edit to the article because it was contradictory. The introduction called the Tribunal a court, while the body of the article explained how it was a commission of inquiry, not a court, and did not have the powers of a court. As the Tribunal's website confirms, the Tribunal is a commission of inquiry. Kahuroa 10:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is most definitely not a court. There are no rules of evidence, and the tribunal is inherently biased against the permanent defendant, the Crown. The role of the tribunal is to study alleged breaches of the treaty by the Crown, and to recommend remedies.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A year later

Just noting (mostly as a note to self or anyone else with verified info on this) that this article lacks any mention of the many cases which the Tribunal has investigated and made recommendations for recompense to Government. Kahuroa 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortfalls

This entry is kind of sparse, very little mention of it's history, for one the 1985 Ammendment Act is ignored entirely, quite fundamental to the operation of the Tribunal. There's no mention of any reports or landmark decisions, i think that's quite important? I think i'll have to have a sit down and edit on this in a week or so, just thought i should sound some opinion first Squiddy7 11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this

From the "Investigatory powers" section: "For example, the Tribunal may follow 'te kawa o te marae'". This is linked to this section of the marae article. That explains what "marae" means; however the rest of the phrase is still unclear as things stand. What does "te kawa o te" mean? That needs to be made explicit, as most non-NZ readers will not know. 86.149.131.137 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Generally each tribe has a set of rules(kawa) that they apply on Marae, which are traditional gathering places and there associated buildings. Most tribes or subtribes (hapu) have marae that operate for important events or meetings such as weddings(less common) , funerals(tangi) (more common),or greeting important guests . Each tribes rules are sightly different . They have developed over many years and now incorporate some modern European features such as the display of photos of the dead. The term means"meeting house rules and traditions".Some differences are that rules are not written down and fluid. Only men can speak on the paepae (area in front of main building). In the welcoming party only men of rank can sit on the front benches, women ,even if important, must sit at the back. Songs of welcome are sung. Any visitors are expected to give a koha (gift ). These days koha is always money and is generally worked out beforehand at so much per head,to offset marae running costs. Shoes are removed before entering and left in the porch. In the wharenui (the largest building)traditionally speakers can be very blunt or even use crude language. Anyone can expect to speak and be listened to. If a speaker makes a point that is generally accepted or well expressed their supporter may get to their feet and sing a song of support. The Maori culture and each tribe has a range of songs that they may sing to convey different emotions such as sympathy or solidarity. Hearsay is commonly expressed and rules of evidence are virtually non existent. On marae, force of character (mana) is widely respected by Maori and expected to be expressed by men who are leaders. Oral speaking ability is highly prized. In formal occaisions such as the welcome, generally Maori only is spoken, even if most of the people dont speak Maori. Sometimes an English translation will be given especially if the marae is at a school or for tourists. Inside the main building a mixture of English and Maori is spoken. When Maori is spoken a translation will be given as few Maori(about 4%) and fewer Pakeha(probably less the .5%??) speak fluent Maori whereas all Maori are fluent English speakers. You dont eat in a wharenui but in a separate dining place (wharekai). It is very normal for people to sleep in a wharenui overnight on mattresses laid on the floor against the wall. Men and women and children sleep together. One important kawa(rule) is that a person must not step over the head of another person ( especially a male of importance) while they are lying down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Limitations

The "Limitations" section reads like psychobabble, and appears to be a restatement of a single person's opinion piece, not a weighted disussion of all relevant points of view, nor an accurate representation of the professional legal consensus. As written I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia, and it certainly doesn't warrant it's own section.

I have removed it again pending a rewrite/inclusion elsewhere that satisfies Wikipedia:Relevance, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.

Tobus (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@used:Harryhenry1 et al. I see your edit today removing my recent addition. I am not surprised and in a way I don't disagree. However, the problem with this article goes much deeper. The article must contain greater depth of what the tribunal actually is and why it was created. It isn't simple and most people won't understand the issues, which are complicated. That is why most of the sources used are superficial and hence misleading or just wrong. I cringe every time I hear peoplle say "It's a breach of the treaty!", when what they mean is it is contrary to what ABC thinks are the treaty principles. We must make it very clear that the tribunal is nothing more than a temporary creation designed for a purpose, to right the assumed wrongs of the past. That must include arguments about how and why the tribunal does that, and why it does not. Why it does not is a fundamental line of reasoning that must be included. The part you removed does not neatly fit into the article, but that is mainly due to the article's poor construction. An obvious first step would be to remove the long detailed list of cases. Those cases should each be summarised in a couple of sentences and have links to their own articles. This article should be much smaller and give most weight to the legal reasons why the tribunal exists, and the arguments why it should not exist in its current form - the "fundamentally flawed" part of the section you have removed. If you don't know, nearly all mainstream historians won't be part of the tribunal because, put simply, it is inventing what happened in the past: we don't know how, what and why things happened as they did over a hundred years ago, and never will know. That is also why nearly all legal cases have a time limitation of only a few years, and why the tribunal did not initially have jurisdiction to hear claims going way back to 1840. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

