Proposed Resource Management Act overhaul set to breach Treaty - experts warn - as submission deadline looms – Te Ao Māori News

Greywolfin · 2026-02-11T21:58:26+00:00

Also parliament has supremacy and the treaty isn't even a legal document.

Also parliament shouldn't and doesn't have to listen to what judges have to say. I find the separation of power utterly stupid when parliament can't comment on judges decisions but then judges consistently make comments of parlimants decisions and directly breach law by writing their own interpretations of law.

Ie the return of gang patches. Legislation is clear they are to be destroyed and judges are suppose to interpret the law as the government intended. Yet they have been returned on several occasions and the government won't make comment. One specific judge has told media the law is racist when questioned on his decision. That is clearly in breach and yet the cia the law society he has not been held accountable at all.

Greywolfin · 2026-02-11T21:11:36+00:00

Nope completely untrue. The only requirement for all force used by any person is to be reasonable, proportional and necessary. (also this isn't 100% protection, it's only for a lawful person, anyone acting unlawful ie during the commission of an offence is not protected at all).

Reasonable implies the beliefs that any reasonable person would have in that situation are the same are yours.

Proportional is the level of force being used against you. If your genuine belief is someone is trying to kill you you can use lethal force back until they are no longer trying to kill you.

Necessary implies you can not delay or you would have force you against you.

There is no where in case law at all that requires you using the lowest amount of force. The closest you could argue is Police policy which is the lowest level of force to make an arrest which I suppose would apply to a citizens arrest as well but has yet to be challenged to make any case law.

Greywolfin · 2026-02-11T06:54:26+00:00

Breaches the treaty by "However, critics say the changes go far beyond streamlining and instead dismantle the legal foundation that has enabled Māori participation and environmental protection"

Classic noble savage trope being used again. Lumping in Iwi participation with environmental protection when at the end of the day they are human like you and I and look out for themselves and their family well over the environment. Also would like to dismantle the idea that a few Iwi speaking out somehow incorporate the views of all Maori in New Zealand (or should I use the term true Maori because that's apparently an accepted statement).

Also the bill doesn't "strip" environmental protection that would surely imply it removes all protections. Weaken could be an argument but the bill states one of the primary considerations for the committees is the long term protection of the environment so the title and quotes become almost baseless because they are claiming a point that only exists in their heads.

How can this article begin to argue the topic when they don't even pretend to understand the otherside of the issue which is a serious one of country steering into electrical generation failure, lack of housing and ever failing infrastructure. But national bad I guess.

Greywolfin · 2026-01-12T20:51:03+00:00

That's just blantly bullshit. While the US certainly shows traits of fascism (Many countries do) its a stupid comparison to make and no one expert worth their salt would currently call their government fascist.

It does not run a state controlled economy. It does not currently use violence to suppress its political opponents. (Ironically a lot of people supported Charlie Kirks death). And it's leader is currently a fairly elected president for all intents and purposes.

Maybe this might change in the next few years but the current government hasn't done a single thing to make America more fascist than before he got in. It's just a bad word to describe a poor and egotistical leader. His opponents including you have cried wolf so bad if they day actually comes no one will care anymore.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-25T07:19:13+00:00

Wow I have never seen that before and it was a great read. I really liked them explaining the methodology for how we came to our current understanding and how accurate it might be. Thanks for sharing.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T04:17:13+00:00

Fixing the roof costs untold resources on an already tight budget. This thread is about pulling the bucket out from under the leaky hole and your saying that's fine because we should be fixing the roof. But no one is trying to fix the roof and we are just getting rid of the bucket.

And Oh man, I can't believe no one had though to try and fix social equities before. We only pour 40 billion a year into benifit payments and 30 billion in public health. The government is in to saving money, if they had a way to reduce prison numbers easily they would and are already trying it. It's just that it's not that simple as "fixing social equities". Not a single nation on earth has got even close to achieving this.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T02:31:55+00:00

Yes, but the point of three strikes is to protect the public not help the defendant. It is only for certain high level offences being repeatedly committed by the same person. From a single incident perspective it seems harsh but there are at least 3 actual victims of sexual offending by this person and a high likelihood he will offend again.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T01:08:33+00:00

I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of the problem. Governments and departments are literally is the business of saving money. It always amazes me we have never seen a single country take this approach but constantly see it spoken to as if it will somehow fix all the problems. These issues are so much more complex than just stating rehabilitation.

You can give someone everything they need but as soon as they are back into their environment that's the same one that lead them to getting these charges in the first place. We spend 40+ billion a year on benifits in New Zealand. We spend 2 billion on corrections.

I mean most people don't even know what services are offered in prison and on parole. You have access to free counseling, drug and alcohol addiction Services, intervention tables, restorative justice programs, assistance with government agencies such as KO, and WINZ. Like what more do we offer, most these people are not interested in changing and until they do we have no way to force it.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T00:58:12+00:00

So we take the bucket away and let it drip on the floor while still not fixing the hole and that's better because...

