by frog
Earlier in the month parliament was over-run by youth MPs. Our youth MPs spoke about a range of topics and their speeches will be posted over the next couple of weeks.
First one up is Jack McDonald who was Sue Kedlgey’s youth MP.
He mihi nunui ki te Whare Pāremata e whakawhaiti nei i te tangata. He mihi hoki ki ngā tangata whenua o tēnei rohe, ōku whanaunga o Te Āti Awa nō runga i te rangi. Ki a tātau ngā taiohi huiui mai nei i tēnei rā ki te tautohetohe Ingā take whakairaira o te wā, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.
[A huge acknowledgment to the House of Parliament, which has drawn the people here. Acknowledgments, as well, to the local people, my relatives of Te Āti Awa, from above. And to us the youth gathered here to debate the important issues of the day, I salute, acknowledge, and commend you.]
It is the greatest honour to speak in the House today. I would like to inform theHouse of an issue very important to the constituents in my area. In the Kapiti region we have been at the striking end of this National Government and its Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce. He has announced a four-lane expressway through the very heart of our community, with little consultation, and what consultation there was was extremely flawed. This expressway destroys diverse ecology, including sand dunes and wetlands. It bulldozes right past two primary schools, right past many residential properties. And to me what is worst of all is that it bulldozes right through extensive wāhi tapu areas. These are burial grounds of Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai and Takamore.
How can the Government justify this? The supposed benefit to taxpayers is a reduction in the time to travel from Levin to Wellington of 12 minutes. This development is not in the name of Kapiti but in the interests of the trucking industry. In the words of Shakespeare’s Richard III: “Thus I clothe my naked villainy.” This is the approach National is taking. Yet around 75 percent of people in my region are opposed to this expressway.
The broader concept of the roads of national significance project is also flawed. It fails to address climate change and our dependence on foreign oil. We know we cannot continue to pillage Papatūānuku without end. Continued economic growth at the expense of the environment is not sustainable. The environment and the economy are interdependent. This is basic economic theory—and I thought National was the bastion of economics. What we need is frequent and efficient public transport not only in Kapiti but throughout the country. This will solve transport issues while heeding scientific advice on our climate and our resources.
I implore the Government to see the error in its ways and reverse this detrimental policy. The solutions are green. That is why the Green Party will continue to rise and gain above 10 percent in the next election. The Green Party will continue to change the political landscape for the better, and I am a proud member of the Green Party.
E ai ki te whakataukī, “Toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata”—according to the proverb, people disappear, land remains. Oti anō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, July 27th, 2010
Tags: economics, Jack McDonald, Papatuanuku, transport, youth parliament
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
For more information on the topic please visit
http://savekapiti.co.nz/
or
Alliance for a Sustainable Kapiti on Facebook
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
14 (-10)
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
“He’s a no-account git.”
robertguyton-I thought that was a little strong, jh does have a severe phobia of indigenous rights and suffers badly from Chicken Little Syndrome, but he is a keen cyclist and I sometimes agree with him on the occasional issue. I think it was Jacks use of Te Reo that triggered this particular attack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Does anyone have a map of wahi tapu areas? Or do these bob up after consultation with tangata whenua?
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
14 (-11)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
13 (-10)
Thus proving my original contention!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
“suffers badly from Chicken Little Syndrome”
………
Kevin Hague MP:
“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. ”
[and]
“That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!”
—
*Bollocks two wrongs don’t make a right.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11 (-7)
“It is entirely possible, however, that eighteen months from now Act’s parliamentary representation will be reduced to a single seat, and that the Greens and the Maori Party will find themselves in the media spotlight.
As these two contenders bicker and haggle with the major parties over seats at the cabinet table and support for radical social, environmental and constitutional reforms, it is surely in the wider interest of the New Zealand electorate to know that, when it comes to sealing the deal, the core democratic tradition of one person, one vote is a constitutional taonga to which neither the Maori Party, nor the Greens, have declared a serious commitment.
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
12 (-8)
robertguyton says:
“Thus proving my original contention!”
….
but only in your opinion!
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
jh, it is clear from your comments what you think of the Green position on the Treaty.
I would be interested to know what your position is on the Treaty. Do you think it should play a role in New Zealand’s constitution and society today? If so, what role? Or do you, like Chris Trotter, think it is a quaint historical anachronism that we can just ignore?
