Did the Nats leave the Maori Party at the altar?
There has been a whirlwind of interest and speculation as to why the National party pulled support at the last moment for a Maori Party amendment to the Emissions Trading legislation.
The amendment would have inserted a clause giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi as well as a targeted review of the effect of the ETS on Maori Treaty settlements. Jeanette mentioned the Ngai Tahu led claim in her 3rd reading speech:
One outstanding issue of fairness, which arose for us too late to be incorporated into our negotiations, concerns the issue of iwi who have received, in Treaty settlements, forests whose value has been seriously eroded by this scheme. We were under the impression through our negotiations that those iwi had reached agreement with the Government and were happy with the conclusions. They are not, and it is disappointing that it was not possible to do something today in Part 1, to provide for that in the legislation.
It seems obvious to me that Ngai Tahu and other iwi had sought the Maori Party’s support for a last minute change to the Bill and that they in turn had negotiated support from the Nats. Otherwise they would not have had anywhere near the numbers to force consideration of the change. Just minutes before the vote, Bill English rushed into the House and whispered into whip Nathan Guy’s ear. Is this when the Nats backed out of the deal? Probably.
The unanswered question is why? Surely the Maori party were confident of the numbers or they would not have put the motion and suffered a public defeat. What was it that caused the Nats to go back on their word? What weakened their resolve? I have tried to get an answer to that as I hop along the corridors of power, but no one is offering me any tidbits.
I do know that in the end, the Greens supported the motion in line with our policy and our stated negotiation objectives. The Nats have no such commitment to Treaty principles, so I can only pass it off as another flip-flop on the part of the National Party leadership. It does, however, reveal a serious weakness on the part of their leadership. It also calls into question just how reliable they could ever be as a coalition partner should they do well this November.
With one potential bride left rudely at the alter so close to polling day, you have to wonder what’s going on in the Nat’s caucus.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Perhaps they did some polling on it.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I think they wanted the ETS to pass as soon as possible, and didn’t want to risk having it delayed until today in case Peters was fired and the government dissolved.
Although they have opposed this ETS, they wanted it to pass, because that way they only have to modify it next year to turn it into their ETS. Then they can take the credit for what goes well and blame Labour for what goes wrong.
If they passed the ETS first next year, they would have had no-one to blame when it turns to custard.
This is all about politics, not about what is best for the country.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I will agree that it was a simple matter of expediency. They certainly did not have time for any polling! My real question is what does this say about them when they break their word after an agreement to vote in the house?
September 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Well, it will have very likely eroded the National Party’s trustworthiness in the eyes of the Maori Party in the context of post-election negotiations to form the next Government.
The Nats (like Labour, but unlike the Maori Party and the Greens) just pay lip-service to Tiriti commitments. When it comes to the crunch, principles go out the window for fear of alienating (or to pander to) the redneck racist vote.
Remember Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act and the Nats’ “Iwi-Kiwi” campaign!
September 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
That was a tongue in cheek comment on my part, I should have made that clear! It does invite us to ask what kind of relationship they want with the Maori Party, and comment on their behaviour though…
And for once, I think I agree with Mr Dennis!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
At what stage in the evolutionary process of this country do the Greens intend to stop playing the role of the “guilty white man” and start introducing policy that is designed for ALL Kiwis?
September 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Toad
“Lip service” is all it deserves.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Started long ago bb, you just don’t know it when you see it.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“The amendment would have inserted a clause giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi”
Since the Greens endorse the Maori version, ho does the Green Party see Tino Rangitiratanga taking shape and what parts of NZ would not be affected?
Does the Green Party agree with the slogan: ” Foreshore and Seabed Maori foreshore”?
September 11th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Image Green MP’s Support Maori claim to Foreshore and Seabed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hikoi_011.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_foreshore_and_seabed_controve rsy
September 12th, 2008 at 7:04 am
jh - in your own words, what to you understand by ‘tinorangatiratanga’?
By endorsing the Maori version of the Treaty, the Greens are following the legal requirements set by the Crown, around treaties from that time - where there is doubt as to interpretation, default to the original language. Very wise and far-sighterd law that, from the people who drew up the treaty in the first place.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Greenfly, Greenfly, Greenfly……………!
Tino Rangitiratanga means chiefly power over a geographical area, as exercised prior to 1840 (as far as the treaty is concerned). Kawagatanga was probably seen as a sort of UN presence by the British: control behavior of Europeans, oversee sale of land to settlers via the Crown, kept other foriegn powers out.
In your own words how do you interpret it…. Hatha yoga?
http://tinyurl.com/3phn2r
September 12th, 2008 at 7:31 am
jh “In your own words” was a signal to have a go before hitting the ‘wiki-me’ button.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Define ‘all born New Zealanders’ as ‘Tangata Whenua/indigenous’ and in one easy swoop you eliminate racism from our legislation/policies. That way you can support any initiative that gives advantage/protection to indigenous rights.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
samiam - If you re-define all of us as tangata whenua, will that mean that none of us will have rights to the foreshore and sea bed? And the percentage of indigenous people in our jails will rocket up?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I’d go a resounding yes to both. Use of foreshore & seabed is a privilege, anyone with real Mana Whenua should know you can’t own the un-ownable.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Maori and Pakeha are not equal before the law. They have not got equal rights in government and no law passed is really “law” until it has passed muster in terms of the treaty.
The ideal of “one law for all” is simply not even remotely possible with the government arranged as it is and the treaty in full effect. Yet the treaty MUST be given full effect. The response has to be an alteration of the form of the government itself.
New Zealanders are too close to this problem, both Maori and Pakeha are too focused on the details (which are invidiously difficult) to recognize that the solution requires a seismic shift in the bedrock of our custom driven, tacitly agreed, unwritten constitution.
Someone has to write down rules by which we can govern ourselves, which incorporate treaty principles adequately and after we all argue about them and figure out how to agree on them, which both Maori AND Pakeha agree to. Then we have to make them work.
respectfully
BJ
September 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
bj - you are so correct, bj, it’s spooky.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
samiam said: Define ‘all born New Zealanders’ as ‘Tangata Whenua/indigenous’ and in one easy swoop you eliminate racism from our legislation/policies.
Yes, just like legislating to rename all our rivers as “drains” would mean we would have no more polluted rivers!
Let’s talk about reality, not legal fiction designed to obfuscate on real issues.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
As a born New Zealander which part of me is not Tangata Whenua?
This is the real issue.
Some New Zealanders are more New Zealander than other New Zealanders? Is that what you are saying?
When the first Polynesian settlers arrived were they Tangata Whenua?
When/how did they become Tangata Whenua?
When/how do other settlers become Tangata Whenua?
Mixed race, part Tangata Whenua?
I challenge you to provide a more elegant definition than the one I propose.
I’d like to see it as Green policy.
BJ, if the ‘terms of the treaty’ applied to all born kiwis wouldn’t that fix the problem you allude to?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Toad
“Let’s talk about reality, not legal fiction designed to obfuscate on real issues.”
So having special rights for some Kiwi’s is NOT an issue in your eyes?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
big bro - disabled, wheelchair-bound Kiwis use the special ramps especially installed to allow them to get through shop doors - not fair, that special treatment, you reckon?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
greenfly
Is that the best you can come up with to justify racist policy?
Guess you don’t have much of an argument then.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’m not arguing race, big bro, I’m looking at ’special’ - who is, who isn’t. How about someone with a genetic predisposition to a serious illness, a predisposition that only occurs in the genes of one particular race. Special enough to require special treatment? Big bro?
September 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
greenfly,
spurious argument as the ramp is available for non wheelchair users, as are disabled taxis, lifts, toilets, etc.
A better argument is the mobilty car parks.
Next someone goes down to Whale Bay just south of raglan please take a photo of the maori signage telling all and sundry to keep of the beach PLUS not to fisn in the bay or gather shell fish found below the high tide mark.
Seems like the deivision has started. Except this signage including barbed wire and corrugated iron gates and fences has been up for a number of years.
Seperatism is here.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Who should have rights to 200 year old handmade heirlooms in the form of stone tools, dug up on a just purchased farm? The descendents of the tool maker or the farmer?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
gerrit - you’ve a thing about the Whale Bay signage and trappings, you’ve written about it before. Is this something that you believe to be found on every beach in the country? “Seperatism is here”
September 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
greenfly,
No not on an other beach that in my travels I have come across. Just this one. However are you saying one is just a blib, or a portend of things to come?
And do you agree that a local iwi (hey getting better at the maori language!) can block public access to a beach? from both the land and the sea?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
greenfly,
Who should have rights to 200 year old handmade heirlooms in the form of stone tools, dug up on a just purchased farm? The descendents of the tool maker or the farmer?
The farmer of course. The toolmaker or their decendants would have to prove ownership.
Same as if you turn a found item into the police. After a suitable period of time and effort of the police to trace the owners, it becomes the finders property.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Gerrit - Don’t panic over one incident - I’ve been to hundreds of beaches where there are no signs like the one you describe. (Kia tau - stay cool) I wonder if you have had a conversation with the beach-blockers? I’d recommend it! It would be very interesting to hear what their position is. As to the stone tools - nope, finder isn’t keeper - internal affairs will be very interested to talk to you if you don’t declare your find and register as a collector at least. Better still, get in touch with local iwi (I admired your accent
and you will most likely find that they are very grateful for your help. It could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. It worked for me.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Ahh, isn’t it great, it descends into maori vs the rest immediately. Now you see the need for de-racifying the treaty issue by including all born New Zealanders as Tangata Whenua.
Tell me what there is to be afraid of in that?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Not Maori v ‘the rest of us’ samiam, more like several seperate camps bristling with indignation and ignorance of each other’s view.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
BB said: So having special rights for some Kiwi’s is NOT an issue in your eyes?
It is a big issue, BB, and funnily enough, one that I would have thought you as a supporter of property rights would agree with me on.
If hapū can claim a legitimate right of ownership over foreshore or seabed through the Courts, then surely we should acknowledge that property right.
But the Foreshore and Seabed Act removed their right to access to the Courts to test whether such a property right exists where they may claim it. Essentially, it potentially confiscated Maori property rights that may have been (but were not yet proven to be) established.
BB, do I detect that you have a double-standard here. Are property rights supreme to you if they are individual, but are of little significance to you if they are collective?
September 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Toad
First of all I have no idea what “hapu” means so I cannot answer that part of your post.
As for the issue of the seabed and foreshore, that particular piece of NZ belongs to ALL Kiwis, you can dress it up all you like but the fact remains that if you start telling Kiwi’s that they have to ask the permission of Maori to go to the beach then you are going to start one hell of a fight.
It has NOTHING to do with property rights, it is all about one race of people in NZ expecting special treatment.
Samiam’s idea is brilliant, with one stroke of the pen we make ALL Kiwi’s the same…problem solved and the end to race based policy and race based law.
I cannot see what you or any other Green could see it wrong with that.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
greenfly,
bit hard when the gates are padlocked and the “trespasers shot on sight sign is up”. Locals (not iwi) dont want to talk about it to much for fear of reprisals.
Going back down there sometime soon to catch a few big board waves. Will let you know if the signage is still there.
Be nice if they put up a sign that says visiotrs welcome but talk to us first before gathering shellfish, fish or kina.
Respect cuts both ways.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
BB said: As for the issue of the seabed and foreshore, that particular piece of NZ belongs to ALL Kiwis…
BB, that was an issue in legal dispute, at least as far as some (a minority) the the foreshore and seabed was concerned.
But the Labour Government legislated over that legal dispute, denying those claiming property rights their day in Court to establish whether they did actually own those parts of the foreshore and sebed they claimed legal ownership over.
Do you support what Labour did BB, and if so, why?
As the current law stands, the foreshore and seabed does belong to “ALL Kiwis”, as you assert, but is that law fair and just, given that, arguably, before the Foreshore and Seabed Act, at least someof it did not?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
samiam said: When the first Polynesian settlers arrived were they Tangata Whenua?
Yes, becasue there was no-one here before them. It is all about cultural identity, not about someone’s ethnic mix. If you culturally identify as Maori and can whakapapa as such, then you are tangata whenua. The rest of us who came or whose forebears came later to New Zealand are tangata tiriti - we are people whose rights to live here, own property, and participate in New Zealand’s democratic processes are conferred by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
So Neil Armstrong owns the moon then?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Samiam, BB
Nope… it doesn’t work. It isn’t fair to take by dilution of shares in this case any more than it is with a Stock on the exchange.
The meaning of the treaty signed between the Iwi and Crown is related to the Iwi, the tribes, and while it has some unfortunate consequences in terms of building a form of racism into the structure of the society it is a binding agreement until both the Iwi and the rest of us decide on another,
Abrogating it unilaterally in the fashion described would be immoral.
Anything that replaces it has to be ratified by the Maori people, in equal standing (no matter that they are outnumbered) with the Pakeha.
I wouldn’t want to see you try get your proposition past them… I hate violence.
respectfully
BJ
September 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
# bjchip Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“Maori and Pakeha are not equal before the law. They have not got equal rights in government and no law passed is really “lawâ€? until it has passed muster in terms of the treaty.”
……………….
I think the Treaty has to be ratified by parliament bj.
“The ideal of “one law for allâ€? is simply not even remotely possible with the government arranged as it is and the treaty in full effect. Yet the treaty MUST be given full effect. The response has to be an alteration of the form of the government itself.”
………
You want to see the country divided into tribal cantons?
“New Zealanders are too close to this problem, both Maori and Pakeha are too focused on the details (which are invidiously difficult) to recognize that the solution requires a seismic shift in the bedrock of our custom driven, tacitly agreed, unwritten constitution.
Someone has to write down rules by which we can govern ourselves, which incorporate treaty principles adequately and after we all argue about them and figure out how to agree on them, which both Maori AND Pakeha agree to. Then we have to make them work.”
………………………
The issues are
1. How much power should Maori have as tangata whenua (1 man one vote or….. what do the Greens suggest . A 50:50 split in parliament?)
2. Who owns areas in rohe (tribal areas) that are not held in legitimate title (the conservation estate foreshore seabed and fisheries).
3. the place of Maori culture (taonga) in Aotearoa. To what degree should Maori be spoken and when and to what degree should Maori tikanga (custom and tradition) be institutionalized.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
samiam said: So Neil Armstrong owns the moon then?
Neil Armstrong didn’t establish ownership rights to the moon because he didn’t choose to stay there and enjoy the bounties of its natural resources.
Had he done so, perhaps he could have, especially if he had brought more people to live there. Then the moon might legitimately be under US ownership.
Today, like Antarctica, no state and/or nation has a legitimate claim to ownership to the moon.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Why are we even having this debate, since the Maori and Green party’s view of the Treaty will NEVER come to pass in New Zealand, so who cares what Toad thinks its pointless as Toads vision will never happen.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Perhaps we need to have a commision on NZ’s future and we could send delegations to Fiji, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and other success stories.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
turnip28 said: …the Maori and Green party’s view of the Treaty will NEVER come to pass in New Zealand…
Why do you say that? I hate blanket assertions like that without any argument as to why you think that will not happen.
Birth rate demographics and an increasing cultural identification by people of Maori decent as tangata whenua would imo indicate otherwise.
Maybe not in your or my lifetimes. But as a Green, I try to think 100 or even 1000 years ahead, not just 3 years which is all other political parties do.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
bj chip says:
I wouldn’t want to see you try get your proposition past them… I hate violence.
………….
I was talking to a top cop recently he said (with the Urewera 17) “the NZ public don’t know half of it!” He was also adamant that the defence council released the police affidavit to prejudice the police case.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
What demograhpics are you talking about. In the South island where i am from Maori are and will continue to be a very small minority. If the Maori/Green party’s view of the Treaty comes to pass, the South will cede and form its own country. So the New Zealand you talk of Toad would no longer exist.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
turnip28 - if that happens, what gives the South any constitutional right to cede?
Or are you taking armed force here, which is very un-Green?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
New Zealand has no constitution Toad so the south could cede by holding a referendum and carrying it with a majority vote. If the north tried to stop the south, then the south could act in defense.
Of course since the above actions could be a direct result of the Green/Maori treaty policy, No mainstream party will ever push the Green/Maori policy through parliment for fear of the above actually happening.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Sorry JH… not this Parliament, the treaty was between the BRITISH Monarch, and the various Iwi. I personally couldn’t say what rules the British apply to ratification of treaties but if you want to go to war with the Maori people, telling them that the treaty isn’t binding is probably a good way to start.
You can leave me out of the argument thanks.
When I say that there has to be an alteration of the form the government takes I mean that the Maori have a collective voice that must be just as loud as their more numerous Pakeha neighbours in the government. That’s not feasible under the current rules. Nobody has ever created a government that accomplishes what we need and it would take careful thought.
My thoughts have run towards parallel parliaments, with laws requiring the assent of both houses. The rules for who becomes PM and who gets to be ministers I haven’t thought much about.
It isn’t a one-way street though… ownership of property and titles and the like would stop being subject to protests, the foreshore and seabed act would become irrelevant. Life would get much simpler at many levels because special rights at the tribal and local level would have to go when rights at the national level reflect the status the treaty recognized for the Iwi of the day. Also the individual tribes might still exist but their voice in government would NOT be recognized at the national level. At the national level they’d be the Maori parliament, and they’d get one of the two votes needed to pass a law.
Such a government COULD pass laws that affect all citizens of NZ equally.
BJ
September 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Toad,
What, in our constitution, removes their right to cede?
Furthermore, in what way would giving one set of people different rights to others based on something as trivial as the ability to trace ones Iwi be of an social benifit? The purpose of government and the state is to maximise social welfare (not the dole kind of ‘welfare’ mind you), when an action not only does not increase social welfare but dramaticly decreases it, why should the state take that action? A old contract between two now non-existant entities, in a now vastly changed world, hardly justifies such a thing.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
# toad Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“turnip28 said: …the Maori and Green party’s view of the Treaty will NEVER come to pass in New Zealand…
Birth rate demographics and an increasing cultural identification by people of Maori decent as tangata whenua would imo indicate otherwise.”
Of course as Maori increase in numbers the European in their genes doesn’t decrease. You can make up for that by the “cultural identity” rule hmmmmm?
And I suppose it is ok for Pakeha to develop their cultural identity as they see fit or does this have to be managed ( as Te Tirit signatories)?
“Maybe not in your or my lifetimes. But as a Green, I try to think 100 or even 1000 years ahead, not just 3 years which is all other political parties do.”
You mean we won’t be tangata whenua even in 1000 years Toad?
The Japanese have been in Japan for 5000 years but they aren’t indigenous….. makes you think doesn’t it (try and kick them out).
September 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
turnip, we have a constitution, its just not codified and only partially entrenched.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
BJ,
I beleive we did have that; it worked terribly.
We disolved it.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Yes and No Sapient we have some legislation passed by parliment which we call a constitution, but that doesn’t make it a consitution, at least not in my opinion of what i consider to be a constitution.
I view a constitution as something that is outside of parliment, something which binds the rights of the citizens limits/seperates the power of government and ultimatly allows parliment to rule. It must be seperate from parliment and it must be unchangable by parliment remember the constitution is their to restrict a government from violating your liberty, how can it work to do that if parliment has the power to change it.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
turnip28, I’ve seen you argue, quite forcibly, on previous threads that New Zealand has a constitutional weakness in that it does nothave a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I agree with you on that.
But given that Ti Tiriti o Waitangi is the document that gave people of non-Maori descent the right to be citizens of New Zealand, should not Te Tiriti be the foundation of a written Constitution?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
turnip,
That would be lovley, and highly desirable, though can you see the average parlimentarian limiting their own power?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
toad,
No.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Um, Sapient, “No” alone doesnt actually provide an argument.
Try “No, because…”
September 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I think the Treaty can be part of a written Constitution for New Zealand but what form that takes is up for question.
Well the Treaty didn’t make people citizens of NZ it made Maori citizens of the British empire. We became citizens of NZ when the UK granted us independence there by making everyone living in NZ at the time citizens of NZ.
How come no Maori have tried taking the Treaty to English courts and argueing that since it grants them British Citizenship then they should still to this day be able to claim it.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Toad,
What point is there in making an arguement here and now when you have dismissed the arguements put forward by me and others on various other occasions.
How about this; Why SHOULD one group of people, defined by breeding, be given more entitlements under the law than other groups of people under the same state and assuming equal contribution to society.