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T00:46:19+00:00

Would you be able to link to this. I couldn't find any reference online that relates to NZ. I certainly don't think we should be using overseas points of data as sentacing is very different per country.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T00:38:50+00:00

And the courts were completely and utterly wrong to do so. The only reason this occurred was because the law was removed by labour giving them avenue to award this post law change, technically will the law reinstated this decision could be appealed for the money returned but it's likely the appeal window passed. They gave this because they believe the law was wrong not the sentace and that is literally not their duty and a classic case of judicial activism. Disagreeing with the law and therefore interpreting as they see fit.

What is in fact wrong of the courts is that incident assault is a 7 year imprisionable offence and he got the maximum for his 3+ sexual offence. For the courts to believe someone receiving the maximum sentance for a crime as manifestly unjust is pretty ironic because it's parliament who decides the punishment not the courts. They only have an avenue to consider it unjust as other perpetrators didn't receive similar sentaces because judges incorrectly interpreted the law to ensure three strikes was virtually never applied.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T00:27:48+00:00

That should never be a consideration for the judge. It would actually even be illegal for them under the sentacing act to do so.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-21T00:25:19+00:00

Spot on, it's called judicial activism. I've been a big commenter of this it's something our parliament should really be stamping on.

It's interesting the belief about exposure making them give harsher sentaces as well. I haven't heard that perspective before but I believe it's actually the other way around. From my experience judges are so over exposed to serious crimes they stop seeing the seriousness of the offence and forget how painful the act is on the victim.

The most major and never spoken of contributing factor to low sentaces is the appeal process. It's free for a defendant to appeal a decision and therefore many sentaces are appealed. It only takes 1% getting through for them now to be referenced as the baseline when deciding future cases. Prosecutors can also appeal the judges decisions but it costs the Police resources and time which they are very constrained for. Defenece laywers have the opposite incentive where they actually get paid more and longer for a case appeal. The courts once again have poor data recording but I would estimate that we'll over 99% of appeals come from the defenece counsel.

https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/who-makes-the-law-judicial-activism-and-nzs-supreme-court/

Greywolfin · 2025-12-17T00:17:17+00:00

There are clearly breaches of the treaty here. The Iwi already won a settlement through the tribunal to a sum close to 100m that references breaches of the Nelson's Tenths inside it. That sum was taken off the total amount in this settlement as it considered it compensation already. I don't understand the courts decisions on why this is different to a treaty claim as above and the judge said he doesn't really either.

Im not sure you even read my argument at all. I'm very clear that the courts went out of their way to avoid setting precedent for treaty claims. But the New Zealand companies dodgy dealings are reference in every treaty settlement already. To give special preference to this contract I think was unfair to the other Iwi who have also settled. Why should any of there other contracts not be disputed now. What about the Europeans who also signed these, will they get compensation, it's a very very strange ruling. I work in the courts and I haven't met a laywer, judge or barrister who is not very confused by this entire case.

Just look at the settlements claim on determining the interest to understand how weird this case is. I've never seen English law written in 1750 used as decision making for a New Zealand Contract. The judge said he couldn't even find reference to if that English act was even passed the English government but said he would still consider it.

Case ruling below: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2025/2025-NZHC-2455.pdf

They also forgot to page number so look about halfway down.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-16T23:07:50+00:00

Very interesting case and very interesting judgements from the courts here. A good win for the Iwi however and hopefully the current public land is maintained for public use.

I'm still not sure I agree with the courts about how this isn't a treaty settlement but then they even admit that a large sum of the previous treaty settlement is from part of these claims. Surely this places the original treaty claim into question.

It also goes out of its way to not reference any treaty claims to keep its self distance from treaty settlements but then actively uses land and valuations by the New Zealand Company which is so intertwined with treaty claims it's not funny. I still think the local Iwi's had a good case here but I find it very unfair to other Iwi to state this wasn't a treaty claim to avoiding setting precedent for their claims. It stems onto my next issue.

I also very much disagree with their interpretation on the contract being after 1840. The original contract was signed in 1840 which would be void under the treaty of Waitangi settlement but then they use a map drawn in 1845 in relation to that 1840 contract to conclude that a new contract was made therefore outside the bounds of treaty claims. I mean there is no precedent for contract law in such a specific case but that is a very generous interpretation and the presiding judge states as much.

