by David Clendon
It seems that Rodney Hide has yet again turned up to Cabinet with his papers and been allowed to advance (?) Auckland Governance another step closer to the shambles it will almost certainly become. The prospects for meaningful Maori participation look like being close to zero.
From Cabinet papers released today, we learn that the Minister for Maori Affairs believes (quite rightly I think) that Maori need a stronger mechanism for participation in local government in Auckland because provisions in the RMA and the Local Govt Act are not delivering active Maori / iwi involvement.
What we really need, and what thousands of Maori and non-Maori marched for, and wrote submissions in support of, are dedicated seats on the new ‘supercity’ council. Sadly, this suits Rodney’s agenda not at all, and Pita Sharples for all his good intentions and effort has clearly been over-ruled.
What we are offered in lieu of real participation, or genuine acknowledgement of the Treaty relationship, is a ‘statutory board’ made up of seven mana whenua and two taura here (representatives of iwi not having historic connections with the region). This board will be invited to ‘promote’ Maori issues and to ‘assist’ the council in its decision making. here
The Maori board will have absolutely no power, no resources, no authority, beyond the dubious ‘right’ to be consulted with; offer advice to; and be taken account of, by the council. Another case of D.I.Y. participation, with Maori obliged to come to the table as supplicants and advocates, rather than as partners or decision makers.
Maybe a change to an STV system would be a mechanism to enable Maori (and minority groups) to gain some influence? Except that Rodney has covered that base, with a provision in the bill that insists Auckland must use FPP in 2013 as well as 2010.
I will be at a hui tomorrow at Te Noho Kotahitanga marae, where the issue of Maori aspirations in regard to local government will be on the agenda. Today’s announcements should offer plenty of grist for that mill!
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by David Clendon on Thu, December 3rd, 2009
Tags: auckland governance, Maori, participation, STV, supercity
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
yah. Provide your reasons please. One would think...
Aren’t Maori allowed to vote or something?
Like or Dislike:
10 
14 (-4)
Apparently not BluePeter. According to Greens we need racist policies to guarantee Maori representation above all the other multitude of races of people in the country.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10 (0)
According to Greens the treaty of Waitangi means something ( although there is some discussion of exactly WHAT
) . One of the things we all agree that it DOES mean, is that Maori have a role to play in government.
You may feel the need to break contracts with people when they seem inconvenient, but it is as usual from the right, simply a failure to extend ethical behaviour to include your behaviour towards others AS WELL AS their behaviour towards you.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
9 
22 (-13)
Yes, Maori have a role in government, so does every other New Zealander.
What the Greens are advocating is a role based on racial lines only. That is not acceptable.
ALL New Zealanders have a vote, to seperate that vote out on racial lines is patently seperatism
Mind you, with the changing population demographics we may soon need a Ngati Pakeha tribe as population shifts from a European influence to an Asian one.
The majority of these Tauiwi imports that dont give a monkeys about the treaty.
Have read here
http://www.lesterhall.com/iwi/index.htm
and his final quote
Mind you with the chinese population in New Zealand at near 20% we need may well end up with a Ngati Oriental tribe as well. Not to mention Ngati Indian.
Ny prediction is that in 50 years time, treaty issue will consigned to the history books.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6 (+4)
It’s true the world over – Australian Aborigines, the Ainu of Japan, the First Nations people of America have every chance to be in Government, they’re just not trying hard enough! NZ Maori are no different – every chance! Eh lads! We should never have signed that pesky treaty, they’ll use it against us til the cows come home! Anyway, it doesn’t mean what it says.
(Chews beard, straightens picture of Queen on wall).
Like or Dislike:
9 
8 (+1)
Great article, Gerrit.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14 (-6)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
9 
24 (-15)
Perhaps you could explain how the “natives” dont have a chance in government?
What stops them? Lack of money?
Governments are full of people without the silver spoon backing.
Just look at the Greens MP’s How many had a silver spooned entrance to the parliament?
Maybe Maori have a lack of ambition? Dont know.
What stops Maori particiapating, not just in politics, but in New Zealand’s wider society?
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
We have the consultation and we will act like Maori are somehow magically more connected to the land, and more deserving of the land, than others. One person, one vote. Negative discrimination is far more dangerous than positive discrimination exactly because the ones being discriminated against are the ones with power.
I agree highly that an STV system should be used. It is far more democratic. A FPP system has no place in a country such as our where democracy has had a fairly decent run such that people are familiar with the concept. All local elections should be STV.
