Talk:Waitangi Tribunal

message: Is this copy and pasted from the Waitangi Tribunal website; is that text public domain? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:56, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: I have concerns around the statements that the Waitangi Tribunal is "empowered to compensate", using the phrase "Māori people" and that the Tribunal makes judgments on "land obtained by fraud or by force".
===empowered to compensate===
The Waitangi Tribunal is not empowered to compensate, it is empowered to investigate and make recommendations on a claim by a Māori or a group of Māori that feel they have been prejudiced by laws and regulations or by acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown since 1840 that are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. See question 11 of the Waitangi Tribunal FAQ for verification.
I suggest that the statement "empowered to compensate" be removed and replaced by "empowered to investigate and make recommendations on claims by".
===Māori people===
Standard nomenclature where referring to people of an ethnicity is to use the title of there ethnicity not to add "people" on the end of the statement (i.e. Asian or Asians) not Asian people. Also the a in Māori should have a macron above it. 
I suggest that the statement "Maori people" be modified to "a Māori or group of Māori" (as a claim can be made be either a individual or a group).
===land obtained by fraud or by force===
Firstly this statement only refers to land, the Waitangi Tribunal looks at all incidents where the Treaty of Waitangi has been infringed, this can be on a range of issues from repression of the Maori language through to treatment of Maori by Governmental forces (see question 4 of Waitangi Tribunal FAQ for verification). As well as this the original statement misses one very important element, the infraction of the Treaty must have been performed by agents of the Crown as the Treaty was only signed between the Crown and Maori. 
I suggest that the statement "land obtained by fraud or force" be removed and replaced by "that their rights under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been infringed by actions of the Crown in the period since 1840"
Adam 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns around introduction piece

message: Firstly this statement only refers to land, the Waitangi Tribunal looks at all incidents where the Treaty of Waitangi has been infringed, this can be on a range of issues from repression of the Maori language through to treatment of Maori by Governmental forces (see question 4 of Waitangi Tribunal FAQ for verification). As well as this the original statement misses one very important element, the infraction of the Treaty must have been performed by agents of the Crown as the Treaty was only signed between the Crown and Maori. 
I suggest that the statement "land obtained by fraud or force" be removed and replaced by "that their rights under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been infringed by actions of the Crown in the period since 1840"
Adam 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: land obtained by fraud or by force

message: I made a minor edit to the article because it was contradictory. The introduction called the Tribunal a court, while the body of the article explained how it was a commission of inquiry, not a court, and did not have the powers of a court. As the Tribunal's website confirms, the Tribunal is a commission of inquiry. Kahuroa 10:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely not a court. There are no rules of evidence, and the tribunal is inherently biased against the permanent defendant, the Crown. The role of the tribunal is to study alleged breaches of the treaty by the Crown, and to recommend remedies.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a court

message: Just noting (mostly as a note to self or anyone else with verified info on this) that this article lacks any mention of the many cases which the Tribunal has investigated and made recommendations for recompense to Government. Kahuroa 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A year later

message: This entry is kind of sparse, very little mention of it's history, for one the 1985 Ammendment Act is ignored entirely, quite fundamental to the operation of the Tribunal. There's no mention of any reports or landmark decisions, i think that's quite important? I think i'll have to have a sit down and edit on this in a week or so, just thought i should sound some opinion first Squiddy7 11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortfalls

message: From the "Investigatory powers" section: "For example, the Tribunal may follow 'te kawa o te marae'". This is linked to this section of the marae article. That explains what "marae" means; however the rest of the phrase is still unclear as things stand. What does "te kawa o te" mean? That needs to be made explicit, as most non-NZ readers will not know. 86.149.131.137 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain this