The IPA report exposes the Mauri voice in NZ as a disaster
Their voice is now controlling the whole parliament and has a hand in every decision made by the government, this is exactly the model Albo wants for his ‘voice’, Vote NO to avoid ending up in the same mess as NZ

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/new-zealands-failed-experiment-highlights-voice-to-...

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2023 at 2:02pm:



On 6 February 2020, Anthony Albanese posted on Twitter: “We can learn a lot from our mates across the ditch about reconciliation with First Nations people. New Zealand has led the way. It’s time for Australia to follow. It’s time to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart.”

“The Prime Minister has long known the consequences of the New Zealand experiment, yet he has not been up front with Australians on the effect the proposed Voice to Parliament will have on their lives and our nation,” said Mr Storey.

“The Waitangi Tribunal and race-based co-governance is now a deeply entrenched part of New Zealand’s legal and political architecture, which has been weaponised by activists at the expense of New Zealanders.”

This report builds on the landmark report released by the IPA in December 2022, which assessed New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal and Australia’s history of judicial activism to reveal how the history of race-based constitutional change in New Zealand would shape Australia’s future.

“This analysis adds to the large and growing body of domestic and international evidence that shows the proposed Voice to Parliament will be more divisive than its proponents, including the Federal Government, are willing to admit,” said Mr Storey.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2023 at 2:08pm:



“The Waitangi Tribunal and race-based co-governance is now a deeply entrenched part of New Zealand’s legal and political architecture, which has been weaponised by activists at the expense of New Zealanders.”

This report builds on the landmark report released by the IPA in December 2022, which assessed New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal and Australia’s history of judicial activism to reveal how the history of race-based constitutional change in New Zealand would shape Australia’s future.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 15^th, 2023 at 2:11pm:

Yeah, yeah, whatever, Matty...  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   

Anyway - back to the Waitangi Tribunal and how it changed....

Very interesting..........

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established a tribunal which was to adjudicate
claims, made by "any Maori", that acts or omissions of the Crown arising after the
enactment of the legislation were contrary to "the principles" - not defined - of the
Treaty of W ~ i t a n g i .

The Tribunal, as envisaged in the original legislation, bore no
resemblance to a court of record; it had powers of recommendation only and it
could not issue judgments or decisions but only prepare reports addressed to the
Minister of Maori Affairs.

The Tribunal's 'obscure' existence changed fairly dramatically in 1983 when it
released its first major report, Motunui.16 The hearing of this claim was innovative
in a number of ways, but in particular due to the fact that it was heard on a marae.

In 1985 the parent Act was substantially amended, backdating the Tribunal's
powers of inquiry to acts and omissions of the Crown arising since 1840.The
Tribunal was substantially enlarged and was empowered to commission research
reports and appoint counsel to represent ~laimants.1~In 1987 it released two
important reports on the Orakei20 and Waiheke Island claims, which were then
succeeded in the following year by its arguably even more important and
undoubtedly controversial Muriwhenua Fishing Report. Insofar as the Tribunal
can be said to have had a golden age, when it was probably the dominant
institution involved in the complex processes of resolving Maori claims and
grievances, it would have been in the years between the release of the Manukau
Report in 1985 and the Muriwhenua Fishing Report in 1988. Since that time,
however, the picture has become somewhat more confused and the role of the
Tribunal more problematic.

The Tribunal's purely recommendatory role has now been modified in a number
of contexts in that it has been given some binding determinative powers. These
binding powers have developed in an ad hoc manner as ingredients of broader
negotiated settlements, and do not in any way reflect any carefully determined
policy decision to broaden the Tribunal's powers or to convert it into a more
judicialised institution.

The first of these arrangements came in 1988, when
legislation was enacted to give effect to a settlement negotiated between the Crown
and Maori negotiators relating to Crown land transferred to state-owned enterprises
(SOEs), that is, state-owned commercial organ is at ion^.^' The Tribunal was given
a binding power to order the 'resumption' of such land in appropriate
circumstances, even where it had been on-sold to third parties.

A subsequentnationwide negotiated settlement, this time relating to the sale of timber-cutting
rights in Crown-owned plantation forests, led to further binding powers being
conferred on the Tribunal by statute in 1989.23 Lastly, in 1990, further binding
powers were conferred on the Tribunal regarding the assets of the state-owned
railway system, vested by statute into a company akin to a state-owned
enterprise.24 These binding powers have simply been grafted on to the Tribunal's
existing structure without changing the Tribunal's essential nature as a permanent
commission of inquiry. No right of appeal exists, for instance, even in those
circumstances where the Tribunal might be exercising its binding, as opposed to its
ordinary recommendatory, powers. "





That'll do for now - can't ask too much of your double amoeba brains ...