These guidelines are agreed upon by the Prime Ministers Cabinet, by all Ministers to use the  guide book in policy decision making in consideration of the Treaty Of Waitangi in policy development and implementation, the Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the major sources of NZ’s Constitutional Arrangements, There are differences included in the guidelines between English and Maori texts. The PM’s Cabinet report “therefore there are difficulties of understanding the meaning and implications in the modern day (Therefore they have adapted the Te Tiriti o Waitangi to fit whatever political purpose they want it to fit)

The texts of the Treaty used in political decision making are from interpretations used from the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975, the translation by Sir Hugh Kawharu are included in the cabinets guidelines. Other sources in the Cabinets guidance manual includes The Constitution Act 1986, the prerogatives powers of the Queen, the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Senior Courts Act 2016, the NZ Bill of Rights 1990 and other relevant New Zealand, English and UK statutes,  decisions of the Courts and the Conventions of the Constitution (Cabinet Manual. P.2)

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty Of Waitangi: Consists of a preamble and three articles. The influence of the Treaty on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements have fluctuated in the years since it was signed in 1840. Since 1975 reference to the Treaty has been included in may laws passed by Parliament and the courts also the Waitangi Tribunal; have developed a considerable body of Treaty jurisprudence. The PM Cabinet Guidance Manual : States that The Treaty Of Waitangi is regarded as the ‘Founding’ Document of Government in New Zealand, (Not New Zealand’s Founding Document- the Governments Founding Document). That ‘it may indicate limits in polity on major decision making, where the law may sometimes accord special recognition to Māori Rights and Māori Interests (Covered by Art 2 of the Treaty). In other cases the law and its processes should be determined by the general recognition in Article 3 of the Treaty that ‘Maori belong, as citizens to the whole community’. In some situations, autonomous Māori Institutions have a role within the wider constitutional and political system.

In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty Of Waitangi of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another is appropriate, policy and procedure in this area continues to evolve (Cabinet Manual 2019. Page 2). For further information see the ‘Te Puni Kokiri booklet ‘Key Concepts In The Treaty Exchange. The PM Cabinet Guidance Manual also states that the Treaty of Waitangi creates a basis  for civil government extending over all New Zealanders on the basis of protections and acknowledgements of Māori Rights and Māori Interests within the shared citizenry. Any specific meaning of the Treaty, and its implications for particular issues, is not easy to specify in advance as it depends on circumstances and views that surround any issues as the time arises.  Prior to the 2019 PM Cabinet Guidance Manual the previous one was produced in 1989.

PART 2 OF 4:  THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines

: No article of the Treaty stands apart from others. Consideration of how the Treaty applies in any situation will require consideration of the applicability of all articles and the relationship each has to the others. There are sources of information about appropriate policy tools to use in the manual as to developing policy and the Treaty as to its place in New Zealands Constitutional arrangement that policy makers must be aware of, this includes the policy methods toolboc, the Cabinet Manual (The authorities guide to Central Government decision making for Ministers, their offices and those working within government and the 2018 Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s Legislation Guidelines

The government last provided a brad Treaty guidance to the public service in 1989 as to Treaty Settlements which have been negotiated between Maori and Crown. The judicial (courts) have recognized ‘tikanga’ as part of NZ Common Law, the precise impact on common law and stature will vary, rights of ‘tikanga’ being relevant in legal disputes independent of statutory incorporation of the Treaty

This includes Treaty settlements, claim relating to and providing redress (compensation) for historical acts and omissions of the Crown. The Maor/Crown relationship continues post settlement, and past conduct even if settles may inform what a Treaty partner will do in the future. A number of government agencies have guidance as to applying the Treaty and more commonly its principles in the course of their work. The NZ Productivity Commission reviewed 10 examples in 2014. More information can be found on the Commission’s report ‘Regulatory institutions and practices.

Guidance is provided by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal as to the body of the Treaty jurisprudence developed by the courts. The  Waitangi Tribunal focusses on principles derived from the Treaty. (More Info in Te Puni Kōkiri booklet) ‘The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal’ references that the NZ Courts have held that  Maori Rights   might be recognized by the common law, without statutory expression, and a decision maker may be required to weigh the Treaty rights/interest even where there is no Treaty reference in statute. The courts will generally presume that Parliament intends to legislate in accordance with Treaty principles

The Waitangi Tribunal plays an important role in providing advice to government on the application of Treaty principles in relation to acts or omissions of the Crown which Māori allege breach the principles of the Treaty. The Treasury is consistent with the government’s Treaty Of Waitangi obligation. The courts guidance has developed and has a focus on the texts of the Treaty, a glossary of Maori terms are used throughout the guidance. Provides guidance on how the terms and concepts in the texts of the Treaty should be applied by government officials in undertaking their work

Thus creating new legal obligations, processes and decision making by  Crown agencies relevant to issues or initiatives. The manual replace all previous government guidance on the Treaty (1989 Manual). It set out questions for policy makers to consider in policy proposals that recognizes the influence of thr Treat, what it should have in particular circumstances, resulting in the developing of policy in allowing policy makers to demonstrate an appreciation of kawanatanga, rangatiratanga and other key Treaty concepts and their applicability to their work.(another reference ‘Treaty guidance at a glance’ )

The courts will continue to have a role in interpreting laws where the Treaty is relevant to a matter. Specifically referring to the Supreme Court SS 66 (1) and 74 (3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016

SUPREME COURT:  Specifically, in relation to the Supreme Court, see ss66(1) and 74(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The translation of the Maori and English version of the Treaty and that of Sir Hugh Kawharu. ‘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.

Policy makers are to ask themselves or other political party members “what is the effect on Maori, if there is an effect, how and why?  Will proposals effect different Maori groups? What could the unintended impacts on Māori be and how does the  proposal mitigate them?  * How does the proposal demonstrate good government within the context of the Treaty?  *Have policy-makers followed existing general policy guidance?  * Are there any legal and/or Treaty settlement obligations for the Crown?  * What are the Treaty/Māori interests in this issue?  * How have policy-makers ascertained them?

THE TREATY OF WAITANGU MAY JUSTIFY DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF MAORI INTEREST OR INVOLVEMENT IN AN ISSUE. The questions asked are :- Do policy-makers consider whether, having properly assessed the Māori/Treaty interest in an issue, the proposal demands an approach/approaches for Māori that differs to the approach/approaches for other New Zealanders. If it does, then policy-makers should be able to articulate how and why. There is much more I want to add as to how policy makers process, implement policy decision making when interpretating the Treaty of Waitangi into policy making processes, therefore I will continue with two ore episodes of this (Episode 2-4)

PART 3 OF 4 PARTS:  THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines

BELOW” Is the text as laid out in the above named Manual.

The following is included policy maker guidelines in implementation and decision making as to policies in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi – Good Government means a government properly conducted with due regard to the range of obligation a government has to the people it governs, particularly  to Treaty obligations. Thus acknowledging the right of government to make laws with the right of Maori to retain authority over certain things. Throughout all phases of a policy project policy makers should assemble, review what they know about economic, social, technical, cultural and other important forces causing or perpetuating a policy problem, that the outcome has accounted for a Treaty interest to an extent.