It is easy to criticise, but let’s see if you can be constructive.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
“Does anyone have a map of wahi tapu areas? Or do these bob up after consultation with tangata whenua?”
I would say this, the sites of significance in ones rohe (area) are carefully preserved in the records or oral history. Something does not need to be written to be acknolwedged. However, there are some maps. They certainly do not just “bob up after consultation”, it may be the case that the authorities involved had no knowledge of the waahi tapu previously until actually trying to dig things up.
In Kapiti, the District Council were clearing some land and excavating it, i forget the reason, but they had not done any kind of consultation with tangata whenua, and they dug up lots of old bones of nga tupuna. If they had consulted and said they were going to do this, then the Iwi and Hapu could have told them it was there. They may have still tried to do the work, but at least we could have lobbied them.
Consultation is paramount.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
for a start the Greens see the treaty as a great opportunity as they have a weird notion that indigenous societies are beneficial and preferable in everyplace they are found.
I see the treaty as having been made under duress because although the British Empire was the most powerful on the globe at that time, they couldn’t be everywhere at once and when the treaty was signed there were only 2000 Europeans and 60 to 100,000 Maori. The missionaries had no choice but fudge the language. Scholars suggest that Maori were unclear how many Europeans would arrive and the negotiators gambled that eventually Maori would be assimilated.
If you stick to a literal meaning of the treaty (try to make it work as per Metiria Turies remit 2002) you run into trouble.
My view is that in the absence of a higher authority who may see us as grey v’s red squirrels tangata whenua have no more right to be here than “tauiwi”.
-
If any aspect of keeping to the letter of the treaty disadvantages a “tauiwi” I see it as morally wrong.
-
For example, one thing that is in the news at the moment is mineral rights. Maori such as Margaret Mutu are saying that the minerals are in their territory so they own them. We aren’t talking about a block here and there we are talking about tribal territory pre Waitangi (such are the implications of Green Party policy). If people of Maori descent own the beaches, minerals seas (plus their own private property) it somewhat limits the welfare of the rest of the nation don’t you think? David Clendon of course is batting for Maori as in
““The Minister’s willful disregard of Maori interests is unacceptable and he must come clean,” David Clendon, the Green Party Maori Affairs Spokesperson said today.”
Brownlie is taking a more moral stance by looking after the interests of all New Zealanders.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10 (-6)
I must admit I wouldn’t like the Chinese Settlement Corporation bulldozing my ancestors grave sites in the Lyttelton cemetery. I wouldn’t be too worried , however with relatives buried around the British isles going way back in antiquity.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Of course Maori HAD more right to be here. If Spain had managed to invade and conquer Britan in the 1800′s would you be saying that now 150 years later that the Spanish had just as much right to be there as the British?
Maori lands were unjustly taken, our forms of Government and society nullified. There is a place for all peoples in Aotearoa in this century. But if you want to be just then the State must recognize Maori rights over their land. I do not propose all land being returned to Maori, nor is the Green Party to my knowledge. We support working through these issues with the Maori people in good faith, and in a diplomatic and respectful way. Isn’t that what all people value about modern NZ?
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
My view is that in the absence of a higher authority who may see us as grey v’s red squirrels tangata whenua have no more right to be here than “tauiwi”.
-
Of course the Greens would point out that (that) higher authority is international law. I would counter that with my claim of circumstance including a form of duress (and imperfect information on behalf of Maori as to future demographics). If they then go on to say “well too bad a deals a deal” I would point out that laws were made to ultimately maximise the well being of as many people as possible.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
And i wouldn’t call most Maori waahi tapu ‘antique’. Some are really rather recent. In the case I was citing in my speech, in the early European settlement of Waikanae in Kapiti, Europeans were also buried in these waahi tapu. After certain flu epidemics many Pakeha children were buried alongside the Maori on Maori land with permission from Maori. So if the Government bulldozers it then it’s not just Maori tupuna they are disrespecting.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
jh the treaty was signed in good faith by Maori as up until that time europeans had been relatively benificial to them. They expected it to cement the relationship between the two races as a mutually benificial one.
the whities broke their side of the deal plain and simple and the economic and social diparity between the two races is a reflection of that. Read a NZ history book that wasnt published 50 years ago, the penguin history of NZ by Michael King would be a good start.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
Moving on from knowing the history, what is your interpretation of how New Zealand society will both look like and function in the future.