As a side note: wow, I actually gave BJ a down karma. I thought it would take longer. The treaty allows Maori to retain sovereignty, it is incorrect to recognise this as any different to what they already have. Sovereignty exists within the individual and over the individual and is ceeded to government as a result of agreeing to the social contract. When you agree to live by the rules fo this country by residing here you give up part of your sovereignty. When you vote you use sovereignty to elect your dictator. Maori have sovereignty; as evidenced by their ability to move overseas and become citizens elsewhere.
As another side note: does anyone notice that I always refer to Maori as they/their/them/etc., despite being of both Te Ati Awa (Te Wai Pounamu) and Ngati Pakeha. It is rather telling. lol.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
8 
9 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
9 
12 (-3)
If there is a Maori leader of worth he /she must come forthwith.
And he must be leader of all the troops (that excludes Hone, Greenfly, Tariana) and therefore any leader of merit doesn’t need a leg up.
and on that note it is interesting how Winston Peters is slammed for pointing out that we are in danger of a “tsunami of migrants” and his supporters are seen as old people of no consequence. In fact the old people of no consequence are those who see the traffic, congestion and coastal real estate bonanza as a bad thing; people who have learned to live with less worldly values. Of course “our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters”— Keith Locke-Green.
Interesting too how the Council of Trade Unions is pro migration– with the employment contracts act there is a vacuum in the trade union movement and it is being filled by a socialist elite.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Bullsh!t BP. What I am observing is that there is a treaty. Has nothing to do with what Maori are capable of, has to do with their contractual rights which have been honored in the breach by “paternalistic” Pakeha more often than not.
That’s an easy label to apply…. perhaps you’d best explain EXACTLY what you mean by it since all I am observing is that Maori have a right to be part of government that is…
(Get this Gerrit)
…NOT the same as every other New Zealanders.
That is what Waitangi means… and arguing about the specifics of it does not change its existence.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
This is what Professor Margaret Mutu says:
5.
Māori Role in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Defined by tikanga (our laws)
derive from a world view that we inherited from our ancestors
rooted as much in the spiritual aspects of this world as the physical.
based on underlying values which include
Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all derived from the gods
Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force
Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
Kaitiakitanga – inherited responsibilities to take care of all our natural resources including our lands, waters, seas and other taonga
Rangatiratanga – chieftainship including sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.
6. Our tikanga determines that :
We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)
We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests [non Maori] and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
And if they decide to stay [ in NZ ie not return a leg here and toe there] then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.
We also need a good understanding of our guest’s tikanga so that we know how to look after them properly.
Pākehā settlement and introduced legal system has not and can not change these fundamental values and principles but it has made it very difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
I think perhaps Mutu’s views would be a touch moderate for Green treaty “advisors”?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Maori have a right to be part of government, as do Asians, PI, white and the rest.
It’s called democracy.
The TOW is a mess. It’s wide open to interpretation. The treaty certainly does not over-ride democracy. The colour of your skin should not get you a guaranteed seat at the table in this country.
That is the road to hell.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9 (-1)
Greenfly,
Perhaps you could explain how the “natives” dont have a chance in government?
“natives”? What do you mean? I don’t say they have ‘no chance in Government’. You’ll notice there are several in there now.
What stops them? Lack of money?
In as much as anyone is hindered by lack of money
Governments are full of people without the silver spoon backing.
Just look at the Greens MP’s How many had a silver spooned entrance to the parliament?
Maybe Maori have a lack of ambition? Dont know.
Maybe? You don’t know? No opinion either way?
What stops Maori particiapating, not just in politics, but in New Zealand’s wider society?
Difference slows down the rate of involvement by minority groups in many of society’s institutions. It also means that those groups are involved in many things that the ‘general population’ isn’t. Have you attended a Hui a Tau, for example?
Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Mutu is entitled to her opinion. But this is my home, and I am not her “guest”
Like or Dislike:
6 
9 (-3)
“6. Our tikanga determines that :
We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)”
of course this view is in conflict with Good-guy Keiths: “our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters”
“this land is yourrr land
this land is myyyy land
From outer Mon-go-l-i-a
To Stewart Island…
No need for contraception….
the state will pay……
just go and do it…
start right awaaay!!
This land is yourrr land
etc”
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Maori rangatiratanga and the same rights as extended to Europeans. Rangatiratanga may be understood best through the european concept of sovereignty and self detirmination. This exists within the individual and belongs to the individual; it is not something owned dirrectly by the body conglomerate but rather something ceeded to it willingly. Maori sovereignty – Maori self-determination – relates to the ability to Maori to detirmine their own path, not as a group but as individuals.