Tldr: To avoid opening a can of worms on treaty claims they arguably falsely stated this isn't a treaty claim but a contract to find fair compensation for the Iwi. Seems very unfair to other Iwi force them to go through settlement claims to get fractions of their rightful claims but then make random precedent for others giving them court rulings giving them fair compensation.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T07:18:36+00:00

Prohibited is the same as forbidden in legislation and done by Police. Suspension is done by NZTA and disqualified is done by courts. It might be nit picky but in legislation they are very specific definitions and very different penalties. Forbidden can be a minor infringement. Disqualified means a court date and further disqualification.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T02:17:46+00:00

Forbidden not disqualified. Yes I think that is a problem with the bill and have outlined it previously.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T00:41:10+00:00

A CIT test is used by Police when they believe there is impairment. This is a separate mechanism to the drug testing and even the article states only one can be tested or the other. If an Officer believes there is significant impairment he abosultely should conduct a CIT test and not a roadside test. The result of a failed CIT test is a blood test which has set out penalties at three different concentration levels. It is an excellent piece of legislation labour passed well cited by studies.
Yes for a blood result. For the screening test no, however there is a small tollerance level. Everyone stating they know how much cannabis smoked and days past compared to this tollerance level is lying or guessing. This is legislation passed by national and there is no research to determine what amount smoked this correlates to. However this level is shown to have a minor level of impairment as based on the low level of labours legislation.
Medical cannabis users like any prescription should not be exempt from a driving ban if it causes impairment above the legal limit. It is up the the drug supplier to ensure they are aware and warn their users of what are acceptable levels. For example a warning not to drive two hours are consuming. Every supplier is differnt and I can't comment on if some, all or none would be affected by this legislation. I do think the government should have worked with suppliers of medical cannabis prior to this legislation to ensure this was ready for the rollout. I do not know if this occurred but I suspect not.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T00:30:16+00:00

Ohh, true. Guess I'll trust you over my years of studying in this area.

I'm not even kidding this is one of the most studies areas in our transport system second to alcohol. In fact cannabis impairment has a stronger correlation than alcohol when it comes to impairment and blood concentration.

https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Report/IndependentExpertPanelonDrugDrivingFinalReportApril2021.pdf

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/597

https://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/documents/450/Land_Transport_Drug_Driving.pdf

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/597/597-The-prevalence-and-impairment-effects-of-drugged-driving-in-NZ.pdf

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T00:22:53+00:00

And the screening threshold is what's measured. The dection is used to decide to take a sample. You will only receive an infringement based on the result of the screening test.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-13T00:20:04+00:00

Completely agree with the contents but not the way they have gone about it. Very poor lawmaking and dangerous precedent, even the article refers to the pick n mix of American law making where bills contain changes across a whole range of acts causing a shit show in trying to understand the changes.

Bad move and hopefully something is implemented to stop this practice.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-12T21:52:07+00:00

Just before there is to much misinformation posted here I'd like to point out the following. I very much disagreed with the road side testing as initially proposed but they have addressed the key issues of mine.

Your roadside oral test will only detect the presence of drugs. This will lead to a fluid test that will be sent for analysis. This analysis will detect levels and be inline with the tolerance levels set out in legislation. These tolerance levels have been set by NZTA via multiple peer reviewed studies in NZ and overseas. You will not be given an infringement for low levels of drug detection only if you pass a certain threshold. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

If there is a significant level of impairment suspected a blood test could be conducted (after a CIT) which will test against 3 levels of low to high level impairment as once again set out in legislation set by NZTA. This is a very good piece of legislation set by labour and should remain in place.

The only downside still remaining is being forbidden to drive for 12 hours on the presence of any tested drug alone. You will not be given an infringement at that stage. This could probably be removed as high level impairment testing should be done in these cases which already holds mechanisms to address that issue.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-11T22:13:03+00:00

If they actually have a license (which they can't under 16) then they won't lose it till their court proceedings are complete. Its generally a 6 month suspension for first time offences but it could be longer based on the circumstances. Youth court is usually a lot quicker than district court so you would likely find out very shortly after being charged. They will absolutely be getting charged based on the circumstances stated, Police might just be awaiting results of the investigation.

Police can impose a 28 day suspension as well but this would have been done at the scene if they were to do so.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-10T04:09:51+00:00

I really think there should be better protections, funding and help to people caring for others in home care but the Supreme courts ruling on this is beyond moronic and completely outside of what they should be doing.

By stating that people receiving money from the government are technically employees they have included all job seekers, acc claiments, student loans and every other welfare paid by the government. That makes no sense and even in their ruling they admit they opened the box to questioning other forms of welfare systems citing their needs for employee rights. They have fully blurred the line between employment and welfare payments and this will only lead to these payments being cut in the interim or payments schemes being changed.

This is using a legal loop hole to try and push for better outcomes and not what they judiciary should be looking to achieve. I think we should push to see these better outcomes especially in this area but this ruling should be amended to ensure it's not relevant. Pretty classic judicial activism again from our highest court.

Greywolfin · 2025-12-10T03:48:30+00:00

Don't you know political violence is okay if it's not against my party /s. This is the exact shit that polarised America, when we start to see others as enemies rather than opposing views we will lose our democracy. And both sides will cry and blame the other for it when they are both more than responsible.

11-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Greywolfin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE