Explain this to me.

Which clause of the Treaty is the Waitangi Tribunal using when they suggest the Government recognise second generation Maori for citizenship?

John Ruddock brought the case, while a similar one got headlines recently because it involved Keisha Castle-Hughes, the actress.

In her case she was born in Australia to a New Zealand mum. Her children were born in America, hence they don’t get automatic citizenship.

Ruddock was born in Australia and got citizenship by descent. But his children were born offshore as well and descent only operates to one generation.

This is not a new law, it's not a surprise. It's been this way for decades.

So the tribunal hears the case and decides the law needs changing. But my question is, on what basis?

Is the tribunal not there, however loosely, to interpret the Treaty? Where in the Treaty does it talk of generational descent issues?

Under what clause does it talk of being born in Australia? Of course, it doesn’t.

Because it was written in the 1800's and it is, at best, vague, which leaves it open to interpretation.

So the question for the here and now is how much so-called "law" is going on here versus ideology.

Law is developed, if not by the Parliament, by regular courts when they see a gap. They interpret.

The recent foreshore drama is a good example. The 2011 law was explicit. The court simply didn’t like it so they suggested change and the Government had to step in.

But the Waitangi Tribunal, which remember has no actual legal power, seems merely to make things up. One generation isn't enough so let's make it two. Why not four? Why not make it really easy and anyone who remotely feels Maori can claim citizenship for any number of offspring, no matter where they were born, as long as it feels right?

Where does the Treaty stop and the improvisation start?

Thank goodness the Government are not going to do anything about it.

But that’s this Government.

What about another Government? And what are the historic, long-term consequences of a tribunal that’s running roughshod?  

LISTEN ABOVE

Explain this to me.
Which clause of the Treaty is the Waitangi Tribunal using when they suggest the Government recognise second generation Maori for citizenship?
John Ruddock brought the case, while a similar one got headlines recently because it involved Keisha Castle-Hughes, the actress.
In her case she was born in Australia to a New Zealand mum. Her children were born in America, hence they don’t get automatic citizenship.
Ruddock was born in Australia and got citizenship by descent. But his children were born offshore as well and descent only operates to one generation.
This is not a new law, it's not a surprise. It's been this way for decades.
So the tribunal hears the case and decides the law needs changing. But my question is, on what basis?
Is the tribunal not there, however loosely, to interpret the Treaty? Where in the Treaty does it talk of generational descent issues?
Under what clause does it talk of being born in Australia? Of course, it doesn’t.
Because it was written in the 1800's and it is, at best, vague, which leaves it open to interpretation.
So the question for the here and now is how much so-called "law" is going on here versus ideology.
Law is developed, if not by the Parliament, by regular courts when they see a gap. They interpret.
The recent foreshore drama is a good example. The 2011 law was explicit. The court simply didn’t like it so they suggested change and the Government had to step in.
But the Waitangi Tribunal, which remember has no actual legal power, seems merely to make things up. One generation isn't enough so let's make it two. Why not four? Why not make it really easy and anyone who remotely feels Maori can claim citizenship for any number of offspring, no matter where they were born, as long as it feels right?
Where does the Treaty stop and the improvisation start?
Thank goodness the Government are not going to do anything about it.
But that’s this Government.
What about another Government? And what are the historic, long-term consequences of a tribunal that’s running roughshod? &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: The Waitangi Tribunal is Running Roughshod

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/39330913-9682-43d3-bcc7-b38a002e5eeb/transcript

Advertisement