The only thing needed to fulfil this part of the treaty is to allow Maori individuals the rights of Europeans, e.g. the vote, and freedom to move between states as they desire as by choosing to reside within a state they choose to ceed to that state their sovereignty. That is the bare bones of it. Any more is just dressing and simply is not a part of the treaty at all. The treaty does not, by any means, neccesitate the sepreate provision of seats or any provisions for participation over and above other citizens.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
That treaty is being treated with a snore by more and more immigrants. It has no meaning to anyone but Maori. So in 50 years time it will be totally irrelevant. Immigrants are just so totally not interested.
Time for a rehash? A constitution even?
To take into consideration that there are 21st cerntury issues to be addressed?
And are we now at the stage in Animal Farm where the term “All animals are equal but some are more equal then others” is reality?
I thought the Greens were left wing democrats, not xenophobic racialists and elitist for a minority to lord over the dominion.
Ah well another myth exposed.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
The Greens get around this by creating a straw man Maori: wise, conservation minded, unmaterialistic > a natural ruling class (the political equivalent of nitrogen fixing bacteria).
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
The Greens appear to be a very confused bunch if backing power & privilege based on race is something they support.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14 (-6)
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
JH,
It doesint really matter which is chosen as what the party promotes is not guaranteed in either. It is better, though, for ethnic relations to go with the Maori text.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
If this is about democracy then why is Hide seeking to prevent STV or proportional elections?
It is about deliving a system that favours his ideology and rich mates.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Gerrit says:
That treaty is being treated with a snore by more and more immigrants. It has no meaning to anyone but Maori. So in 50 years time it will be totally irrelevant. Immigrants are just so totally not interested.
—————–
History repeating itself: Cook noted Maori were too busy fighting amongst each other to present an organised resistance.
Mutu again:
14. 1990s-2000s Governments reduced and started removing Māori funding across all sectors – “mainstreaming” Māori programmes and returning to assimilationist policies. Limited responsibility (but full blame) for Maori problems was devolved to Māori organisations but with minimal or no resourcing.
Government played Māori off against our non-Pākehā guests, issuing propaganda that Māori are just one of many ethnic minorities, we should be treated the same as other ethnic minorities and should assimilate into the Pākehā majority. Asserted that New Zealand is now multicultural, not bicultural, with Pākehā the dominant and determining culture (white supremacy).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“and should assimilate* into the Pākehā majority”
Her mum is Scottish!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
FFS
Perhaps she’d prefer to go back to eating people she had a grudge against? Or being eaten herself…..
This dominant culture made New Zealand prosperous. Look how well tribal cultures – in Africa and the Pacific – have done by comparison.
It’s dominant mostly because it works, else it would have collapsed a century ago.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
Gerrit said: That treaty is being treated with a snore by more and more immigrants. It has no meaning to anyone but Maori. So in 50 years time it will be totally irrelevant. Immigrants are just so totally not interested.
But it will not be totally irrelevant to Maori in 50 years time. And constitutionally it is great relevance for non-Maori New Zealanders because it is Te Tiriti that constitutionally gives us the right to live in New Zealand.
So if we continue to let it become perceived as less and less relevant for non-Maori New Zealanders, more and more grievances will develop. We could start by making education about Te Tiriti and its constitutional significance compulsory for new migrants.
As for constitutional reform and a written constitution, I agree – but there does not seem to be any initiatives in that direction. Perhaps Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill will get discussion happening on constitutional issues, although I think his is somewhat of a cart before the horse approach – considering how our Head of State is appointed is far from the most important constitutional issue that needs to be addressed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Demographics point out that Pakeha wont be the majority (or the dominant or determining culture).
The dominant culture will be New Zealand made of from a mix of Maori, European, Asian, Indian, Pacific Island and for BJ, Russian cultures.
if Maori dont want to be part of this New Zealand culture, fine and good, the rest will create one anyway.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Toad,
So you want to take away the rights of non-maori to reside here even if they were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th generation?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
>>it is Te Tiriti that constitutionally gives us the right to live in New Zealand.
Says who? Activists?
The treaty is a mess. We certainly have the right to live here – and sovereignty – as described in the Treaty and further acts of Parliament.
The guilty, wet, apologist whities and hater/wrecker activist Maoris can think what they like. What a sad bunch they are.