the commenbts by @Roger 8 Roger don't express an NPOV and nor do they represent a "mainstream" or "balanced" point of view on the treaty and tribunal.

The issues are not complicated in themselves, nor are they unique to NZ --- rather they have been and are being "complicated" by us white settlers who do not appreciated treaties and judgements by the UN that our occupations - our countries - are at best illegitimate and most likely ongoing crime against humanity. I'm mentioning this on the talk pages because US editors may not appreciate the domestic NZ politics --- which, sadly, are of a piece with the ongoing conflict in once-mandatory Palestine, and TRUMP's recent welcoming of Boer refugees (another conflict that's been running for 150 years).

Many of the comments above are factually incorrect:

* I cringe every time I hear peoplle say "It's a breach of the treaty!", when what they mean is it is contrary to what ABC thinks are the treaty principles.

No, what we mean is that is obviously against the plain meaning of the text of the treaty in either Te Reo Māori or English. Note that the text of the treaty provides absolutely no "rights" to white settlers, for the same reason the US constitution of 1862 provided no rights to African Americans.

• We must make it very clear that the tribunal is nothing more than a temporary creation designed for a purpose, to right the assumed wrongs of the past

The treaty was permanently established in 1975, with no termination date, and it was originally only able to respond to contemporary breaches. The Tribunal was granted the power to explore pre-1975 claims in 1985, but access to lodge those claims was closed off in 2008. The most consequential change to its jurisdiction was an explicit "apartheid" clause inserted into the legislation section 6 clause (4A) (a) that explicitly removes white-owned (aka "private") land from consideration in any of the tribunal's recommendations. Thus the tribunal was a permanent creation designed to comment upon the actual wrongs of the present.

(https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM435515)

• give most weight to the legal reasons why the tribunal exists

there aren't any "legal reasons" why the tribunal exists: rather the reasons are constitutional, political, and perhaps moral.

• and the arguments why it should not exist in its current form

these arguments should not appear on this page at all, in the same way and for the same reasons that arguments against the US Supreme Court or the Australian High Court, do not appear on those pages.

• nearly all mainstream historians won't be part of the tribunal because.

This comment is likely libellous both to mainstream historians and to the tribunal.

The New Zealand situation is the reverse: essentially all mainstream professional & academic historians have served on the tribunal, or strongly support its work. Those historians who do not are NZ's sad equivalents of David Irving or David Barton.

• it is inventing what happened in the past: we don't know how, what and why things happened as they did over a hundred years ago, and never will know.

at the very least this comment is NNPOV. Given that what happened in the not-very-distant past - 1840s and afterwards, so after Jane Austen and well after Shakespeare - and that it was extensively documented at the time in records in English, in Westminster & NZ's Hansards, written in language that is quite accessible to contemporary readers, it is inaccurate. This argument is irrelevant to contemporary "breaches of the treaty". Jameskjx (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This editor is an academic with his own website. That site is currently being discussed here about whether to delete it or not. If it is not obvious from some of the comments above, the editor's area of expertise is not connected to this article. The editor's extreme, and some might say ignorant, views are clear to see. He has confirmed on Wikipedia (somewhere) that his then university - Victoria in Wellington - would not allow his views to connected with it, so he left, (more detail probably needed to clarify). Roger 8 Roger (talk)

Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, personal essay or soapbox - neither yours, mine not Blind Freddy's dog's opinion has any relevence here, we are after an accurate and fair-weighted representation of facts and expert opinions published in reputable publications. As per WP:TALK#TOPIC let's just keep the discussion to actual or proposed content in the page, not our opinions of the wider topic in general. Tobus (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As said, I sort of agree with your removal of my 'Limitations' subsection as it was written. However, I think the sources should have stayed. Rather than a blanket removal of all the text, I think it would have been more useful to have altered another part of the article to justify the continued use of those sources. About your other post, I agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)