CLARIFICATION FROM WAKAMINENGA HAUORA | HEALTH (WHC)
It has come to the attention of the WHC that "Crown" (i.e the NZ Corporation) related entities have provided misinformation about the WHC to their members and explicitly threatened their members.
The WHC is legally structured under Maori Jurisdiction. The following information may provide clarification on this topic:
Most people are not aware that the law in New Zealand is in two streams. In September 2020 "The Supreme Court has just reminded us that our law is indeed sourced in two streams and that the legal profession ought to be prepared to engage with Māori law…” https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/lawtalk/lawtalk-issue-943/tikanga-maori-in-nz-common-law/
This statement is a further confirmation of the historical reality that was confirmed decades ago by Doug Graham, then minister of Treaty negotiations when he stated " The sooner (people) realize that there are laws for one and laws for another, the better." (NZ Herald Saturday May 31, 1997).
In a very recent decision (30 September 2021) of the NZ Supreme Court, it was stated that: “Tikanga is applicable law, and there is no negotiation of that reality." Recognising and respecting tikanga, says the court, is part of the Crown’s obligation to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. That obligation is more than just a generalised acknowledgement of Treaty principles. Rather, there must be precise and particular legislative schemes to provide for and protect Māori interests. It follows, write two of the Supreme Court justices, William Young and Ellen France, that Treaty clauses should be interpreted with a “broad and generous construction, not a narrow, reluctant or begrudging way.” https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/the-supreme-court-has-spoken/
Two important principles are also at play.
A) First in time, first in Law: Ture tikanga (Māori law) and He Wakaputanga (Declaration of Independance 1835) clearly precedes common law and instead upholds Māori customary law.
B) The international doctrine of contra proferentem: it dictates that in cases of ambiguity a Treaty is to be interpreted against the drafting party, it is te Tiriti o Waitangi that establishes Māori rights under the Treaty, not the flawed English translation. And it must be interpreted in favour of Māori.
Many are also not aware that the NZ government is a corporation (SEC CIK #0000216105) listed on the US Security & Exchange Commission as “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand”
SEC CIK #0000216105
In the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012.
In section 45P-2: They define the Crown: “Crown means Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand".
"The Crown" is wrongfully attempting to assert its power through the statute known as the HPCA Act 2003.
"The Crown" is actually a potential conflation of one of three or 4 Crowns that formed agreements with the NZ corporation. Only one of those Crowns applies to a Maori jurisdiction, but it has no authority unless there has been consent from the United Tribes and Hereditary Chiefs.
This statute cannot be used to promote a fraudulent action that seeks to usurp our bodily sovereignty and our freedom. The HPCA Act 2003 has no authority in our jurisdiction and is not recognized in Ture Tikanga (Māori customary law).
Because successive New Zealand Governments that represent the Crown in the Treaty partnership, have failed to recognise Māori rights as te Tiriti partners, it is now necessary to assert those rights including the right of self-governance.
The WHC does not endorse any information or advice from any other organisation unless it is specifically stated by the WHC.
Mobirise web creator - More