The rest of us will get on with being New Zealanders. We’re here. It’s all of ours. End of story.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10 (-5)
Absolute bullsh*t! What gives us the right to reside here is that we are able to do such. Rights are granted by force and exist simply, and entirely, because they are enforced.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
What are you going to do about it, Toad? We’re here and we’re staying.
What ya gonna do about it, hmmm?
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Gerrit
I don’t recall Animal Farm including a contract with the ducks that effectively ceded to them control over the sorts of things covered by the treaty.
The notion that it is an obligation to regard Maori and Pakeha as having different rights within NZ can scarcely be new here. I posted on this topic more than 2 years ago, the treaty which unites us also divides us.
That’s simply how it IS, and yes, it would be a damned good idea to have a “Constitutional Convention” and find some arrangement that is less ambiguous than the treaty is, but the error and insult contained in the comparison to Animal Farm is scarcely justified.
The notion that the numbers of immigrants, or relative numbers of Pakeha and others, has a bearing on the treaty itself has to be regarded as nonsense legally. The contract, as it is, stands until it can be replaced, and FOR it to be replaced the Maori people have to agree to it. Not the majority of New Zealanders, but the majority of people who are associated with the signatory tribes AND the majority of New Zealanders not falling into the first category.
That’s simply how it has to be if it is going to be “fair” with respect to the current rights and responsibilities enjoyed by both sides.
Can’t just be tossed or snored away.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
BJ, the treaty isn’t relevant to most New Zealanders. It has no bearing whatsoever on our daily lives.
The majority of New Zealanders get to decide how we live, not Maori.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
But it will not be totally irrelevant to Maori in 50 years time. And constitutionally it is great relevance for non-Maori New Zealanders because it is Te Tiriti that constitutionally gives us the right to live in New Zealand.
+++++++
Your saying we don’t have tickets to be here Toad, unless we abide by the treaty. Do you have a definition of tino rangitiratanga and do you have a map pointing out which areas of rohe belong to which tribe. Do Sumner and Brighton beaches belong to Ngai Tahu – (remember the occupation of Brighton Pier)?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
The treaty certainly does not over-ride democracy.
Wrong. This is an agreement between the tribes and the crown to split the country along lines that are largely hereditary. If I were younger I might learn Te-Reo well and apply to become part of one of the tribes. THAT is how to become one people in terms of the treaty. I don’t think we can do that
The alternatives are:
To unilaterally abrogate the treaty, which is in my view, entirely immoral.
To provide for a Constitutional Convention forming a new government which is agreed by both Maori and Pakeha to legally supersede the existing treaty. Maori representation has to be equal in this case, reflecting the existing conditions.
To muddle through with the existing treaty and ad-hoc solutions and much wasted time discussing what to do.
Which is of course, exactly what we are doing.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
But can be totally ignored as not relavent by anyone.
So the treaty sits there and all but Maori ignore it. Makes no odds to anyone but Maori.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
@Gerrit 11:11 AM
Who said that? I didn’t. I said that Te Tiriti is the document that gives us that right.
@Sapient 11:22 AM
Like Fiji and Zimbabwe, Sapient? I prefer my rights to be safeguarded constitutionally Sapient, rather than to be conferred by the barrel of a gun.
@jh 11:33 AM
No, Te Tiriti gives us the right to be here, regardless of whether we “abide” by it. But in recognition of that right we should abide by it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Sapient
Contract law is backed up by force too.
Unilaterally abrogating the treaty would give rise to Maori activism that whould make what we’ve seen to date look like a stroll in the Botanical Gardens. The likelihood of international sanctions raises its head. The pressure that would be brought to bear would not be military but trade related. At the same time we would very likely see acts of terrorism on NZ soil that are NOT a result of French nuclear policy.
Not a really good road to travel mate.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
BJ,
Unfortunately that road will be travelled and some are ready to go already.
That trade sanction is an interesting one. UN sanctions?
Wont the Maori suffer as well? Or is their trade allowed after border inspection?
And how will we pay the ETS costs if we cant trade?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
But 80% of New Zealanders ignore the treaty!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Bj, most NZers don’t give enough of a toss about it to scrap it. It’s largely a ceremonial, political property allocation document.
It will just sit “in force” collecting dust.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8 (-4)
>> At the same time we would very likely see acts of terrorism on NZ soil
Then you plonkers can fight it out.
Those of us with money will be off overseas and NZ will descend into a Zimbabwe hell-hole.
Maori are really going to benefit from that, huh. Suspect you’ll see most Maori fighting minority Maori activists in order to retain the status quo.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
Interest in Treaty at dangerous low, says academic
Wednesday, 31 January 2007, 9:39 am
Press Release: Auckland University of Technology
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=ED0701/S00037.htm
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Yep.