Throughout all phases of a policy project, policy-makers should assemble and review what they know about the economic, social, technical, cultural and other important forces causing or perpetuating the policy problem. The question in paragraph 29.1 above asks whether the existing guidance referred to in paragraph 10 has guided policy development. If it has, then policy-makers can have some confidence that the outcome has accounted for a Treaty interest to an extent. Tools are available for policy makers to make them aware of whether existing legal obligations for the Crown to Maori in relation to many issues among them is the Settlement Portal (Te Haeta, which is an online recors of Treaty Settlement commitment which helps agencies and groups to search, manage settlement commitments

Even when Treaty Clauses are not present in legislation or regulations, the particular context may require the Crown to  have regard to the Treaty Statutes that have references to the Treat or Treaty principles which often contain regulatory provisions that create obligation on a range of parties that are not Crown such as Local Government entities, officers of Parliament and Body Corporates.

It is critical that Maori- Treaty  interests are taken into consideration, issues will vary from one issue to another. Cabinet guides also include:- Te Arawhiti’s engagement framework and guidelines will give policy-makers confidence that they have appropriately determined the Treaty/Māori interests in an issue.

The courts and Waitangi Tribunal have described the Treaty generally as an exchange of solemn promises about the ongoing relationships between the Crown and Māori with qualifications. By signing the Treaty, Māori expected the Crown to act honorably towards them; they expect the Crown to protect their interest in everything it promised to, and they expect the Crown to respect their right to make decisions over matters of significance to them. That the Māori Crown relationship is a continuing one, the Crown and Māori should act reasonably and in good faith towards each other, consulting with each other and compromising where appropriate. The courts have made significant decisions in relation to the application of the Treaty in New Zealand, particularly over the last 35 years. The Waitangi Tribunal is also an important forum where Treaty arguments may be made by Māori and the Crown. The Courts take particularcare about Maori Rights and Interests and these are raised in cases, including when interpreting laws passed by Parliament. Policy makers must conduct their work in such a manner as to make the Treaty consistent in decision making

THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines  Includes Text in the context as below:-

Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation sets out to show how Māori  Kawharu believed that Maori would have understood the meaning of the Treaty Of Waitangi text when they signed it (from his perspective). This was published in a book ‘Waitangi Revisited: Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi, edited by Michael Belgrave, Merata Kawharu and David Williams (Oxford University Press, 1989)

This interpretation included:  ‘Government’: ‘kawanatanga’. Sir Hugh’s view was that “there could be no possibility of the Māori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of ‘sovereignty’: ie, any understanding on the basis of experience or cultural precedent.” This view is not universally held. For more discussion of the views and understandings of participants at 1840 see He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti / The Declaration and the Treaty: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, particularly chapter 10 (Waitangi Tribunal 2014).  * The legislation Guidelines (2018 Edition), Chapter 5.1, page 28, and Idac.org guidelines/ legislative guidelines 2018) Also Government documents, publications.

Also noted is that ‘the Treaty must justify different treatment of Maori interests or involvement of Maori in an issue but also adds does not confer greater rights on Maori than the government owes to all New Zealanders ( NOTE: Carols thoughts- Appears the Cabinet and Prime Minister in this text speaks with a forked tongue)

Even where “Treaty clauses” are not present in legislation or regulations, the particular context may require the Crown to have regard to the Treaty.

The courts have recognized tikanga Māori as part of New Zealand common law and as a value that informs development of the common law. The precise impact of tikanga Māori on the common law and statute will vary, however, tikanga may have a relevance in legal disputes independent of statutory incorporation of the Treaty

THE CROWN PROMISES THAT MAORI WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONA OVER RESOURCES AND TAONGA WHICH THEY WISH TO RETAIN

The scope of things that may be considered taonga, from a Māori perspective, are broad. At its most broad taonga can be said to be anything considered to be of value – including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques.   For more discussion of the views of the courts and Waitangi Tribunal on taonga see pages 60-64 of the Te Puni Kōkiri booklet ‘Key concepts in the Treaty exchange’. The Waitangi Tribunal report Ko Aotearoa Tenei contains important discussion of how laws have side-lined Māori and Māori cultural values from decisions of vital importance to their culture which have left Māori unable to fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki (cultural guardians) towards their taonga –obligations which are central to the survival of Māori culture

The scope of things that may be considered taonga, from a Māori perspective, are broad. At its most broad taonga can be said to be anything considered to be of value – including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques

The Treaty guarantees and promises apply to all Māori – as individuals, whānau, hapū and iwi. Depending on the issue, it may be appropriate for policy-makers to engage with Māori individuals, whānau, hapū or iwi, or a combination thereof.   Because the Treaty guaranteed Māori the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga, policy-makers must consider what responsibilities Māori already have in relation to the matter. Importantly, Treaty interests are not confined to resources and taonga that Māori have retained possession of. For example, even where land has been alienated Māori interests may still be engaged

CAROL SAKEY ‘S PERSONAL CONCLUSION: That the original Maori version of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been seriously corrupted in many ways, by way of interpretation and in which way the context has been portrayed. That the Waitangi Tribunal has been allowed a political over-reach as to policy decision making. Sir Hugh Kawharu was a Treaty Claimant and a key figure of the Waitangi Tribunal his believe of what Maori Chiefs believed at the time should never have been included in the Prime Minister Cabinet Guidance Manuel for Policy Makers nor should have all the different legislative Act that have been passed including that of papers concluded by the Judicial (Courts).  The one and only founding document of New Zealand is the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi and no other.  That the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a beautiful document. ‘He Iwi Tahi Tatou’ We Are All One Nation’. This certainly has the body, heart and soul of what one Nation should be .. God Save New Zealand.

Sir Hugh Kawharu was a Treaty Claimant and a key figure of the Waitangi Tribunal his believe of what Maori Chiefs believed at the time should never have been included in the Prime Minister Cabinet Guidance Manuel for Policy Makers nor should have all the different legislative Act that have been passed including that of papers concluded by the Judicial (Courts).

There are three parties in the original Maori Version Of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they are the Crown, the Maori Chiefs that also include ALL the people of New Zealand. Sovereignty was ceded to the Queen (Crown). All peoples of New Zealand became subjects of the Queen of England.

Partnership was not created by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nor was what is called ‘Indigenous Peoples’. The coined phrase ‘Indigenous Peoples’ entered NZ in 1971 when George Manuel President of the Canadian Brotherhood visited NZ with a Canadian Delegation which was arranged with Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father. Manuel grasped the ‘Indigenous Peoples coined phrase from Moringe Ole Parkipuny a Tanzanian radical activist and a parliamentarian. During Manuel’s visit to NZ he spoke with some Maori Politicians about the phrase ‘Indigenous People’, then Manuel went on to visit the Northern Terrirories of Australia to speak with Aboriginals students at a university there. Manuel was a key person who helped draft the UNDRIP, he established the UN World Indigenous Council and was also President of the Council.

At one UN Assembly gathering over 100 natives, tribal peoples protested walked out of the UN Assembly because they were angry that they had never consented to being classed as ‘Indigenous People’ UN find it too difficult to define ‘Indigenous People’ therefore describe ‘Indigenous People’ as those people that define themselves as being ‘Indigenous People’

The one and only founding document of New Zealand is the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi and no other. That the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a beautiful document. ‘He Iwi Tahi Tatou’ We Are All One Nation’. This certainly has the body, heart and soul of what one Nation should be .. God Save New Zealand.
WakeUpNZ
Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ

Carol Sakey

19^th May 2021 National Party opposed the Green Party motion on Israel Palestinian conflict. The National Party would not support a motion proposed by the Green Party regarding the violence between Israel  and the Palestian Authority HAMAS, said Gerry Brownless National’s Foreign Affairs Minister. National opposes Green’s motion on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nationals position being on a ‘two State system’. The Green Party is proposing a motion for Parliament to recognise and support the right of Palestine to self-determination and statehood and recognise the state of Palestine. The Palestian Authority being HAMAS

The Green Party use the HAMAS Slogan  as the NZ Jewish Council has condemned the inflammatory comments and incorrect statements made by two Green Party MPs, was reported as ‘risk stroking antimerism and endangering Jews in NZ (Report 19^th May 2021 www.jwire.com.au)

The New Zealand Jewish Council has condemned the inflammatory comments and inaccurate statements made by two Green MPs in recent days, which risk stoking antisemitism and endangering Jews in New Zealand. After an anti Israel rally Green MP was Ricardo Menendez March posted on Twitter and Facebook photo’s of himself and other Green Party MPs with the caption “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”.This slogan is used by the HAMAS Terrorist Organization, the Islamic group that governs Gaza, whose charter calls for the elimination of Israel and murder of Jews everywhere, whose military wing is classed as a terrorist organization in NZ. But NZ is only one of the Five Eyes that have not designated HAMAS on the cabinets listed designated Terrorist List.