Dont cite contract law; that is not a valid basis on which to justify disadvantaging an entire nation; esspecially when none of them were signatories to the contract in the first place.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
True, turnip28.
Which is why I believe a written Constitution can’t be imposed by a referendum, Parliamentary vote or whatever, but must first be negotiated between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti.
Your argument re Maori possibly being able to cliam British citizenship under Te Tiriti bears some consideration - hadn’t thought of that one before, not that I have any idea how many Maori may want to pursue it.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Sapient - contract law is a very different beast from constitutional law, which is what I am talking about.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I can tell you what a british court would say to the legal status of the Treaty, It isn’t legally binding because it was never ratified by the only authority that had the power to ratify it, which in 1840 was the English parliment. How then toad does the treaty have or carry any legal weight in NZ since it has also not been ratified by the New Zealand parliment.
Why will no Green or Maori MP’s push a members bill which attempts to ratify the treaty?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Toad.
A; Answer a question for once instead of picking one mediocre, and essentially irrelivant, little point and using it to dodge the question.
B; In New Zealand applicable constitutional law is severly limited because we lack a constitutional court and a constitution as turnip desire it. What we do have is a loose conglomeration of Acts which are not enforcable past the point of bringing a legal case against a politician for enacting a law which violates the constitution, as was done with lange (?).
But if you want to argue along those lines then; Such actions would be illegal under atleast three of our constitutional documents, the most relivant being Part 2, Section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. but you might also want to check out the Human Rights Act 1993. They are much latter and you may consider them to not have legitimacy over such matters but they are much more strongly a part of our constitution that Ti Tiriti; and thats how it should be.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Interesting, turnip28. But complicated. Far too complicated for me at this time of the evening, especially since I’m going out for a few drinks shortly (responsibly, by public transport, I might add).
Will catch up on this issue though.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“Did the Nats leave the Maori Party at the altar?�
does it matter? Everyone knows Clark already did the coalition deal wiith the Maori Party in February 08!
September 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“given that Ti Tiriti o Waitangi is the document that gave people of non-Maori descent the right to be citizens of New Zealand”
I am a born New Zealander I don’t need no f’n piece of paper to give me the right to be a kiwi.
By the way defining all born Kiwis as tangata whenua does not alter any historical claims, but it does define the future status of our people. To my mind it defines it for the better. Can someone tell me what’s worse about it?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
toad Says:
But given that Ti Tiriti o Waitangi is the document that gave people of non-Maori descent the right to be citizens of New Zealand, should not Te Tiriti be the foundation of a written Constitution?
…………………….
Not necessarily if you consider the historical circumstances. It was signed when Maori held all the power and the British delegation were simple missionaries and military people who just wanted to get the job done and get on with their lives. It wasn’t their issue but the idealists in the fireign office. They gambled that Maori would eventually be assimilated and Maori gambled that the demographics would stay the same (that’s one explanation from Bullshit, Backlash and Bleeding Hearts by David Slack). In any event it is highly probable that colonisation would have gone ahead without a treaty.
Just as people choose their “cultural identity” it is only a problem if you make it a problem.
BTW
Tariana Turia said her tribes recent treaty settlement amounted to about 1 to 1.5% of the value of what was taken and that governments couldn’t expect iwi to expect that settlements were “full and final” if justice was to be served. By that reckoning we don’t qualify as “Tangata Tiritti” until we satisfy Ti Tirriti to some very broad mark.
PS Which party do we vote for to get the Tribal Canton policy……?
Oh! that’s right Green Party!.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
dear dear going into moderation was it “tribal canton”?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Seabed makes odd bedmates
FROM THE LEFT - CHRIS TROTTER
The Dominion Post | Friday, 08 February 2008
“The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law�, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title� came as such a bombshell.
Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.
The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.
…�
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4392654a1861.html
September 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Samiam,
I dont think it is likley to make thigs much worse.
All citizens should be treated equal, and your modifcation would acheive that; though I think it may not be welcomed be the ‘Maori’.
Might create a greater feeling of victimisation though, and that would create greater ingroup-outgroup tendancies; and thats never a good thing (unless your a hitler wanna-be).
I, by the way, stand to benifit from any ethnicity based inequalities in the system; but then again, considering the effects such things have on society; no-one really stands to benifit any from such apartheid strands of thought.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Sapient
We had what - a war between the Maori and the Pakeha? That did work terribly but describing the treaty as having “dissolved” it seems a bit odd
A written constitution? Not that I have ever heard of.
A parallel government? How on earth could that have worked without rules or an educated Maori population. How too did the Maori part of “we” cp,e to agree to dissolve it? I imagine it DID work terribly for the Pakeha who wanted stuff that the Maori had at the time… OTOH, England has had a House of Lords for lot longer than NZ has had a treaty. Hereditary too… not based on votes. I don’t recollect that this caused the dissolution of Great Britain.
The problem you face is that a treaty of that sort has little to do with Contract Law… it stands above it. The treaty DOES in effect make Samiam a “guest” in his own country no matter that he was born here.
Much as I am a “guest” being a more recent arrival because without the treaty the state of war exists between the Iwi and the rest of New Zealand.
Conditions HAVE changed… they are less likely to win the war based on numbers… but I’d be loathe to take bets and I’m not eager to run the experiment of denying that the treaty is legitimate. Yank on that particular underpinning of this society and I am quite sure that all hell will break loose.
A constitution that is arrived at through consultation that gives the Maori people the same position of equality that they enjoyed at the time the treaty was negotiated is the only way this gets resolved. The treaty itself is too vague and difficult to read (particularly for us newcomers since it is the Maori version that must be given effect) to form a constitutional document. We have to improve on it. We have to write something less ambiguous and more inclusive to citizens even if it divides government.
The alternative to divided government is a divided nation. We have that now, and it isn’t IMAO, working all that well. I’d rather have it embedded in the government rather than the general society. Maori are lucky compared to the American Indian….
There aren’t any “easy” answers… but tearing up the treaty because it divides us into two separate groups is NOT acceptable. The division already exists… it is a division that caused us to have open warfare between the Iwi and the Pakeha, and the paper bandage that stopped the bloodshed did not remove the wound, it covered it to allow healing…
Some healing has occurred through the claims placed before the tribunal… but to remove the bandage without re-opening the wound is not such an easy trick.
respectfully
BJ
September 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
BJ,
I ment a separate legislative chamber, I had been under the impression that prior to maori seats a separate and independant chamber had existed; I can find no references to this on the internet and I may have confused the maori seats and out old upper house, so I appologise for that.
I would oppose a separate chamber for the same reason as I oppose the maori seats; it gives one new zealander a heavyer vote than another. Though granted, it would be a decent compromise except that anything not benificial to maori would never pass (and going by statistics, thats about everything that we need).
As aforementioned I can trace my Iwi and as such am able to benifit from any such changes, and I still oppose them. Your founding fathers had the right idea; equality among (wo)men.
I appologise that my post is such a mess, but I really am to tired to string words together in a legible manner.