Google Trends backs it up:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=treaty+of+waitangi
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
Gerrit said: “80% of New Zealanders ignore the treaty!”
but perhaps meant “80% of New Zealanders are ignorant of the treaty!”
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
No the 80% have seen the treaty, even studied it to some extent, and conclude that it has no bearing in their lives.
A historical document that has no relevance in contemporary 21 st century New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Unilaterally abrogating the treaty would give rise to Maori activism that whould make what we’ve seen to date look like a stroll in the Botanical Gardens. The likelihood of international sanctions raises its head. The pressure that would be brought to bear would not be military but trade related. At the same time we would very likely see acts of terrorism on NZ soil that are NOT a result of French nuclear policy.”
Treaty purists remind me of the merchant of venice wanting a pound of flesh; but, they assume it can be done without spilling blood, in the sense that Maori can have “tino rangatiratanga” over “their” lands but this will not interfere with (one example) use of the beaches in any way (spilling blood analogy) etc
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
No wonder the Maori are so keen to have the “h” back into their language.
Treaty translated into Maori is “threat eh”
You know, unless we are the head cheese and “give” you the right to be here, I will “threat eh” you with physical violence.
How very apt.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Greenfly says:
“but perhaps meant “80% of New Zealanders are ignorant of the treaty!” ”
Imagine if the intergalactic police came and enforced Ti tirriti. I imagine Chris trotters suggestion of a series of tribal cantons wouldn’t be far off the mark.
I recall Valis saying “you don’t have to go all the way back to 1840″ but in order to satisfy the treaty to the letter you have to give iwi the say so as to how they see tino rangitiratanga and then we have to agree. Either way it comes down to protecting the interests of “tangata whenua” over “tau iwi” or officially sanctioning a first and second class citizenry.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I made a submission to the Local Government Council on the ward and election issues in Auckland City proposing the election of the 20 Councillors on a strict proportional basis, i.e. 5% of the vote gets you a seat. That would obviate the need for any white, Asian, Poly or Maori seats, plus enabling minorities who can muster 5% (even Tories) to be represented.
Of course it was shot down by the LGC saying the law said to use FPP (hence the call by Maori for separate seats, FPP has always been a boon for Maori voters in general elections – regardless of MMP)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
19 (-16)
I never said it would not interfere.. it doesn’t matter if it interferes. It exists. My word is my bond. The Crown and the Pakeha can do whatever is convenient for them however, and cannot be trusted even with a signed undertaking.
Well, it is nice to know how well we can expect to keep bargains.
I don’t think the practicalities make any difference to the activists and I don’t think any of us can be certain how things can go sour. The social interactions between the Tribes and the Pakeha and the Crown are fraught with difficulties.
So so so…
The view of the majority on the right is that the majority can ignore the existence of the treaty, at least once the “Treaty Settlement Process” has run its course. Ownership of specific lands and rights will be vested in the Iwi and that’s it?
Is that a fair assessment?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Good luck with unilateral abrogation mate. I wouldn’t do it, I honor my commitments and my word.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
And the “first class” citizenry can go back to thumping each other over the head. Marvelous!
Hey BluePeter, that’s a racist thing to say.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
16 (-13)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
16 (-15)
I notice you say “go back to thumping each other over the head”, as if that’s all that Maori were doing before they were lucky enough to be colonised by Pakeha, just thumping each other over the head like Itchy and Scratchy.
I make it a policy never to let casual racism go unchecked.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Gerrit said:
No the 80% have seen the treaty, even studied it to some extent, and conclude that it has no bearing in their lives.
Care to back up that dizzy statement Gerrit? 80% of new Zealanders have seen the treaty – I presume you mean marched past it during their visit to Te Papa. Come now, you jest, surely!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
BluePeter said:
It’s a truthful things to say. See Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone etc….
Ha ha ha! I thought for a moment that you were channeling Hone Harawira Blue!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I guess I have to spell it out Greenfly.
No, not seen the original copy (pedantic stuff on your part) but “seen” as in the having been made aware of the contents.
Jeez Wayne
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
BJ,
Sorry, but the “contract” is unfulfillable. It cannot be honoured because there is no end game in the treaty contract. It can in fact never be fully implemented.
So do you keep the “contract” alive that cannot ever be honoured, settled or met? Or do you renegiotiate a new constitution?
The raised anti that, unless we “honour” a treaty that has no relevance, violence will erupt is just plain bullying.