Despite an outcry on social media, Mr Menendez March has not removed the posts, and they have been shared by at least one other MP including co-leader Marama Davidson. NZ Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman said  “Taken at its most mild possible interpretation, this slogan erases the right of Jews to self-determination.  At its most pernicious (and in the way intended by Hamas), it promotes genocide and ethnic cleansing.  And that  “Its an outrage that a member of a political party in New Zealand would use this HAMAS slogan. Other members of the Green Party including its co leader endorsed it by re-tweeting it. ‘Its arguably incitement to violence” said Stehen Goodman

Green Party MP  Golriz Ghahraman about the conflict containing errors on facts and serious omissions which should have raised questions about her suitability as a Green Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson and her credibility . She has been reported as making incorrect statements about events that have happened. As it is recorded that rockets have killed Israeli children causing serious damage and significant trauma

The New Zealand Jewish Council’s president Stephen Goodman wrote to the co-leaders of the Green Party James Sha and Marama Davidson, accusing the Green Pary as having a “a significant problem of antisemitism.” He also pointed out that the Anti American Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt wrote  “when protesters chant Palestine will be free from the river to the sea,’ it is appropriately interpreted by most people as a call for the erasure of Israel – and it is anti- Semitic.”

Stephen Goodman referred to certain members of the Green Party promoted genocide and ethnic cleansing. Goodmans letter states that “Ms Ghahraman’s statement also incorrectly accuses Israel of “indiscriminate bombing”, whereas, as international media and observers confirm, Israel’s strikes are targeted, and include warnings to minimise civilian casualties.

Goodman has stated Ghahraman’s is clearly completely incorrect, hundreds of HMAS rockets have landed in high density areas in Israel, where there have been casualties and loss of life, forcing families, communities into bomb shelters. But she did not correct her statement even though her inaccuracy was bought to her attention. Goodman said “This is not the case of a simple error, she has ignored the loss of life on the Israeli side, that it fits her political narrative.Ms Ghahraman. Has been accused of making frequent errors of fact, distortions of truth and inflammatory and harmful rhetoric call into question her suitability in the role of foreign affairs spokesperson. The cumulative effect suggests a deeply entrenched bias, a lack of accountability, a recklessness with facts, and a callous disregard for the impact of her behaviour.”

Stephen Goodman ended by writing: “We ask for an apology and retraction regarding the “from the river to the sea” slogan, and in the light of that, a clear re-affirmation that the Party supports self-determination for the Jewish and Palestinian people and a right for them each to live in peace and security. We also ask that your party condemns the rocket attacks by Hamas, given its previous omission”. The Green Party failed to respond to the Jewish Council’s letter, as requested within 24 hours.

https://www.jwire.com.au/nz-green-party-mps-uses-hamas-slogan/

https://www.national.org.nz/national-opposes-greens-motion-on-israeli-palestinian-conflict

(Source of Information NOVEMBER 27, 2017 12:12PM BY DAVID FARRAR) Ghahraman defended not prosecuted the genociders in Rwanda. Paul Little reports at the Herald an interview with Green MP Golriz Ghahraman: In 2008 I’d been working in new zealand as a junior barrister for two and a half years. The next logical step would have been to go out on my own, but I got accepted to do a masters degree at Oxford. While I was waiting to fly to England, I met a defence lawyer working for the Rwanda Tribunal. He said: “You should come over, we need a lawyer at the coalface.” I’d gone into law in the first place to do human rights law. I spent about three months as an intern then went to The Hague on a consultancy at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, then was offered a job as a lawyer for the Rwanda Tribunal. So she was recruited by a defence lawyer at the Rwanda Tribunal? So did she prosecute the genociders or defend them?

And even with the UN, defence lawyers didn’t have as many resources as the other side. To me it’s important to have that fair process. No matter how guilty someone looks, guilt needs to be established. But the defence team didn’t get paper for the photocopiers — it was like even the UN didn’t really believe in it. From back here, having worked in court, I know the defence gets about half the resources of the prosecution. That’s really frightening — there’s definitely demographics involved. So she wasn’t prosecuting the war criminals in Rwanda, but defending them. And complains the UN didn’t give them enough resources to defend them better! The total cost of the trials was in fact around $1 billion! Now I had no idea before reading this article that her work in Rwanda was defending the war criminals, not prosecuting them. I doubt anyone else knew either. Let’s look at what her Green Party CV says:

Her studies at Oxford, and work as a lawyer for the United Nations and in New Zealand, have focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power, and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities, particularly empowering women engaged in peace and justice initiatives. Now 99% of people who read that would think she was working at prosecuting the abusers, not defending them.

Look at this Guardian article from a few weeks ago: It was in this South Pacific melting pot, says Ghahraman, that she acquired the confidence to study human rights law at oxford university, and, later, to stand up in court representing the UN in tribunals prosecuting some of the world’s worst war criminals, including perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Now again 99% of people reading this would assume she was prosecuting in Rwanda. But she was actually defending the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin has actually worked in Rwanda with the survivors of the genocide there. He is highly unimpressed: Everyone deserves a defense, but please don’t preen as a human rights advocates when you dedicated a year to keeping these killers from justice. And defense underfunded?? Don’t make me laugh. ICTR spent 500m defending these guys. — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017

There is nothing wrong with being a defence lawyer – even for war criminals. As Quin, says everyone is entitled to a defence. A great mate of mine is a defence lawyer. But the issue here is the way the Greens have selectively published material that makes it looks like she was prosecuting, not defending. She did later go on to prosecute in Cambodia, and again there is nothing wrong with having started as a defence lawyer so you could gain experience to become a prosecutor.  But this is not the story that we were told. Also she was not assigned as a lawyer to defend the Rwanda war criminals. She was a volunteer as Quin again highlights: Critical point. She did so not as part of an official legal team, but as a VOLUNTEER. Of all the ways to save the world, she chose to send killers back to the villages where their victims’ families are trying to rebuild their lives. — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017. uin also highlights one of the persons she defended was Joseph Nziorera. Hook, line and sinker. She’s a straightforward genocide denier. Goodbye, hope you enjoyed your few weeks in Parliament. I’m sure some Assad henchmen could do with your help. . #Rwanda pic.twitter.com/LhNgume3xo — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017

Nzirorera was considered one of the main initiators of the Rwandan genocide. Now again a legal system needs prosecutors and defenders. The issue for me isn’t that she worked as a defence lawyer for war criminals, but that all the promotional material to date has given the impression she was prosecuting in Rwanda, not defending. Sure if you look all the way down the Linked In profile, you see the details. So it isn’t that she personally has made a false statement about her work. It is that the narrative built around her has been incomplete and misleading. the guardian article is a great example of that – makes you think she was a prosecutor in Rwanda. The Greens website states her work in Africa was putting on trial world leaders – highly misleading. Her own maiden speech glosses over her work in Rwanda: I was living in Africa working on genocide trials where I then learned how prejudice turns to atrocity. Politicians scapegoating groups, as a group, for any social ills, dehumanising language in the media, used for political gain-Every time I see that I think: That’s how is how it starts. I saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when I prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Very clever. It doesn’t state she prosecuted in Rwanda but you clearly gain that impression as she lumps it in with prosecuting in Cambodia.