I oppose any institutionalised biggotry, and thats essentialy the only matter on which I will not budge.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
BJ,
I didint notice your last paragraph.
I dont realy oppose the tribunal, I see it as a effective compromise; where the land was taken for use by state and latter given to the public domain and where land was seiezed for ‘punishment’ it should be given back so long as in doing so it does not victimise a large number of people; but the seabed, the foreshore, the mountains, and the rivers should remain in the hands of the public.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Sapient
There are however, two New Zealands. There is the Maori New Zealand and the Pakeha and the two must work together to accomplish anything.
Nothing not beneficial to both Pakeha and maori would pass. It isn’t a one-way street.
I’m all for that aforementioned equality, but it is immoral to tear up the treaty to achieve it. The best I can do in the situation is to set things up so that the property law and rights to land and other things that we currently share so unequally are equalized and the right to control of government is divided rather than the other way around. It might be that Maori are placed in control of Conservation and Environment issues by constitutional mandate rather than by the whim of the PM. There is no rule that says we have to separate government up the same way everyone else who’s tried it has done. Nobody else has ever actually honoured a treaty with an indigenous people before AFAIK.
As for institutionalized bigotry, that IS what the treaty is because it is a treaty to end a war and the two sides to that war have not intermarried enough to have blended together yet. Forgive me for speaking of a singular war… I know the plural is more appropriate.
I regard it not as a racist thing but as a hereditary thing. The difference is subtle but descendants of Iwi signatories inherit rights that descendants of British and other signatories cannot have because that’s how the treaty is written. That’s would still have to be explicit to some degree in a renegotiated constitution. The key is that both sides must give up something to actually heal the wound rather than leaving it festering under the bandage.
If I were maori I’d be p!ssed off by every foreign face I see. Putting myself in their mocassins scares the bejeezus out of me. Ripping up the treaty isn’t an option… and the treaty divides us. How can we get around this problem without ripping someone off?
BJ
September 13th, 2008 at 12:21 am
BJ,
The treaty does not divide us, the feeling of victimisation, on both sides, does. The treaty is mearly a tool, nothing more, it was used by the english to invade settle the country and avoid bloodshed, by the maori to obtain guns and other trade goods and to avoid bloodshed, and is used today by people to divide the country in efforts to gain power from festering wounds.
Ripping up the treaty would cause strife, but the institutionalised biggotry within our system causes more; to the pakeha it creates a privledged class and a perception of a bludging people, to the maori it creates a sense of victimisation that motivates and justifies crime, disrespect and underacheivement, and on both sides it generates hatred. One would not need to rip up the treaty, prehaps hold a referenda for all maori on the electoral role and in it ask the maori if they think all should be equal with some provisions for land or if other meathods should be followed and then have a referenda with all not on that role and see if they approve of the choice, atleas that way both ’sides’ have somewhere to work from. From what I understand, the militant or maori sovereignty crowd are in far a minority among maori and many would rather just not face the racism in society and preasures from their peers and those whom seek to gain power.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:22 am
it wasn’t a treaty to end a war, bj. The treaty was an initiative of the british foriegn office. They had just freed the slaves in the British empire and groups such as the society for the protection of aborigines and church missionary society were active. The British recognised that colonisation was underway and wanted to see that the Maori were treated fairly. In reality the big fish was swallowing the smaller fish and it was the missionaries job (and Captain Hobson.. who didn’t want to do it) to get the Maori to sign they were in no position to get Maori to cede soveriegnty and you could say fudged the thing (didn’t finish the job).
September 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
“How can we get around this problem without ripping someone off?”
By my proposal: Born New Zealander = Tangata Whenua
September 13th, 2008 at 8:33 am
samiam - I’d really like to see you test this theory of yours on Rakiura Maori that exercise the customary right to harvest titi (mutton birds) from the islands off the south coast. Tell them that a newly born Zimbabwean child, born a day after her parents immigrated to New Zealand, has the same rights to access the islands that have been managed by Rakiura Maori for centuries. Let me know how positively they receive your message.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Yeah go ahead and pick the most extreme,rarified example. I’ve never claimed it would eliminate racism from society, it would eliminate racism from statute though.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
How about testing your theory Greenfly eg Maori protesters on Brighton Pier. Tell the residents of Christchurch that a “tangata whenua” has more right to be there than Joe Bloggs kid.
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/23397/index.php
September 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am
While we are on about race based policy, can I ask if the Greens are still a supporter of “affirmative action” and “hate speech” legislation?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
samiam - there’s nothing extreme or rarified about the ‘example’ I gave. Customary harvest of titi is a significant issue for Ngai Tahu, who as you know, have ‘interests’ in a huge percentage of New Zealand (most of the South Island - Te Wai Pounamu - or does that not feature on your radar)
Hardly extreme. I’m putting up a real example for you to show me how practical your theory is. You’ve declined to answer and I’m a bit suspicious that your idea doesn’t cut it in the real world.
jh - how about testing your theory first on my example or do you prefer to wriggle out of every challenge?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I guess I can’t greenfly, I’m not from Zimbabwe, no newborn and I don’t fancy Muttonbird. So you win on that one!
But if Tainui turned up to harvest the muttonbirds would they get the same treatment?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am
samiam - yes
September 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“jh - how about testing your theory first on my example or do you prefer to wriggle out of every challenge?”
the example you give is minor and established.. Now try it on Piha Sumner Brighton etc and see how far you get.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
jh - then you are ok with the idea that special interest groups, especially Maori ones, deserve special treatment involving the exclusion of anyone outside of that group from land? We are comfortable with it, I’m quite surprised to hear that you are too.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
BB
Your seemingly endless stream of “soundbites” and “slogans” is fascinating!
Unfortunately the level of intelligence / education of the “average Green” (or Green supporter) is too high for that ruse to work !
If your aim is to “irritate”, or if it is to “persuade”, you miss the mark on both counts!
The same HAS to be said about the level of National’s carefully (and very expensively!) crafted Advertising Agency stuff that is now being trotted out on every occasion.
So far I’m really enjoying watching “John Keys the Great Leader” speaking “specially written soundbite” slogans (aimed at IQ 90 to 110) …
The question is: can I stomach a whole two months of this ?
September 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
There is disturbingly little recognition on this thread that Te Tiriti was signed by representatives of the British Crown and representatives of various Iwi and Hapu from different parts of Aotearoa. Thus Treaty Settlements (plural) are with those Iwi and Hapu. (”Maori” as a collective name was not used before Pakeha (a collective name) became part of the mix …
The Government of Aotearoa New Zealand now takes the role of the “Crown”.
The Tiriti/Treaty process is well underway … and the number of claims is now restricted by law to those who registered before the recent “deadline” was passed. These registered claims will go before the Waitangi Tribunal in due course and then, in a matter of a few years now, the process will be completed. (In some cases, another important part of the process is the chance to air old wounds and, hopefully, to help them to heal.)
