Talk:Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

New Zealand: Politics / Māori / Law Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the New Zealand law task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Treaty of Waitangi#Is the Treaty binding on the Crown.3F]] The anchor (#Is the Treaty binding on the Crown.3F) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

1985 Amendment[edit]

I think this section has more material in it than sources can really back up - the section it refers to in Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements doesn't describe controversy in particular surrounding the 85 amendment - the more notable controversy arose when people began to discuss what they would actually do about the historical claims - early 90s, when the Waitangi Tribunal started issuing historical reports, and in particular the fiscal envelope hui. If we can cite some sources from 1985 arguing those points, fine - otherwise it's a bit ahistorical to apply (unsourced) 1990s arguments to a 1980s issue. Time limits and settlement caps aren't part of the 1985 debate, they're part of the extralegal process that followed on from it ten years later. --Tirana 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My claim that it was controversial was based on the debates on the amendment, which went beyond the usual 'we are the opposition so we oppose this' stuff. Now that I really think about it, you're right about it becoming a big deal in the early 1990s rather than straight away.

The debates are interesting in that National seemed to have a much better idea than Labour of what would happen, and how people would react - Labour said that claims would increase for a little while and then die out again, whereas National predicted an 'avalanche' of claims and a Pakeha backlash, which is pretty much what did happen. We probably don't need to go into that, but I would like to re-expand the paragraph a bit to further emphasise that it was from this point on that the Tribunal became important. Nice work expanding the page, by the way. --Helenalex 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitangi Day[edit]

Why does 'Waitangi Day' have a section in this article? Waitangi Day has its own page and is not related to this Act at all. The related legislation is the Waitangi Day Act 1960, Waitangi Day Amendment Act 1963, New Zealand Day Act 1973, and Waitangi Day Act 1976. Te Karere (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Te Karere: well spotted, I've removed this. I'm guessing this was a legacy before Waitangi Day had its own article. --LJ Holden 06:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]