Now imagine this isn’t a Green MP. Imagine this is a National MP who had defended war criminals and genociders in Rwanda. Do you think Labour and Green MPs would say “Well someone has to do it, and it was good work experience, so that’s fine”. Or would they be condemning them at every turn? Green MP Golriz Ghahraman on a life-changing year in Rwanda 27 Nov, 2017 04:39 PM  (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-on-a-life-changing-year-in-rwanda/BVMN2BQWGVAPNVNQFB2ZQEWQEU/?c_id=1&objectid=11947906 )

In 2008 I’d been working in New Zealand as a junior barrister for two and a half years. The next logical step would have been to go out on my own, but I got accepted to do a masters degree at Oxford. While I was waiting to fly to England, I met a defence lawyer working for the Rwanda Tribunal. He said: “You should come over, we need a lawyer at the coalface.” I’d gone into law in the first place to do human rights law. I spent about three months as an intern then went to The Hague on a consultancy at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, then was offered a job as a lawyer for the Rwanda Tribunal. So it was my year of international humanitarian law. For me it was almost cathartic, because as a child I had to escape mass crimes, essentially being committed by governments and based on prejudice. When you get to look at the start of those things, you realise it’s not that mysterious. The Rwandan genocide started from a lack of democracy and human rights and people scapegoating other groups. Politicians cash in on prejudice. The mission was to individualise blame so groups don’t keep going in a cycle of violence. The point was to leave a legacy of everyone being equal before the law and change the culture of impunity so you don’t get to do whatever you want just because you’re the president. The Iranian government did things to us with impunity. And the rest of what you realise is poverty. We were living in Tanzania, in a well-funded UN institution with security all around it. We were in a big, flash complex, eating sanitised salads. We wouldn’t get cholera if we drank the water, because we had water machines at every turn. But at nights when we went to the village pub, it was a different world. And we weren’t really helping with that. And even with the UN, defence lawyers didn’t have as many resources as the other side. To me it’s important to have that fair process. No matter how guilty someone looks, guilt needs to be established. But the defence team didn’t get paper for the photocopiers — it was like even the UN didn’t really believe in it. From back here, having worked in court, I know the defence gets about half the resources of the prosecution. That’s really frightening — there’s definitely demographics involved. And when I finally went to Oxford to do my masters, I had all this beautiful space. I sat studying in beautiful libraries with no funding issues and with the privilege of time to study. To have that when you know these things are happening elsewhere was surreal. I’d fly back and forth, interviewing people who said they’d been tortured, then go back to Oxford, where my room was cleaned every day.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/profile-on-party-website-of-mp-who-defended-butcher-of-bosnia-now-changed-to-be-more-accurate/Z3T3R2WIFJNXTWTQEO74D4KIOU/

Profile on party website of MP who defended Butcher of Bosnia now changed to be more accurate Author Derek Cheng 28 Nov, 2017. Green MP Golriz Ghahraman worked as part of the legal defence team for Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. Party co-leader James Shaw is standing by his MP, saying her work on international tribunals as both a defence and prosecution lawyer is all part of a robust justice system. But her profile page on the Green Party website has now been changed to more accurately reflect the legal defence work she did at the Rwanda Tribunal and The Hague, and the prosecution work she did at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. In a series of tweets this week, former Labour staffer Phil Quin criticised Ghahraman’s work at the Rwanda Tribunal, saying she volunteered to defend “the worst killers known to man” and calling her a genocide-denier. Green Party co-leader James Shaw is standing by MP Golriz Ghahraman, saying her work on international tribunals as both a defence and prosecution lawyer is all part of a robust justice system. “Any MP who acted as a voluntary intern to defend war criminals, and authors papers that deny the Rwandan genocide, must resign,” said Quin, who lived and worked in Rwanda for several years.

In a comment piece on Newsroom, he added: “It’s one thing for a UN defence lawyer to be assigned to defend ratbags. It’s quite another to seek them out in a voluntary capacity.”Ghahraman worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. Quin published a photo of a smiling Ghahraman with Bikindi on Twitter today. Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is escorted in to make an initial appearance at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Photo / Getty. Shaw said Quin’s attacks were politically motivated. “I think Phil knows as well as anybody that a functioning justice system requires both a rigorous prosecution and a rigorous defence in order to make sure that the trial actually delivers the result its intended to.”

Ghahraman said everyone was entitled to a fair trial, “including those accused of very egregious crimes”. “I would essentially be letting down the human rights framework if I thought anything other than that. My work on defence and prosecution has always been equally a point of pride for me.” Her profile page on the Green Party website has now been changed, following her admission that it “could be clearer”. It previously said: “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” Now it says: “Golriz worked for United Nations Tribunals as part of both defence (Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia) and prosecution (Cambodia) teams.” But she said she has never hid her defence work, and that it’s “certainly not something I’m ashamed of”.  “It’s absolutely offensive to say that I deny genocide, because there’s nothing that’s been more important to me than to highlight genocide as an international crime.”  Legal expert Andrew Geddis came to Ghahraman’s defence today. Writing for the Pundit blog, he wrote: “Ghahraman played a necessary (if hard) role in an internationally established institution designed to resolve in an open and legitimate fashion individual guilt for horrible actions. “Defending nasty individuals is just a part of what international human rights lawyers do.” Golriz Ghahraman says genocide-denier comments ‘absolutely offensive’

Derek Cheng 28 Nov, 2017 05:00 AM

(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/golriz-ghahraman-says-genocide-denier-comments-absolutely-offensive/TT3GDQI3YM2G7AOOLOLDPQUGTI/ ) Green MP Golriz Ghahraman says it is “absolutely offensive” to be called a genocide-denier, and insists she has not misled the public over defending people accused of genocide in Rwanda. But she admits that her profile page on the Green Party website, which states that she has put African leaders on trial for abusing their power, “could be clearer”. In a series of tweets today, former Labour staffer Phil Quin criticised Ghahraman’s work at the Rwanda Tribunal, saying she defended “the worst killers known to man” and calling her a genocide-denier. “Any MP who acted as a voluntary intern to defend war criminals, and authors papers that deny the Rwandan genocide, must resign,” said Quin, who lived and worked in Rwanda for several years. “Call me old fashioned, but I think volunteering as a ‘life changing experience’ to defend mass murderers (who had the priciest lawyers in the business) should disqualify one from becoming a member of the NZ Parliament,” he said in another tweet. The posts raised questions about whether Ghahraman had misled the public into believing that she had prosecuted those responsible for genocide in Rwanda, when she had in fact been part of defence teams.