Anyone who feels that this process should be curtailed (because there are more Pakeha than Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand now) should think seriously about what they are proposing … and its potential implications for the future of your own descendants and their inherited STUFF if your ideas were adopted!
Looking to the future …
The Waitangi Tribunal deals with inheritance, not race.
If you feel peeved and think that Maori are getting “too much”, make sure that at least one of your kids marries someone of appropriate inheritance … and then at least some of your Mokopuna will be likely to inherit some advantage from this historic “gravy train”!
Personally, I think that we as Kiwis should be proud of what we are attempting to achieve here!
September 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I with draw the “IQ 90 -110″ comment … from what I have heard so far I suspect “IQ 80″ absolute max.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
eredwen
“If you feel peeved and think that Maori are getting “too much”
Now you are talking, it is a pity that you have taken this long to catch on.
I am also shocked at the level of abuse you have dished out, you of all people seem to insist that we all “play nice”, however due to your advanced years and no doubt diminishing mental capabilities I will hold my tongue.
I look forward to the end of the treaty gravy train and the day that we are all classed as one people, of course then people like you will have to invent a whole new argument as to why Maori do not succeed.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Maori dont succeed because of the likes of the ‘Honourable’ Tariana Turia; kind of ironic really.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Says Chris Trotter of the foreshore and sea bed act:
“The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.”
Chris doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding privitisation. I describe why in the other thread where this has been discussed today here: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/12/greens-conservation-policy-launch ed
September 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
“Thus Treaty Settlements (plural) are with those Iwi and Hapu. (â€?Maoriâ€? as a collective name was not used before Pakeha (a collective name) became part of the mix …”
eredwen, even ‘iwi’ was not used pre the 1850’s. The treaty only refers to hapu, which was the largest unit recognised by Maori. ‘Iwi’ was introduced by bureaucrats who didn’t like dealing with so many individual hapu, so they started grouping them together. It is interesting that Maori accepted this and now even identify with it, but they probably had no choice at the time.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Sapient
With all due respect the treaty by DEFINITION divides us into those who inherit certain rights due to being members of Iwi signatories and those who inherit other rights due to our relationship to the government (the Crown) which is the other signatory. That division has absolutely no basis in “feelings of victimization” and is quite real.
This country IS divided that way and any attempt to ignore it starts from a wrong premise and cannot stand any legal or moral test whatsoever. We have the ability to adjust the manner of the division and the effect of it, but the fact of it is not amenable to change until we are all so intermingled and intermarried that it becomes irrelevant.
That’s not happening for another couple of hundred years, and going on as we have been going, negotiating the effects of each law with each Iwi separately, is a massive inefficiency. It also invites trouble with those who are not included in the treaty proper, This nation can do better than muddling along as it has in the past and employing lawyers wholesale to argue points that should be and could be made irrelevant if governance were shared properly between us.
A written Constitution vs the interpretation of an impossibly vague document by several generations of lawyers and judges with respect to dozens of different Iwi in hundreds or thousands of different cases?
It’ll never happen in the New Zealand I’ve met so far…
respectfully
BJ
September 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
BJ,
“but the fact of it is not amenable to change until we are all so intermingled and intermarried that it becomes irrelevant.”
You mean like now? One party is not us and the other, tribal maori, does not exist any more having adoped western culture and interbreed so that there is not a single maori that is more maori than european.
The distinctions drawn by the treaty put us into two groups, tangata whenua and tangata tiriti; if it were just the treaty then we could all just get along; the division between the peoples comes from the feelings of victimisation both feel towards the other.
What about the form I propose in the conservation thread?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I saw that and it appears to deal with property issues and stewardship sorts of things… but that is NOT all that is in the treaty as I recall. I’m no expert on the treaty but there were a couple of other clauses in there that had to do with the Iwi governing themselves. No?
I may be mistaken but I recall standing in front of the thing in Te Papa and not seeing half-measures as being satisfactory. The Treaty is too vague to be a foundation document for anything more organized than a herd of cats and it means as a result, very different things to different people.
Make no mistake, I am discussing REPLACING the treaty with a constitution that defines a division that gives maori power to shape the course of this nation in quite specific ways but which makes belonging to a tribe quite irrelevant in terms of rights, responsibilities and individual citizenship. Being maori or not would determine which parliament represents you.
As for when it becomes irrelevant… i disagree with the idea that it is irrelevant now. It won’t be for quite some time. The cultural divisions are quite deep and integration is quite incomplete. We can do better. We’ve done better than the treatment of the American Indian and the way their treaties were honoured, but we aren’t home by quite a long road yet.
respectfully
BJ
September 14th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Chris Trotter:
” The Court of Appeal’s 2003 decision had the very real potential to see huge swaths of the nation’s public beaches transferred into what, in effect, would have been private ownership.”
he’s talking about recognising customary indigenous title to sea land……. as far as non Moari are concerned it will seem privatized.
“Under our legal system, Maori tribal entities enjoy the same rights as any other form of collective body – be it an incorporated society, a trade union or a private or public company. As “legal persons”, they can acquire and dispose of property as they see fit.
As a gesture of goodwill, such legal persons may afford the general public ready access to their property. But if, for whatever reason, they decide to restrict the public’s access, there is nothing the latter can do about it.”
and later he says:
“For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?
And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?”
The issue seems to come down to what you think the extent of customery title could be.
It looks like dangerous territory to me. I think buying in to kaitiakitanga etc is essentially racist as is the idea behind tangata whenua (versus visitor) Or visitor via the treaty of Waitangi.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:21 am
BJ,
I dont quite get the last two thirds of your second paragraph, to me atleast, they seem to conflict.
You are correct, the treaty does provide for other entitlements; the largist being ti ; autonomy. I beleive I wrote a post on this several months ago, or I may of just procrastinated about it, detailing a degree of devolution of governement where-by any group of citizens with title to a area of land, where the citizens are above a certain number and where the land, in consolidation, would not curtail the use of any land for which they do not hold title, would be able to consolidate that land separate to the local counsel, be exempt from any councel fees, and obtain by-law autonomy so long as any by laws passed do not breach the new zealand constitution of any international agreements to which we are signatories.
I appoligise for that mess of a paragraph. Once again; its getting late for me.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Sorry; it should say “rangatiratanga” where it says “ti ;”; dont know how I managed to pull that one off.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am
jh, Trotter is talking about what could have happened if no action was taken when the court ruled Maori had a case to test. To imply it *would* have happened if Labour didn’t act as it did is just not true, because they could have just prevented private title from being granted, without preventing customary rights. Maori said at the time that this was their goal, not private ownership.
“Under our legal system, Maori tribal entities enjoy the same rights as any other form of collective body – be it an incorporated society, a trade union or a private or public company. As “legal persons�, they can acquire and dispose of property as they see fit.
