Over 400 Christian leaders have written an open letter asking the Government to stop the bill from going to Select Committee.
This list includes senior leaders of Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Salvation Army and Vineyard denominations.
Very Reverend Jay Ruka from Taranaki Cathedral is one of the signatories - and he said the bill is built on an incorrect premise.
"I just think it's unwise - such a proposal should be put forth in that forum. By all means, let's talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and even at that forum, but let's compare apples to apples."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Heller, Duplessy alan So. More than four hundred Christian organizations
have written an open letter to the government asking the
government to stop the Treaty Principal's Bell going to Select Committee.
These include the most senior leaders of the Catholic, the Anglican,
the Methodist, the Salvation Army and the Vineyard denominations. Taranaki
Cathedral's very Reverend Jay Ruka was one of the signatories.
He's with us now, hey, j hell, how are you
(00:21):
you good? Thank you mate? Why do you want to
stop it going to Select committee?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Because it's it has a false premise, it has the
wrong premise. So the premise of it is off. So
why would you take something that's off to a robust discussion.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Well, I mean off ideas go to Select Committee all
the time and then we have a chat about it
and then we decide if we want to do it
or not.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Maybe, but not over foundational documents. So I just think
it's unwise that such a proposal should be put forth
in that forum. By all means, let's talk about tidity
or white tonguey and even at that forum, but let's
compare apples to apples.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So what's off about it.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
The idea that, as far as what has been presented
to the public of altern on his Zane already, is
that you can take notions of what the treaty says
and what it meant by tea or una tonguel, and
then all of a sudden say that that idea is
(01:24):
for everybody. That's just not what the contract says. So
why would you try and reframe and reinterpret a contract
that doesn't actually say what it says.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
That's what do you mean by that.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Article two of Titi says that as ungle teta tonguel,
we retain our teen or ungle teta tonge right as
as leaders of Hapu and ewi. So what that is
saying is that the document is saying that Maori leaders,
like not all leaders are male in this document, retain
(02:02):
the leadership and the chieftainship over their lands, their treasures,
their tong et cetera, et cetera. So then to go
ahead and then say that, oh, everybody has the manner
over their land and their treasures and their tongue. While
that is true, that's also not what tatidity says. The
(02:24):
titidity that does not say that everyone has this tatidity
says that of Nahabu Naiwi have have this. So it
would be like saying that, oh, I signed a contract
for a house, and how on as an owner of
a house, the owners of house should be a human
right for everybody. Therefore, as the Crown, we think that
(02:47):
everyone should now own your house.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well, is it not the same as saying, okayj you've
bought a house and you've signed it, and we now
recognize your property right in your house, and we also
recognize everybody else's right in their own houses.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
What's the problem that's and that's that that's a true statement,
but that's not what the contract that says. Okay, but
what so, how do you how do you how do
you how do you honor? Essentially, how do you get
the contract?
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Explain to me what's wrong with with what he says
he's going to do in it? Right, So he says
an article two, he will recognize that the New Zealand
Government recognizes the New Zealand Government will recognize the of
the HPOO and the EWI over the TNA right. So
exactly what you want, but also everybody else, everybody else's
(03:38):
property rights will be recognized.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
To what's the problem with that. But that's a given
that happens. So then what's the problem is that the
t of Ewi and Hapu Maori has not been recognized.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, I just don't understand. I mean I can sort of.
It feels a little bit like what you're arguing is
that it has to be left in its truest form,
just recognizing the very very specific things in the treaty. Yes,
then is that what you're arguing.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
That's what a contract says.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, well, then explain to me, j how we have
spent the last fifty years developing principles which are not
literal interpretations of the treaty, but us developing on the treaty.
If what you want is a totally literal interpretation of
the treaty, then you have to be arguing with me
you want to get rid of all the principles you
cool with that you want.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
To get rid of. Why would you want to get
rid of.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Because if you're arguing, which you are with me, that
we have to look at a literal interpretation of the
treaty and nothing else on top of that, then you
are arguing with me that all principles have to be
removed as well. Because they're not literal interpretations.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
They are are they caught the kind of r ex
No they like.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Actually they well because for example, one of the big
principles out of the treaty is that is the principle
of partnership. Yeah, go through the treaty, find me the
word partnership.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Well that's a silly that's a silly argument because who's
the contract between?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
No, no, no, But this is what I'm trying to.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Say, contract. Who's who's the contract between? It's between between
the Queen of it's between the Queen of England, and
it's between that.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Okay, cool, So you accept you accept that the principles
are okay.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
As as what the white thing you tribe your new because.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
All David was doing theme is some more principles. So
what's the problem with it? If you think principles are cool,
then why can't we have more principles and have these
ones too?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
We can't. We you know what, we should have more principles,
but those principles should be based on what is being
said in the context of when it was.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
None of the principles. That means none of the principles
are based on what's said in there right, So what
we want we want Jay's principles, but not the other
principles that Jay doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Sorry, those principles that very very very smart people, many
many lawyers, over many many decades have looked at those
principles are in there because they are in the context.
They are in the context of like an agreement, like
I don't know if you're I don't know if you
(06:24):
have a marriage partner. But it's it's like you you
know people or people who are married, most of them
have wedding rings. The marriage is not the wedding ring.