Her profile page on the Green party website says: “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” Ghahraman admitted that her profile page, which she didn’t write, “could be clearer, but it’s certainly not false”. But she said she has never hid her defence work, that it’s “certainly not something I’m ashamed of”, and that international criminal justice needs both the defence and the prosecution to work well to ensure a robust system. “It’s absolutely offensive to say that I deny genocide, because there’s nothing that’s been more important to me than to highlight genocide as an international crime. “The reason we have these trials is to say that genocide is not okay. But that we want it dealt with in a human rights-based process, a fair process that includes a defence and a prosecution and judges and proper investigation.” Joseph Nzirorera died before he could be convicted of genocide in Rwanda. She said that she worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

She also worked on the pre-trial of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. She worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Quin later tweeted that he did not care whether Ghahraman misled the public, but he did care that she defended people in the Rwanda Tribunal in the first place. Ghahraman said she has never met Quin, but that his comments showed “an embarrassing lapse in understanding”. “No one is saying there is no such thing as genocide. It’s like saying a defence lawyer [defending someone charged with murder] in our justice system here is a murder-denier. “My CV is on LinkedIn. It’s certainly not something I’m ashamed of. It’s the human rights model. We have to work on both sides.”

(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/barry-soper-political-perception-isnt-always-reality/GNBLBK3VVGRATH36K7FBAEUGV4/ ) Barry Soper: Political perception isn’t always reality Barry Soper 28 Nov, 2017. Politics is most certainly about perception and if you look at the publicity blurb surrounding the first refugee elected to our Parliament you would come away thinking Golriz Ghahraman who was born in Iran was a human rights battler, pure and simple. In her maiden speech she talked about living in Africa, working on genocide trials and learning how prejudice turns into atrocity. She waxed about politicians scapegoating groups for any social ills, using dehumanising language in the media for their own gain. Ghahraman went on to say she saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when she prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Now listening to that you’d think she was the battler she’s been painted as. And that was reinforced by The Greens who are very good at presenting the narrative that suits their purpose, although the narrative surrounding their former co-leader Metiria Turei obviously got out of control and almost led to their undoing. In their blurb about their new MP, The Greens said her work has focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz, they tell us, has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities.

Now that leaves the clear impression she was the champion of bringing these people to justice. But in fact at the Rwandan Tribunal she was representing the war criminals in the genocide of around eight hundred thousand Tutsis. She complained about how poorly resourced the defence was. It was as though the United Nations didn’t really believe in the process, she opined. She’s now saying she wasn’t responsible for The Greens’ blurb which may be the case. But it seems she did little to correct it. Few would argue that at any trial, regardless of how heinous the crime is, there’s prosecution and defence. Even the Nazis were defended at Nuremberg. And that was reinforced by The Greens who are very good at presenting the narrative that suits their purpose, although the narrative surrounding their former co-leader Metiria Turei obviously got out of control and almost led to their undoing. In their blurb about their new MP, The Greens said her work has focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz, they tell us, has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities.

Now that leaves the clear impression she was the champion of bringing these people to justice. But in fact at the Rwandan Tribunal she was representing the war criminals in the genocide of around eight hundred thousand Tutsis. She complained about how poorly resourced the defence was. It was as though the United Nations didn’t really believe in the process, she opined. She’s now saying she wasn’t responsible for The Greens’ blurb which may be the case. But it seems she did little to correct it. Few would argue that at any trial, regardless of how heinous the crime is, there’s prosecution and defence. Even the Nazis were defended at Nuremberg. You could argue though for Ghahraman to initially volunteer to work for the Rwandan defence and champion herself as a human rights lawyer leaves the wrong impression. But in 36-year-old’s defence at least she fronted up to argue her case, insisting she’s never denied that she worked for the perpetrators of widespread abuse. That may be so, but others and she herself have conveniently overlooked it in presenting the positive. She maintains she simply contributed to the accountability mechanism which is why she’s worked for both sides. It’s just that one side has been consistently and conveniently highlighted over the other. She maintains she simply contributed to the accountability mechanism which is why she’s worked for both sides. It’s just that one side has been consistently and conveniently highlighted over the other.

29th November 2017 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-defended-senior-rwandan-hutu-man-in-extradition-case/EDXOYOMW6QFED4ITA634LGA62M/ Green MP Golriz Ghahraman defended senior Rwandan Hutu man in extradition case Green MP Golriz Ghahraman has been accused of misrepresenting her role as a United Nations Human Rights lawyer – so what, if anything, did she do wrong? .The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide. The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide. The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. At The Hague, she worked on the pre-trial defence of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She also worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Last night she changed the wording of her profile page on the Green Party website, following criticisms that it implied she had prosecuted – and not defended – world leaders for abusing their power. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin, who spent three years working in Rwanda, said Ghahraman defended the extradition of a “very senior Hutu” accused of crimes against humanity. The man, who refutes the accusations, came to New Zealand and was granted refugee status and citizenship. “When he was found … and ordered to be extradited to face his accusers, who was the defence lawyer that opposed his extradition?” Quin asked Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith. “I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people.”

Ghahraman confirmed on Newshub’s AM Show that she had worked for a Rwandan refugee in an extradition case, but was reluctant to mention details citing suppression orders. “We were trying to get a fair process around it here so that everyone could present their witness evidence. That’s an ongoing case that I’m not on anymore.” Quin said he was outraged by Ghahraman’s moral judgement, rather than the abstract legal principles of every defendant deserving a fair trial. He said he had received hundreds of responses on Twitter from “disgusted” Rwandans reacting to a photo of a beaming Ghahraman with Bikindi. “Those kinds of moral choices – forget about the law – that bring into question her judgement as a leader in our Parliament.” Quin asked Ghahraman to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda genocide account, rather than the account that her defence team was part of.

A spokeswoman for the Greens said Ghahraman had already expressed her views on the Rwandan genocide and would not be commenting further. Ghahraman has rejected suggestions that she was misleading about the nature of her work, and says it is nothing to be ashamed of. She has said the work, whether for the defence or the prosecution, is important in establishing the rule of law and the UN human rights model. “It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. We’re all there, the UN is there to say that genocide is a crime … This is what these trials are about.” In an unusual move, the Law Society issued a press release standing by Ghahraman, saying it was wrong to identify a lawyer with their client’s actions. Convenor of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee Steve Bonnar QC said defence lawyers often had no choice about who to act for. “The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions. “The defence lawyer is required to put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence. It is not the role of the lawyer to determine a client’s guilt or innocence – that is the role of the Tribunal, Judge or jury hearing the case.”

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman defended senior Rwandan Hutu man in extradition case 29th November 2017. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-defended-senior-rwandan-hutu-man-in-extradition-case/EDXOYOMW6QFED4ITA634LGA62M/. The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide.The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. At The Hague, she worked on the pre-trial defence of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She also worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. She changed the wording of her profile page on the Green Party website, following criticisms that it implied she had prosecuted – and not defended – world leaders for abusing their power. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin, who spent three years working in Rwanda, said Ghahraman defended the extradition of a “very senior Hutu” accused of crimes against humanity. The man, who refutes the accusations, came to New Zealand and was granted refugee status and citizenship. “When he was found … and ordered to be extradited to face his accusers, who was the defence lawyer that opposed his extradition?” Quin asked Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith. “I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people.”

Ghahraman confirmed on Newshub’s AM Show that she had worked for a Rwandan refugee in an extradition case, but was reluctant to mention details citing suppression orders. “We were trying to get a fair process around it here so that everyone could present their witness evidence. That’s an ongoing case that I’m not on anymore.” Quin said he was outraged by Ghahraman’s moral judgement, rather than the abstract legal principles of every defendant deserving a fair trial. He said he had received hundreds of responses on Twitter from “disgusted” Rwandans reacting to a photo of a beaming Ghahraman with Bikindi. “Those kinds of moral choices – forget about the law – that bring into question her judgement as a leader in our Parliament.” Quin asked Ghahraman to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda genocide account, rather than the account that her defence team was part of.