Call your bluff, bring it on.
I think it will be the end game, after that we will have a constitution that proclaims ALL New Zealanders citizens will have equal status in their country.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Thank you for the spelling-out Gerrit. Are you saying that the average Kiwi is aware of the contents of the Treaty of Waitangi?
I bet they are quite unaware. What makes you think that New Zealanders have an awareness of the contents of the Treaty?
I suspect the ignorance of ‘the contents’ is profound.
You further suggest that New Zealanders have ‘studied’ it to some extent.
When and where did this happen???
Then you claim that they chose to ignore it! Goodness! Did they find that it was ignorable – a signed treaty between two cultures, ignorable?
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
In a nutshell yes.
But you refered to the treaty as a “contract”. Well it is not, a contract has specific end goals, time frames and responsibilities.
The treaty is a “process” that has no end. And it is not just people on the right that see the whole “process” as a “gravy train”.
Those in the centre do too plus many on the left as well.
See if Maori were to formulate a final settlement, we can debate that, create a constitution from it and move into the 21st century with a vengeance.
But Maori wont, because previous unknowns like the ETS come up and Maori see that as a “right” under the treaty to be up for negotiation.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
In a nutshell yes.
Entirely wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
The problem is not that Maori want more than their fair share of representation, it is that they want to have their fair share of say in how the city is run.
But Rodney Hide has put in a place a system that will take that say away from Aucklanders. Yes, it is based on a vote. But being subject to a vote is not, by itself, sufficient to prevent a system becoming captive to special interests.
This is especially true in a First Past the Post system like Rodney Hide has set up, and when there are a relatively small number of representatives for a very large number of people, and a very high cost to reach them all – a cost so high that if you don’t like the status quo, you have to be very rich to let your message reach voters – and if you do, you might just split the vote and achieve the opposite of your objectives.
It would be better to fix the system so all groups got a fair say, but giving Maori a say is better than giving no groups a say.
Clearly Rodney wants those who are wealthy and greedy to have a say, and to silence everyone else.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Author: bjchip
Comment:
I never said it would not interfere.. it doesn’t matter if it interferes. It exists. My word is my bond. The Crown and the Pakeha can do whatever is convenient for them however, and cannot be trusted even with a signed undertaking.
++++++++++
remember it was at least a 6 months round trip to communicate with the “crown”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly and others have the fantasy that we can be “educated” about the treaty. I suspect that sort of education would have an activist marking us right or wrong: Ranganui Walker would be high on the reading list but not Michael King.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
18 (-13)
Like every nation that ever has and ever will exist: as BJ mentioned right bellow your comment; contract law is backed by force.
A constitution is nothing but a contract and has validity because those with force, perhaps with guns, say such. In a democracy this constitution is arrived at because those bearing force decide such; just as in any other form of government.
——————————
BJ,
I am not sure that your really reading what I am saying.
The treaty does not give us the right to reside here; it gives us permission. The right is held because the right is supported by force. In this instance the force is composed of that of the settlers and that of the Maori whom, through the treaty, agreed to such.
I have never proposed just trashing the treaty without the approval of both bodies and I agree with the likely results should we do so; I have preached them many times. I am saying that the interpretation around which most of the argument lies is simply wrong and is based on a half thought out interpretation of the reality of human interaction. The tiriti as it is is entirely workable; it is almost entirely realised already. In no place does the tiriti guarantee seperate representation, in no place does it guarantee rights any different to what Europeans presently hold, in no way does it justify apartheid in any form: those whom see it as such have either never read te tiriti and just take the word of others, have no understanding of human interaction, or are so ideologically attracted to the sepratism idea that they see anything as support for it.
—————–
BP,
Remember, to the likes of Catherine “Education” and “Indoctrination” are not just similar but identical.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Should there be reserved Asian, White and African seats on this new council, Dave? Or just Maori?
My take is that the growing Asian population has had it up to here with your racism. As in Muslim countries where a woman is worth less than a man, Asians don’t think they should legally be worth less than a Maori. The Asians I’ve talked to are highly aspirational and view Maori with distain.
I see the Asian vote being the death of the fawning Green Party and its apartheid laws.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9 (-4)
jh has a shot at educating us about the treaty:
” Green treaty policy is a fundamentalist one: blah, blah .. the Greens take the view that the Maori version is the correct one, blah, blah.. but this overlooks the fact that sovereignty couldn’t be decided blah, blah … in such an unequal situation ”
then later says,
“Greenfly and others have the fantasy that we can be “educated” about the treaty.”