As a gesture of goodwill, such legal persons may afford the general public ready access to their property. But if, for whatever reason, they decide to restrict the public’s access, there is nothing the latter can do about it.�
Of course that is correct and Maori do have private title to land, just like others do, but this is *not* what was being sought for the foreshore and sea bed.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this is nothing new. Maori have customary title to Lake Taupo and other places and access is not an issue.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Second Para…. “herd of cats” - ??
What I am saying and this bothers some who prefer vague and ill-defined laws, is that the treaty is vague and provides poor definitions for a document that provides structure to a nation.
The weasel-wording is artistic and quite impressive, but the process of getting people with disparate views to sign up to something that begins a process of law and government is vastly different from actually designing a process for governing. The first HAS to be vague. Both sides have to think they are getting a good deal. They are… A good deal of smoke and mirrors.
I could see this poor sod writing and shredding half-written versions of this thing for nights on end to get the right balance of smoke to mirror to allow him to persuade the various parties to sign on.
So calls to honour the treaty are predicated largely on perceptions that have little to do with the document itself. IT makes it seem as if both sides get everything and nothing.
However, the treaty IS a document that provides for a sharing of New Zealand equitably between Iwi and the rest of us. To me a Constitution that honours this principle and is agreed by both parties is permissible no matter what the details are, so long as the details are enumerated and specified so that each side knows exactly what they are agreeing to…
Something that I reckon was not the case when the treaty was first signed.
respectfully
BJ
September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The big issue was soverienty and there is no way Maori would have given up tino rangitiratanga. On the other hand there was no way in hell that the British would have considered their colonists could live under tino rangitiratanga or share power given the British perception of themselves at the time , so they had no choice but fudge it. That is why (as I see it) the Treaty was broken from the beginning… far from being the foundation of the nation…..
September 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Bj,
Sorry, the last two thirds of the third paragraph.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
bj
Our law is based on British Law, and we actually muddle along quite well !
Get a Constitutional Lawyer to explain this to you … As far as I understand it, we do have a de facto (what you think of as a) “Constitution” that is amended as laws are changed …
September 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Yes, we have a uncodified and partially entrenched constitution.
It is because our constitution is uncodified and only partially entrenched we are so easily able to change our electorial system and the form of our government.
Our constitution has immense strength in its flexibility and is reasonably unique among nations; with only two other countries having a similar system.
That flexibility allows a fast rate of evolution but at the same time is its greatist weakness as it is contained in many documents, all of which can be modified by the house of representitives with the royal accent from the governer general, and those that are entrenched, even our bills of rights, require only a super majority to change or repeal; and that need for a super majority can be modified without a super majority.
I, personaly, would structure it differently; keeping it in multiple documents while entrenching to various degrees; requiring a super majority referenda for changes to the core documents and super majority in the house for changes to perephrial documents. Along side that a small constitutional court would need to be created to protect the constitution and act as a balance agaist the powers of parliment in essence acting to prevent “the crisis of the blue eyed babies”.
I beleive that several of our constitutional documents presently make reference to the treaty; though, as mentioned by BJ, the treaty is vauge. I think that a new agreement needs to be worked out which is relivant to today and not inheritantly racist but is satisfactory to both parties, something along the lines of what I have previously discussed.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Turns out there is a wikipedia page on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
Though its nowhere near as good as “179102 Politics and Public Policy in New Zealand” - absolutly brillent paper; highly recomended.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
As far as Treaty Settlements are concerned …
After preparation for at least two generations, Ngai Tahu had their time in Court and have settled with the Crown.
Te Wai Pounamu/South Island has not suffered financially nor in any other way, (in fact, very much the contrary!)
Part of the settlement involved “Mount Cook” … which is important (in fact sacred) to Ngai Tahu
… Ngai Tahu took “ownership” of that area, returned the mountain’s name “Aoraki”, and then gave it back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to be known as “Aoraki Mount Cook”.
I think that example speaks VOLUMES about what it is to be Maori in this country …
Perhaps some of the detractors here are afraid that people of Maori descent might be as self serving and greedy as they themselves (give the impression of being) ? (You make me feel ashamed.)
PLEASE recognize that you are talking about are your fellow citizens.
How would you feel if such comments were made about you and yours on open forum?
I am shocked and deeply ashamed to think that this is happening here on frogblog.
eredwen
September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Sapient,
Thanks for that! You obviously know your stuff!
I don’t think “racist” is the correct term.
Maori have rights NOT because they are Polynesian, but because they are Tangata whenua (or descended from Tangata whenua.)
For Tiriti claims, for example, one must prove descent from an appropriate ancestor.
Surely that is inheritance, not “race”.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
But Eredwen, Maori are human and humans, all of them of all races and at all times through history, have shown themselves to be quite capable of breathtaking greed, cruelty, destruction etc. We are just as capable of the opposite as well.
Now my mountain is Ruapehu, I might belong to it, but to presume that it belongs to me implies an ego that is beyond ridiculous.
So you think Maori are better than the rest, now that’s racism defined.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Eredwen
“for example, one must prove descent from an appropriate ancestor.
Surely that is inheritance, not “raceâ€?.”
If you really believe this then you obviously support the Queen and her descendants remaining as our sovereign.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
eredwen,
It raises the rights of one group over and above the rights of another through no actions partaken by the individuals at hand; that is essentially the definition of bigotry institutionalised bigotry.
You are correct that it is not racism as such in the New Zealand context; it is a form of bigotry based on ones ethnicity, that is shared history and culture, but for all intensive purposes we can call it racism as the two parties are defined by physical characteristics. The only reason it is not strongly in the center of the racism definition is because the requirements for one to be maori inclue the ability to trace ones iwi; which is why a fair skined individual such as myself can claim it should I so choose but those whom may be identified as ‘Maori’ on their criminal records can not neccacarily claim to be maori.
“Inheritance” - ergh, thats a non-egalatarian concept for another day.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
big bro - that doesn’t follow and you know it.
I (for one) certainly believe that the Queen’s descendents are deserving of the same rights the Queen herself enjoys, subject to the will of the people.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
greenfly
I love the way that Green politics are so “malleable”
Eredwen supports ancestral privilege when it comes to Maori yet she is also a staunch opponent of OUR Queen.
The interesting thing is that much of what she also says is racist, however it seems that racist comments are fine as long as they support the treaty gravy train and apartheid politics.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Off with their ears!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Throw them all in the pot and crank the fire up!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
big bro - do you mean Green politics, or Eredwen’s politics?
September 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
big bro Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
> I love the way that Green politics are so “malleable�
> Eredwen supports ancestral privilege when it comes to Maori yet she is also a staunch opponent of OUR Queen.
Of course you can be opposed to Maori having assets that they would have inherited from their ancestors if the assets hadn’t been confiscated, but then you would logically also have to oppose all inherited wealth in pakeha hands.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
both
September 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Eredwen supports ancestral privilege when it comes to Maori yet she is also a staunch opponent of OUR Queen.
The interesting thing is that much of what she also says is racist, however it seems that racist comments are fine as long as they support the treaty gravy train and apartheid politics.”