A spokeswoman for the Greens said Ghahraman had already expressed her views on the Rwandan genocide and would not be commenting further. Ghahraman has rejected suggestions that she was misleading about the nature of her work, and says it is nothing to be ashamed of. She has said the work, whether for the defence or the prosecution, is important in establishing the rule of law and the UN human rights model. “It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. We’re all there, the UN is there to say that genocide is a crime … This is what these trials are about.”In an unusual move, the Law Society issued a press release standing by Ghahraman, saying it was wrong to identify a lawyer with their client’s actions. Convenor of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee Steve Bonnar QC said defence lawyers often had no choice about who to act for. “The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions. “The defence lawyer is required to put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence. It is not the role of the lawyer to determine a client’s guilt or innocence – that is the role of the Tribunal, Judge or jury hearing the case.”

WAKE UP NZ: What are your thoughts on this?

Jordan Williams: Golriz Ghahraman saga reveals Greens in-fighting By Jordan Williams 29 Nov, 2017  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jordan-williams-golriz-ghahraman-saga-reveals-greens-in-fighting/C2ZROPG3V4KQPRGMODNZFBB254/

CONCERNS AS TO PRINCIPLES OF WAITANGI AND PARTNERSHIP: Firstly I have concerns has to the deliberate legislative corruption of New Zealand’s original Founding Document Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The sovereign Nation of New Zealand are the people of New Zealand (NZ Citizens). All Peoples. Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s purpose was to carry out the wishes, desires of the Queen  of England to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert evil consequences to the Māori people and the  Europeans living ‘without laws’

Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s purpose was to carry out the wishes, desires of the Queen  of England.

1) To establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert evil consequences to the Māori people and the  Europeans living ‘without laws’.                                                                                    2) The Māori Chiefs ceded to the Queen of England forever the Government of their lands

3) Their lands means ‘their territories’  – Government means Sovereignty  -‘Personage’ means  King or Queen.

4) The Queen of England extends to the Māori people of New Zealand her ‘Royal Protection’, ‘Privileges’, Rights’ The same Royal Protection, Privileges, Rights  as she gives her British Subjects, which therefore means ALL people alike, none are more privileged than another.

KEY NOTES: 

a)Article 1 of ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi means,  that the Maori Chiefs transferred their ‘chiefly authority’  and their ancestry, past and present and future generations were ceded for ever.   That prior to the signing of ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ there were no laws, no government, and lots of lawlessness.

b)Māori were fighting Māori, Māori and European were fighting each other. The Queen of England guaranteed royal protection from foreign invasions of New Zealand’s territories, from foreign powers also royal protection  within New Zealand Territories

c)Te Tiriti o Waitangi clearly describes that the Laws established were ‘One Law for All People’ – Te Tiriti o Waitangi clearly shows that Māori did not have Fishing Rights –  Tiriti o Waitangi does not state Iwi/Maori have ownership, control of Forestry, Natural Resources.

d)That Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Veto Rights, nor Compensation of Lands or ownership of the entire lands of New Zealand. The Māori Chiefs ceded to the Queen of England forever the Government of their lands. Hence ‘lands’ means ‘territories’. Government means ‘Sovereignty’. The people of New Zealand are the Sovereign Nation. ‘Personage’ means  King or Queen.

1. e) The Queen of England extends to the Māori people of New Zealand her ‘Royal Protection’, ‘Privileges’, Rights’ The same Royal Protection, Privileges, Rights as she gives her British Subjects, which therefore means ALL people alike, none are more privileged than another.
2. f) The Queen of England guaranteed royal protection from foreign invasions of New Zealand’s territories, from foreign powers also royal protection within New Zealand Territories
3. g) Te Tiriti o Waitangi clearly describes that the Laws established were ‘One Law for All People’

h)Te Tiriti o Waitangi clearly shows that Māori did not have Fishing Rights, Own or control of Forestry, Natural Resources in New Zealand prior to Te Tiriti o Waitangi

i)Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Veto Rights, nor Compensation of Lands or ownership of the entire lands of New Zealand

j)Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create a Partnership between Crown (Government) and Iwi/Maori/Hapu.

k)Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create ‘Principles’. Parliamentary Legislation created ‘Principles’

and

THE TERM ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’  Te Tiriti on Waitangi did not create the term ‘Indigenous People’. George Manuel President of the Canadian Indian Brotherhood visited New Zealand in the early 1970’s met with a number of Māori entertainers and Māori Politicians. This gave George Manuel the opportunity to speak serious talk about the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ that he continued to spread around other countries he visited including meeting up with Aboriginal students in Australia.  George Manuel established the World Indigenous Council of which he was President.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE UNITED NATIONS: At one meeting held in the UN Assembly a number of protestors walked out as they were angered that they had not given Manuel consent to label them as ‘Indigenous Peoples. George Manuel played a part in the preplanning of the UN Declaration Of the Rights for Indifenous Peoples. This took years to plan, involved several Iwi from NZ.

THE NATION STATES ‘RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION’ New Zealand is a Nation State, territorial bounded sovereign polity. A state that rules in the name of the citizens of that State whom identify themselves as the Sovereign of the State. The Right to Self-determination of the Sovereign State. This states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference

QUESTIONS FOR THE NEW COALITION ‘GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND’

ON DAVID SEYMOURS PENDING REFERENDUM ON THE TREATY: The new government to support a ‘Treaty Principles Bill based on ACT Policy through to select committee to be legally binding. The rights to referendums should a council want to introduce Maori Wards? The people of New Zealand still have no legally binding referendum rights

ACT’S PENDING REFERENDUM ON TE TIRITI O WAITANGI’: The ‘Founding Document of New Zealand’ Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create ‘Principles’. By acknowledging ‘Principles’ therefore then supports the deliberate legislative corruption already implemented in the 1980’s by legislature. The New Government not acknowledging the corruption of the original founding document of NZ but once again promoting it by recognizing that ‘Principles’ were created by the Treaty and they were not.

THE CREATION OF THE TERMINOLOGY OF INDIGONOUS PEOPLES:  Was not created by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. George Manuel President of the Canadian Indian Brotherhood visited New Zealand in the early 1970’s met with a number of Māori entertainers and Māori Politicians. This gave George Manuel the opportunity to speak serious talk about the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ that he continued to spread around other countries he visited including meeting up with Aboriginal students in Australia.  George Manuel established the World Indigenous Council of which he was President. (George Manuel was influenced by Tanzanian politician Parkipuny who started modernizing this term rather than using the terms ‘natives’ or tribal communities’

THE TERMINOLOGY ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ WAS NOT WELCOMED BY ALL: At one meeting held in the UN Assembly a number of protestors walked out as they were angered that they had not given Manuel consent to label them as ‘Indigenous Peoples. George Manuel played a part in the preplanning of the UN Declaration Of the Rights for Indigenous Peoples. This took years to plan, involved several Iwi from NZ. How many people with Maori ancestry call themselves Indigenous People/ Never mind leave it to the Te Pati Maori and Iwi Nationaal Leaders Groups.