I’m perplexed by his contradictory views. Anybody make head or tail??
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Greenfly
I suspect you may be right when you say that the average Kiwi does not know much about the treaty or what it means.
From apartheid point of view I suspect that is a good thing, if the average Kiwi does start to take interest in the treaty then you can guarantee there will be one hell of an uprising.
The reality is that at the moment the ‘average Kiwi’ just sees the whole thing as Maori ripping off the system over and over again, until recently many were prepared to overlook these bribes but there is a growing feeling of ‘enough is enough’.
So please, you and your fellow Greens keep pushing the Mowree version of the treaty, the more you annoy middle NZ the better as far as I am concerned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Yes, I too would love to see the gweenies educating their middle class supporters about the Maori version of the treaty!
Please, please! Make it central to your 2011 campaign.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Bro and BluePeter – your use of belittling names for Maori and Greens is hilarious! I can barely contain my mirth. You’re both top-notch comedians in my book! Thanks for all the laughs!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Poor little gweenie
Life is just so unfair!
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
No, no really BluePeter, you’re a riot. The way you use words to cause hilarity, it’s special! I’m reminded of one of the Marx Brothers…Harpo, I think it was.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
How about this:
An environmentalist dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an environmentalist — you’re in the wrong place.” Thinking that heaven could never make an error, the environmentalist reports to the gates of hell and is let in.
Pretty soon, the environmentalist gets dissatisfied with the environment in hell, and starts implementing eco-friendly improvements. After a while, global warming, air and water pollution are under control. The landscape is covered with grass and plants, the food is organic and the people are happy. The environmentalist has become a pretty popular guy.
One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?” Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve clean air and water, the temperature is better and the food tastes better, and there’s no telling what this environmentalist is going to fix next.”
God replies, “What??? You’ve got an environmentalist? That’s a mistake – he should never have gotten down there; send him up here.” Satan says, “No way. I like having an environmentalist on the staff, and I’m keeping him.” God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.” Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?”
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Shame to see such an energised debate being moiled my fetid tempers.
It’s motorcycle weather Fly; what say the Gaga’s go remove the ‘No Junk Mail’ Stickers off a few letterboxes eh?
We’ll show ‘em – la frere grandee and he of the cold appendage….eh?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Thanks for the kick-start Mark, I’m off!
‘cold appendage’ – too good!
I’m laying down my quill – it’s gone all soggy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
So to recap David, we have agreed we don’t need racist and divisive policies, and one citizens vote has the same value as anothers – i.e. no guaranteed representation for one group of people. Couldn’t be fairer than that.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Race based representation is fundamentally wrong.
How dare our forebears write up any document in perpetuity. How the hell could they be so arrogant/stupid as to assume to know that what might be agreeable in the 1800′s would always be so. Any such agreement must surely have a sunset clause (let’s say 99years) at which time a new agreement must be drafted.
By all means settle historic claims, but then they really must be ‘full and final’ if this nation is ever going to move on. This latest ETS revisiting of supposedly finally settled claims is very disturbing to me.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I recall Valis saying “you don’t have to go all the way back to 1840″ but in order to satisfy the treaty to the letter…
How’s that different from going back to 1840?
Sorry, but the “contract” is unfulfillable. It cannot be honoured because there is no end game in the treaty contract. It can in fact never be fully implemented.
A perfectly posited worst case interpretation designed to ensure the perception of certain failure before even taking the first step.
So do you keep the “contract” alive that cannot ever be honoured, settled or met? Or do you renegiotiate a new constitution?
Depends on how sincere you are when you “renegotiate”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
BJ
“The notion that the numbers of immigrants, or relative numbers of Pakeha and others, has a bearing on the treaty itself has to be regarded as nonsense legally.”
Perhaps then this reflects on the quality of the treaty? If it means that Maori own all the beaches and seas around (NZ/ “Aotearoa”) and we introduce a land tax at x to X% and if we have a department of culture and compulsory this and that and (say) a parliament of 51% Maori MP’s well tough?
BJ
“I never said it would not interfere.. it doesn’t matter if it interferes. It exists. My word is my bond.”
But what did you agree to (or were you coerced by circumstance)? It was unrealistic to expect that powersharing could be agreed to prior to colonisation and it is unrealistic to suggest that even the most liberal in the foreign office would have expected British citizens to be subject to tinorangitiratanga.
If you were a missionary (or Hobson) did you actually present the whys and wherefores? You had to travel for months and if you didn’t get agreement how long would it have taken you (if ever) to get a meaningful agreement on power sharing?