Complete hyperbole. Not many people could conflate monarchy with indigenous rights, but we know big bro is unusually talented.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
All born New Zealanders are indigenous.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Samian
I agree with your comment, however what excuse will our fellow “indigenous” Kiwi’s come up with when we do end up classifying all Kiwi as indigenous?
September 14th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
big bro (et al)
A lot of people making a flurry of assumptions here!
As far as “OUR” Queen is concerned … with patrilinial ancestry, no effective contraception, male dominated society and the mores of the times, the chance that “our Queen’s” actual ancestral line (and thus inheritance) is what it is said to be is VERY doubtful!
(However, in contrast, Polynesian ancestry is Matrilinial and therefore beyond dispute in most cases … not that that matters in this discussion).
Incidentally: (not that I care one way or the other!) My personal preference would be for AotearoaNZ to wait (out of politeness?) until the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign and then declare Aotearoa NZ a Republic. (We could remain within the Commonwealth.)
I’ll answer the other posts/arguments later …
September 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“All born New Zealanders are indigenous.”
Sure samiam, let’s say “first peoples” then since you’re feeling pedantic. Or we could just stick with tangata whenua.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“Or we could just stick with tangata whenua”
We might if I had any idea what those words mean.
I suspect it is Maori for apartheid.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
big bro - do a Maori language course, hang out with some Maori for a while, engage your brain then you won’t make a takata pouraki of yourself with statements like that. Really can’t see how you can rabbit on about this issue when you are missing all of the subtleties and detail counts here.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“do a Maori language course”
Why?
“hang out with some Maori for a while”
The fact that you assume that I do not “hang out” with Maori says more about you than you might like to admit.
Do you “hang out” with Maori just to show that you are painfully PC?
I don’t need to go out and find Maori to “hang out” with Greenfly, I have my friends and family, some of them might even be Maori (I did wonder why their skin is a little more tanned than mine) its not an issue that comes up with us as the first and only consideration we have is love and respect for each other.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
big bro - you say that you think ‘tangata whenua’ is Maori for aparthied.
Bet none of your ‘tanned friends or family’ would back you on that one.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Cheer up Big Bro
“In the context of tribal descent and ownership of land, tangata whenua are the people who descend from the first people to settle the land of the district, whereas the actual mana may reside with later arrivals.”
September 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
““Or we could just stick with tangata whenuaâ€?
We might if I had any idea what those words mean.
I suspect it is Maori for apartheid.”
How typical.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Big Bro might have other interests. We have a wide choice as to what we can do these days. I’m studying Pongolian verbs.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“Tangata whenua” - I like the imposistion there; notice it is “tangata whenua” - people of the land - not land of the people. An interesting concept that our society would do well to endorse, though it also has interesting implications for the current state of affairs.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I don’t care particularly if it is one document or many… the problem is that the treaty which allows us to bind together as one nation also splits us asunder into two entities sharing that nation.
It does so with words that are so difficult to understand accurately that after a century and more of muddling along we still find ourselves arguing about what they mean. This is not a suitable document to be underpin the nation and the “adaptations” we have managed in order to accommodate it, are not easy. We are still arguing about the foreshore and seabed, there are maori who feel aggrieved because they are left out in some manner. It is a mess. It has been a mess for a long long time.
Resolving it means writing down some specific arrangement of government that replaces the treaty and honours it at the same time. The arrangement has to be equitable in terms of the treaty and agreed by both parties and if you don’t like having to call it a constitution or making it a complete set of rules, feel free to call it something else and it needn’t replace everything. The division into two parliaments could certainly leave most of the established rules intact. The maori parliament could adopt whatever rules it likes… including starting out with the same rules we currently use, just with a different electorate. Laws would require assent from both,
I just don’t think that anyone is going to buy into an incomplete rewrite.
The original document is vague and was dreadfully abused. I suspect that if I were part of a tribe I’d be EXTREMELY unlikely to sign up for any replacement that didn’t spell out rights and responsibilities in detail.
Maybe Sapient has the right idea, nibbling off certain bits of government responsibilities and handing them to the tribes… but that yields some real problems in terms of providing resources and money to perform those functions.
Good Luck to us, we’ll need it.
respectfully
BJ
September 14th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
BJ,
So we are in agreement? except for the means through which to impliment such measures?
I find the concept of a separate chamber to be out of the question, it is almost exactly the same arrangement as apartheid africa and would likley have no better results. That and it is an extreme level of bigotry to tolerate in law.
If we grant enough land back to the tribes then they should be able to support their own participation easily enough. At any rate, we should work towards an acceptable compromise; and one of the wonderful things about forums is their ability to brng togehter ideas.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I don’t think we’re in agreement Sapient… I reckon that the arrangements you offer will run into problems… “If we grant enough land back to the tribes” is a way of expressing how those problems will surface…. but the truth is that I don’t mind anything that works. I don’t object to trying your way if it can be made to work… to that extent we agree… I just don’t think it can.
The problem for me is that the separation is there whether it is explicit in the separate chamber or explicit in the assignment of resource management to the local Iwi. However it is done it denies non-Iwi any influence or responsibility in some domain. By making it explicit in the chamber it makes the division clear but also limits its effects to the government itself, not to the man on the street. My rights and the rights of the maori at the shoreline or in the forests are exactly the same. All citizens get the the same laws, have the same rights and the laws are set by maori and pakeha together.
The weakness in my proposal is not that it would resemble apartheid but that government could be completely paralyzed. I can think of a couple of ways around that. The complications that set in as I do so are the reason I’d expect to require a more rather than less complete document to start with.
respectfully
BJ
It has nothing to do with apartheid africa… jehosophat man… how in the hell can you say that? No law can be passed without the assent of both houses. That means NO law can be passed without the consent of the maori people. The maori aren’t restricted to where they can reside. They are not stripped of their citizenship. The solution isn’t imposed by a colonial power or unilaterally dictated by someone else. How exactly does this equate to apartheid? This is a seriously absurd assertion.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
BJ,
By agreement I was refering to the need for a new document and a constitutional arrangement aceptable to both parties.
With your proposal maori have a vote of significantly higher value to that of non-maori; any policy which could be seen to effect maori in a way that is not liked by the chamber could be vetoed, any government, even with one hundered percent support of the non-maori population could have their reforms vetoed. A hung house is not good, esspecially when it is hung by an ethnic group.
less money for the dole; maori have a greater percentage on the dole; poor maori; VETO.
harsher sentences; more maori as a percentage in prison; VETO.
No harvisting a near extinct species of animal; VETO.
anti bludging regulations; VETO.
any budget proposal without significant money given to tribes; VETO.
or even better; we dont like the governing party; VETO VETO VETO.
you get the point? as an american I would of thought you would understand.
not like apatheid? think of the maori as the whites and non-maori as the africans, then you may see what I mean.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:27 am
As far as both parties go, who represents Maori? Wise old kaumatua or radical young separatists (or wise young and radical old etc, etc). A good exercise though.