A HUGE BONE OF CONTENTION THAT STILL EXISTS TODAY: There has been much contention as to the following:- If Māori did not have a Government, then how could they cede something that did not have in the first place? The following response included:- Each Māori Chief who subscribed his mark on the common weal and to Governor William Hobson (Representative of the Queen of England) were counted as an ‘authority’, as an offering to the Queen of England. That Māori Chief’s each having authority over each of their Tribes. That the total sum of the ‘Chiefs Authorities’ amounted to what was described as a ‘Government’

GOVERNANCE OF NZ PRIOR TO TREATY: Each of the individual Chiefs that made a mark on the Te Tiriti o Waitangi were finally counted as a total sum of ‘Authority’ (‘Total Authority’ of the Chiefs being the ‘Total Government’)  Therefore  Article 1 of ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi means,  that the Maori Chiefs transferred their ‘chiefly authority’  and their ancestry, past and present and future generations were ceded for ever. New Zealand was a country of much lawlessness.  Prior to the signing of ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ there were no laws, no government, and lots of lawlessness. Māori were fighting Māori, Māori and European were fighting each other

PROTECTION OF NEW ZEALAND AS A NATION STATE: Te Tiriti o Waitangi ‘New Zealand’s Royal Protection from Foreign Invasions:- The Nation State is under ongoing attacks through the continuous UN International Laws that have been adopted into out Domestic Policies, which endanger the very state of our Sovereign Nation State

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY: The political model of the nations state, fuses two principles. The principle of ‘state sovereignty’ (First articulated in the Peace of Westphalia 1648). This recognizes the right of states to govern their territories without external interference and also the principle of ‘national sovereignty’ which recognizes the right of national communities to govern themselves

THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF NEW ZEALAND IGNORED: Citizens Initiated Referendums: The citizens of NZ are the Sovereign of New Zealand. The parliamentarians our servants, the people of New Zealand are not their citizens. Therefore we, the people of New Zealand should have legal rights to agree or disagree with the government. The people of New Zealand have no ability to act upon the decision making rights. Therefore this is an undemocratic system on that is determined by the State for the State not the people.

UNDRIP: The Government will no longer recognize the UNDRIP, therefore also the government surely must rid NZ of the terminology ‘Indigenous Peoples’? This UN Declaration was adopted into the UN Assembly on 13th September 2007. Four countries rejected this, did not agree to sign it, they were the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  John Key under a veil of secrecy sent Pita Sharples Co leader of the Māori Party to sign the UN Declaration in 2010. Hence this has at the core of apartheid in NZ (Racial Politics)

WILL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DUMP AGENDA 2030? And its global Development Goals that are being implemented in New Zealand at an accelerated pace.?

UN AGENDA 2030: Imposes a threat to our country, New Zealand’s Nation State. Ardern imposed it into NZs Domestic Policy hence the Non-binding UN Agreement became legally binding. (The Peoples Report on UN Agenda 2030 2019. (134 pages).

AGENDA 2030 ‘IWI/MAORI PARTNERSHIPS: UN Agenda 2030 seeks Iwi/Maori Partnerships.(Published by MBIE Govt 2019) MFAT collaboration, a wider engagement to implement the UN Global Agenda in New Zealand by NZ Government engaging a partnership with Iwi/Maori  for action on UN Agenda 2030 SDGs. References made to:-Indigenous people are adaptable and reconstruct world views to ensure relevant information is passed onto government. The implementation of the Open Government Partnership National Action Plan. UN agenda 2030 in the spirit of partnership, the SDG Global Agenda 2030 that recommends ‘diversity-fluidity-LGBTQ+ community

UN / WEF INTERNATIONAL INTERFERENCE OF THE NATION STATE: The principle of ‘Sovereignty fuses two principles. The principle of ‘State’ sovereignty’ First articulated in the Peace of Westphalia 1648). Recognizes the right of States to govern their own territories without external interference.

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY:  The principle of ‘National Sovereignty’ recognizes the right of national communities to govern themselves. With the governments accepted interference of UN/WEF International Rules this has violated the right of the Sovereign People of The Nation State of New Zealand

NZ AS A NATION STATE: Nationalism aspires to a congruence between State Borders and the Boundaries of the Nation Community, so that the National Group is contained in the Territory of its State, and the State contains the Nation’. It is clearly evident that Parliamentarians, our Nations Leaders show no obedience to that of ‘Sovereign Right to a Nation State’. The sovereign people of NZ have no legal binding decision making rights.  The Undemocratic State of New Zealand

THE NATION STATES ‘RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION’ New Zealand is a Nation State, territorial bounded sovereign polity. A state that rules in the name of the citizens of that State whom identify themselves as the Sovereign of the State. The Right to Self-determination of the Sovereign State. This states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference

STATE BORDERS: As a political idea, nationalism aspires to a congruence between state borders and the boundaries of the national community, so that the national group is contained in the territory of its state and the state contains the nation

CHARACTER ASSINATION OF THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGN STATE: Has been severely corrupted by the ideology of ‘Decolonizing Everything’ consequently causing a serious division between individuals, groups, organizations in New Zealand, including that of political parties and their enactment of their policies.

PATRIOTISM: The term ‘Patriotism’ has been seriously corrupted globally and nationally. Patriotism is about loyalty to ones own country, our nation and political community. : Loyalty to ones own country: Patriotism, a feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation or political community. Patriotism the love of ones own country. Nationalism is the loyalty to ones nation

INTERUPTION AND INTERGRATION OF OUTSIDE GLOBAL ENTITIES: In the rights of the Sovereign people of the National Sovereign State of New Zealand. To Love One’s Own Country  has been seriously corrupted has been deliberately determined “loving, being loyal to ones own country  as Neo Nazism, Right Wing Extremism and White Supremacy.

EDUCATION CURRICULUM DISMISSES ‘LOYALTY, LOVING ONES OWN COUNTRY: Our children are being taught in the school curriculum (Universal Education UNESCO Education 2030) that promotes identity politics and gender ideology. Yes, the new government state they will once again implement English and Maths, but will they take RSI (Relationship & Sexuality), Gender Ideology out of the school curriculum?

GOOD NZ CITIZENS: Will the New Government replace the teaching of children to be ‘Good Global Citizens to be Good New Zealand Citizens, to love, respect be loyal to their own country?

NATIONALISM THREATENS MULTILATERALISM: Reported 2nd May 2019 (UN Article). Multilateralism must be strengthened, revitalize the UN Multilateral system so the UN remains effective. Nationalism has become a challenge to UN Multilateralism.  Parliaments worldwide actively achieving Agenda 2030.

NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENTARIANS:  The integration into national frameworks to reach local communities. Parliamentarians worldwide to embrace UN Reforms, this includes diffusing the virtual space in which global civil society have emerged. To support promote minority communities, LGBTQ+, and racial division, environmentalism termed as ‘diversity and inclusion’. The Un reports Parliamentarians to play a key role at local level. Improve Stakeholder partnerships

PARTNERSHIPS AND STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM: References to this:- Parliaments worldwide foster interaction between National Parliament and the UN. (Nations Parliaments worldwide form Partnership with the UN). The 5th World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments 2020 the opportunity to further consolidate this partnership to ensure implementation of the global agenda 2030. Highlights the role of Indigenous Peoples.

DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM TO CHOOSE: This report is published by NZ Govt MBIE. Stakeholder Capitalism is Klaus Schwab’s baby, the destruction and replacement of Free-market Enterprises worldwide. Destroying the freedom to choose.

RUINATION AND DESTRUCTION OF THE NATION STATE ECONOMY: Multi-stakeholder capitalism is the enemy of small businesses and farming communities, it is one of  the ‘Corporate Capture’ of Nation States to advance Global Governance. Massive re-engineering of social behavior as to the way we think, behave, what we purchase, the way we live and how we live.

UN CHALLENGES NATION STATES AS THREATENING MULTILATERALISM: It was reported on 2nd May 2019  (UN Article) entitled ‘Parliamentarians Discuss Multilateralism, UN’s Effectiveness at the 2019 Annual Parliamentary Hearing that discussed the emerging challenges to UN’s Multilateralism, that Multilateralism needs to strengthen worldwide, their needs to be many more women that participate in revitalizing the UN’s Multilateral System.