Was it ever considered that “oh by the way, you’ll soon be vastly out numbered”… of course not.
I would call the Foriegn Office (at the time) “do gooders”* and I would attach the same label to the Green Party for their stand on the foreshore and seabed [not that the Marxists are do gooders they want to exploit dissent].
*naive idealist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevin Hague Says:
This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.
It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.
Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.
As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.
This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I heard Metria on The Panel, Afternoon’s with Jim Moira. She criticized Phil Goff/ labour and got away with the “Maori just wanted their day in court… and i don’t think they would have got the vast stretches of coastline ” [my recollection], however read Kevin Hague above and consider this:
A FORESHORE PRIMER
Prepared by Te Hau Tikanga – The Maori Law Commission.
This Primer canvasses some of the questions being raised in the current debate about the foreshore and seabed. It is based upon common concerns expressed by Maori over a course of Crown action that has already been labelled a new confiscation and which raises serious constitutional issues about the true nature of the Treaty relationship.
* Is this debate a new issue?
No. Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.
So it’s a Treaty issue then?
It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.
However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.
* Why has the debate become so prominent only recently?
The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.
* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?
No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.
The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.
* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?
No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.
What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I see on the news they have traced the Y chromosome of ALL men back to one man 60,000 years ago. Whats so different between my whakapapa and yours? Very little, it would appear.
Those that seek racist priority in (otherwise) democracy, seem to want to choose ancestry that is not too new…and not too old… but just right.
Tossers!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Or for that matter, samiam, that of a chimpanzee and yours!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Indeed, Greenflew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s a poor news report samiam – the DNA evidence traces our heritage back to a group of men who left Africa c50,000 years ago, not one man. And those men had African ancestors (back to homo sapiens born over a 100,000 years earlier) whose descendants remained in Africa (which is why there is greater genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world).
In any case iwi and whakapapa is not about race but ancestry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the Treaty Maori were promised chieftainship – effectively iwi self-government. This was not possible after their land was confiscated. In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.
The principle of this is the reason for the advocacy of Maori representation on councils – though many use a consultative process to give effect to this instead.
The Treaty recognised a bi-cultural aspect to our nation-hood. As for immigrants, many get that respect for the indigenous people and culture, so the idea that immigrants will side with the majority Pakeha in developing an assimilationist concept of a common New Zealandness is inaccurate. Most immigrants recognise that respect for a bi-cultural nation-hood is part of the same impulse which enables our tolerance for a multi-cultural society, one that they can participate in most comfortably.
The real debate about the future of Maori seats (and other forms of representation) is how the National Party see the future of the electorate seats after the Treaty process concludes. They have declared an intent to abolish the seats when this happens. But how long before that stage is reached is now the issue. Labour has said that it’s for Maori to determine when they want to end the separate seats. It is a truism that the seats only exist while Maori choose to go on the Maori electorate rolls rather than the General electorate rolls.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
SPC:
“In the Treaty Maori were promised chieftainship – effectively iwi self-government. This was not possible after their land was confiscated. In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.”
Remind me: how much was actual confiscation and how much was sold? We keep hearing this short cut to the truth. In addition the treaty guarantees forests and fisheries and so even if farmland is lost to iwi there are still the national parks , and foreshore, sea beds and fisheries (oceans).
“In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.”
You could say it goes some way towards fulfilling the treaty but that doesn’t make it ideal (unless you assume Maori have more to offer due to some X factor absent in other races living here).
“As for immigrants, many get that respect for the indigenous people and culture, so the idea that immigrants will side with the majority Pakeha in developing an assimilationist concept of a common New Zealandness is inaccurate.”
why should immigrants have a superior respect for Maori culture rather than any other? For example the Shetland women knitted a shawl that could be threaded through the wedding ring, then there is the Japanese tea ceremony and tea house etc, etc
” Most immigrants recognise that respect for a bi-cultural nation-hood is part of the same impulse which enables our tolerance for a multi-cultural society, one that they can participate in most comfortably.”
On the other hand they may see biculturalism as an airy-fairy political construct.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
SPC
“In any case iwi and whakapapa is not about race but ancestry. ”
the grievances don’t dye out with time or genetic dilution.
Imagine how many people were devastated by Ghengis Khan: the Mongols killed every living thing even though they had never had any contact with a group previously.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
What I am observing is that there is a treaty. Has nothing to do with what Maori are capable of, has to do with their contractual rights which have been honored in the breach by “paternalistic” Pakeha more often than not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)