The marriage is that the ring is a symbol of
the relationship and of the partnership. Right, So in essence
tatidity and what it says, you've got to look at
(06:46):
the whole entire context of how this document came about,
why did it come about, and looking at from that,
what was the British government doing at the same time.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, listen, so do you do you you chill with
David Seymour's amendments to Article two in cabinet today.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I didn't hear what they I didn't see what they were.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Sorry, okay, well maybe that'll change you mine. Thank you, Jay,
I really appreciate your time. That is the very Reverend Jayrika,
the Dean of Taranaki's Cathedrals.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Heller, Duplessy alan So. More than four hundred Christian organizations
have written an open letter to the government asking the
government to stop the Treaty Principal's Bell going to Select Committee.
These include the most senior leaders of the Catholic, the Anglican,
the Methodist, the Salvation Army and the Vineyard denominations. Taranaki
Cathedral's very Reverend Jay Ruka was one of the signatories.
He's with us now, hey, j hell, how are you
(00:21):
you good? Thank you mate? Why do you want to
stop it going to Select committee?
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Because it's it has a false premise, it has the
wrong premise. So the premise of it is off. So
why would you take something that's off to a robust discussion.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Well, I mean off ideas go to Select Committee all
the time and then we have a chat about it
and then we decide if we want to do it
or not.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Maybe, but not over foundational documents. So I just think
it's unwise that such a proposal should be put forth
in that forum. By all means, let's talk about tidity
or white tonguey and even at that forum, but let's
compare apples to apples.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
So what's off about it.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
The idea that, as far as what has been presented
to the public of altern on his Zane already, is
that you can take notions of what the treaty says
and what it meant by tea or una tonguel, and
then all of a sudden say that that idea is
(01:24):
for everybody. That's just not what the contract says. So
why would you try and reframe and reinterpret a contract
that doesn't actually say what it says.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
That's what do you mean by that.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Article two of Titi says that as ungle teta tonguel,
we retain our teen or ungle teta tonge right as
as leaders of Hapu and ewi. So what that is
saying is that the document is saying that Maori leaders,
like not all leaders are male in this document, retain
(02:02):
the leadership and the chieftainship over their lands, their treasures,
their tong et cetera, et cetera. So then to go
ahead and then say that, oh, everybody has the manner
over their land and their treasures and their tongue. While
that is true, that's also not what tatidity says. The
(02:24):
titidity that does not say that everyone has this tatidity
says that of Nahabu Naiwi have have this. So it
would be like saying that, oh, I signed a contract
for a house, and how on as an owner of
a house, the owners of house should be a human
right for everybody. Therefore, as the Crown, we think that
(02:47):
everyone should now own your house.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Well, is it not the same as saying, okayj you've
bought a house and you've signed it, and we now
recognize your property right in your house, and we also
recognize everybody else's right in their own houses.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
What's the problem that's and that's that that's a true statement,
but that's not what the contract that says. Okay, but
what so, how do you how do you how do
you how do you honor? Essentially, how do you get
the contract?
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Explain to me what's wrong with with what he says
he's going to do in it? Right, So he says
an article two, he will recognize that the New Zealand
Government recognizes the New Zealand Government will recognize the of
the HPOO and the EWI over the TNA right. So
exactly what you want, but also everybody else, everybody else's
(03:38):
property rights will be recognized.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
To what's the problem with that. But that's a given
that happens. So then what's the problem is that the
t of Ewi and Hapu Maori has not been recognized.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, I just don't understand. I mean I can sort of.
It feels a little bit like what you're arguing is
that it has to be left in its truest form,
just recognizing the very very specific things in the treaty. Yes,
then is that what you're arguing.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
That's what a contract says.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, well, then explain to me, j how we have
spent the last fifty years developing principles which are not
literal interpretations of the treaty, but us developing on the treaty.
If what you want is a totally literal interpretation of
the treaty, then you have to be arguing with me
you want to get rid of all the principles you
cool with that you want.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
To get rid of. Why would you want to get
rid of.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Because if you're arguing, which you are with me, that
we have to look at a literal interpretation of the
treaty and nothing else on top of that, then you
are arguing with me that all principles have to be
removed as well. Because they're not literal interpretations.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
They are are they caught the kind of r ex
No they like.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Actually they well because for example, one of the big
principles out of the treaty is that is the principle
of partnership. Yeah, go through the treaty, find me the
word partnership.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Well that's a silly that's a silly argument because who's
the contract between?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
No, no, no, But this is what I'm trying to.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Say, contract. Who's who's the contract between? It's between between
the Queen of it's between the Queen of England, and
it's between that.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Okay, cool, So you accept you accept that the principles
are okay.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
As as what the white thing you tribe your new because.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
All David was doing theme is some more principles. So
what's the problem with it? If you think principles are cool,
then why can't we have more principles and have these
ones too?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
We can't. We you know what, we should have more principles,
but those principles should be based on what is being
said in the context of when it was.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
None of the principles. That means none of the principles
are based on what's said in there right, So what
we want we want Jay's principles, but not the other
principles that Jay doesn't like.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Sorry, those principles that very very very smart people, many
many lawyers, over many many decades have looked at those
principles are in there because they are in the context.
They are in the context of like an agreement, like
I don't know if you're I don't know if you
(06:24):
have a marriage partner. But it's it's like you you
know people or people who are married, most of them
have wedding rings. The marriage is not the wedding ring.
The marriage is that the ring is a symbol of
the relationship and of the partnership. Right, So in essence
tatidity and what it says, you've got to look at
(06:46):
the whole entire context of how this document came about,
why did it come about, and looking at from that,
what was the British government doing at the same time.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, listen, so do you do you you chill with
David Seymour's amendments to Article two in cabinet today.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I didn't hear what they I didn't see what they were.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Sorry, okay, well maybe that'll change you mine. Thank you, Jay,
I really appreciate your time. That is the very Reverend Jayrika,
the Dean of Taranaki's Cathedrals.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.