PARLIAMENTS WORLDWIDE ‘SDG’S (AGENDA 2030): Referenced the importance of Parliamentarian worldwide promoting global goals, that SDG Indicators (Agenda 2030) have been established to ensure local and regional budgets are ‘in step’. To ensure that the global agenda is integrated into national frameworks and they reach local communities

PARLIAMENTS ‘COMMITTEE’S PARTNERSHIP WITH UN: The suggestion was made to create within National parliaments committees similar to IPU Standing Committee on UN Affairs to foster interaction between National Parliaments and the UN. Thus referencing the 5th World Conference of Speakers of Parliament in 2020 could provide an opportunity to further consolidate the partnership between the UN, Nations Parliaments and IPU, thus ensuring to commit SDG implementation , to form a parliamentary committee to embrace UN Reforms

PARLIAMENTARIANS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE UN GLOBAL AGENDA; . They can hold their Governments accountable by following up on commitments made at the United Nations and monitoring the implementation thereof, passing relevant national legislation and approving budgets. I. Multilateralism, emerging challenges and the role of parliamentarian

UN STATES THAT NATIONALISM HAS BECOME A HUGE THREAT: Nationalism, populism and isolationism pose a growing threat to the global order. The international system, with the United Nations at its core, must become more relevant, responsive and transparent. It must do a better job of including women and youth, and partner with the private sector, business, labour, civil society and regional and financial institution

SOCIAL MEDIA ‘IDISINFORMATION’ A GLOBAL AGENDA: Social Media and Disinformation that undermines the Multilateral System. The hearing emphasized the need for multilateralism in a world grappling with increasingly complex cross-border challenges. Nationalism, populism and isolationism pose a growing threat to the global order. Parliamentarians play a key role because they represent people and can ensure that global ambitions apply to local realities

ELECTIONEERING CAMPAIGN NEGLECTED GLOBAL ISSUES THAT ARE IMPLENTED LOCALLY: This has not yet been addressed or even publicized by ACT, NZ First or National Parties during their electioneering campaigns. Surely National Interests should be the dominant principle of policy making in any given country. Distr.: General 26 March 2019 UN General Assembly.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ‘AUCKLAND COUNCIL’: Will the new coalition government dump the C40 Cities agenda of Auckland Council (Local Government) Smart cities, the promoting of plant based foods, encouraging the destruction of small businesses and farming communities. Their Drag Queen Storytime in libraries.

POLICING IN  NZ: Will police be required to remove their Rainbow bracelets? The Police are employed to serve the Government not the People of New Zealand

CHALLENGING PARLIAMENTARIANS TO STRENTHEN THE GLOBAL/WEF MULTULATERAL ORDER:. The 2019 annual parliamentary hearing served as an opportunity to discuss growing challenges to multilateralism and share ideas about how to reform the United Nations and strengthen the multilateral system in order to better respond to global challenges. This mode of operation challenges the traditional confinement of political struggles to the public sphere of individual sovereign states.

COALITION PARTY IGNORED THE NEW 300 PLUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: Whether New Government Coalition partners would oppose these WHO International Health Regulations that update, amend the UN UHR 2005 AND THE NEW who International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

THE WHO PANDEMIC ACCORD (TREATY) Does the new coalition agree with this or not? but they are certainly supporting the ‘One Health Approach’. The management-control of Human’s, Animals-wild and domestic, Plants, Soil, Oceas, Estuaries, the air you breathe, the whole dam Eco-System. This means that Climate Doomism lockdown is highly possible. Because they say that everything is inter-related (Inter-connected)

THE GLOBAL ONE HEALTH RESPONSE: Does the new coalition agree with this or not?

THE KILGALI AMENDMENT AGREED TO BY NZ GOVERNMENT AN AMENDMENT TO THE UN MONTRAL PROTOCOL OF THE VENICE CONVENTION: Is very restrictive, has huge implications for shipping, aviation, for services, products sold and manufactured in NZ. What is the governments take on this? This UN Agreement can be enforced by trade embargoes on countries that are non compliant. The Kigali Amendment calls for a gradual reduction in the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”), which are potent greenhouse gases. Its global implementation should avoid as much as half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.

KIGALI AMENDMENT: (NZ GOVERNMENT WEBSITE): In October 2016, New Zealand joined 196 other countries to adopt the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases commonly used in air conditioning and refrigeration In October 2016, New Zealand joined 196 other countries to adopt the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases commonly used in air conditioning and refrigeration

KILGALI AMENDMENT FULLY ENFORCIBLE: Non-Compliancy country’s risk Trade Embargo’s. This consequently made many countries fearful, hence all UN Nations States agreed, were signatory to this.

KIGALI ‘NZ’S ECOMOMY: What will the Coalition Partners do as far as the Kigali Amendment is concerned, this imposes a great cost to our nations economy, consumers commercial and domestic will have to find the funding needed for this as the implementation of the Kigali Amendment will seriously impact on both. Impact on New Zealands economy such as the impacts on packaging of foods, cooling systems, refrigeration, vehicle cooling systems, shipping maintenance renewable anergy and Aviation renewable agency and much more such as servicing and maintenance, spare parts.

KILGALI AMENDMENT: A UNIVERSAL LEGALLY BINDING TREATY

THE UN  NEW GLOBAL TAXATION AGREEMENT: To destroy Crypto currencies. As UN Nation States state that cryptocurrencies bitcoin is being used by terrorist organization. However the corporation will find a way around this, but the average UN Nation State citizen will not. What does the new coalition believe or intend to do about the CBDC Digital currency already being piloted in Australia by the ANZ and what about the global targeting of bitcoin, cryptocurrency?

DANGEROUS CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA AND THE DECRIMILIZATION OF ABORTION:  Safeguards etc., Criminality ‘Born Alive Principles??

MASS MIGRATION: Migration staff being told to ignore criminal records of migrants.  Local Govt to implement migration in cities world-wide. migration? As New Zealander’s are impacted by inflation, economically, socially how will this effect policy making for the new coalition. Migration in New Zealand increases 165% 2023-2024. Migration Officers leave their jobs as their senior manager are ignoring their huge concerns as to being told to ignore criminal convictions, approve, approve, approve on face value,  do not investigate, approve residency, student, work visa’s as quickly as possible  (Source of information RNZ). Question:- Could New Zealands security be at risk as migration officers report that at least 200 of these applications per day were suspicious but they were told to approve them ‘do not investigate’

GLOBAL MAYORS MIGRATION AGENDA: Implementation of Local Govt’s ? Mass Migration this also includes the Global Mayors Mitigation Council in partnership with C40 Cities (Auckland is a C40 City)

LINKS:

https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/international-action/vienna-convention-and-montreal-protocol/kigali-amendment-to-the-montreal-protocol/

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15110-international-developments-in-sustainability-reporting-pdf

https://www.sdg.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Final_PeopleReport-2019-Dec-2019_for-web.pdf

https://www.sdg.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Final_PeopleReport-2019-Dec-2019_for-web.pdf

https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/international-action/vienna-convention-and-montreal-protocol/kigali-amendment-to-the-montreal-protocol/

Summary Report of the 2019 Parliamentary Hearing: Note by the President of the General Assembly] [2019 Annual Parliamentary Hearing Website

To find out more about the imports of HFCs into New Zealand, see Calculations from the New Zealand Hydrofluorocarbon Inventory in relation to the Kigali Amendment 2016 to the Montreal Protocol