Problem with all people that dwell in the history is they cant see a future.
Lets have a picture of what you would like to see.
Is it? So Maori are totally helpless? The victim mindset is the biggest hurdle for Maori.
Not “whities”.
Be interesting how the Maori will function in the future when the demographics of New Zealand will be more and more Asian and Pacific Island influenced, the English Queen and the “whities” are in decline.
Who will Maori blame then?
Kevin Hague has it right
It is exiting to sort the future out for the benefit of ALL New Zealanders
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
You have to recognise and right the wrongs of the past so people can move on. Of course, we need to find a way where Maori and Pakeha can live together in harmony. New Zealanders as whole want to work with Maori and settle the past, its scaremongering like ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ that make them think otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
Of course Maori HAD more right to be here. If Spain had managed to invade and conquer Britan in the 1800’s would you be saying that now 150 years later that the Spanish had just as much right to be there as the British?
……
I would be saying “that’s academic- they ain’t going anywhere” -referring to the decendants of those Spanish… and remembering that Britain had a much larger population at the time your comparing apples with pears.
——
“Maori lands were unjustly taken, our forms of Government and society nullified.”
–
Are you conflating things here? Are you referring to tribal territory -tino rangitiratanga or the sort of cases before the Waitangi tribunal.
Do you yearn for the old rules (before women got the vote… you could knock a slave on the head)?
—-
I do not propose all land being returned to Maori, nor is the Green Party to my knowledge.
***
How long is a piece of string?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
Jimmy Says:
the whities broke their side of the deal plain and simple and the economic and social diparity between the two races is a reflection of that. Read a NZ history book that wasnt published 50 years ago, the penguin history of NZ by Michael King would be a good start.
….
I have read “the penguin history of NZ by Michael King”.
I suggest you read David Slacks Backlash, Bullshit and Bleeding Hearts . Here’s what he says about the signing of the treaty [warning; a Green party treaty advisor called it a load of rubbish]:
““Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. [ ….]
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background. [End ofQuote]
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Lets face it Jimmy Green Party policy was forged in the same furnace the produced groups like Black GST
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
You have to recognise and right the wrongs of the past so people can move on. Of course, we need to find a way where Maori and Pakeha can live together in harmony. New Zealanders as whole want to work with Maori and settle the past, its scaremongering like ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ that make them think otherwise.
…..
It isn’t scaremongering. You’ve thrown the show wide open…. as Margaret Mutu says these minerals are in our territory. Don’t pretend there aren’t places and things in dispute here.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
jh the treaty was signed in good faith by Maori as up until that time europeans had been relatively benificial to them. They expected it to cement the relationship between the two races as a mutually benificial one.
…….
“The Ati Awa chief Te Wharepouri told William Wakefield that when he had participated in the sale of land to the New Zealand Company he had been expecting about ten Pakeha, to settle around Port Nicholson, one Pakeha for each pa.
When he saw the more than 1,000 settlers who stepped off the company’s ships, he panicked. It was beyond anything that Te Wharepouri had imagined.”
Penguin History of NZ Michael King.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
@Jh – “endorsement of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi” Common law and international law follow the contra proferentum rule – that a contract between two parties such as the treaty is interpreted against the imposing party – i.e. the crown.
It is only due to NZ statue law, some areas of which is becoming increasingly illegitimate/unconstitutional; that the Waitangi Tribunal must consider both the english and Maori texts.
If you want to continue to deny justice to Maori through statutory suppression at least be clear about what you are supporting – statutory prejudice – aka legislative racism.
I think most New Zealanders will find that obscene once they get past the fact that our society is based on it. Fortunately we can all do our bit to support the redress and constitutional changes necessary in order to achieve the intended Maori – Pakeha partnership.
It is unfortunate that some will continue to try to fear-monger and polarise opinion from their soapboxes – such as trotter. We need to rebuke the rantings of such narrow-minded fools.
PS – Re. taking greens seriously – Who takes trotter seriously? seriously!
PSS – nice one Jack! Kia kaha!
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
He rawe! He kaikorero toa koe, e Haki, mo te rerenga hou, nga iwi katoa o te motu nei, ahakoa kei hea! Kia kaha e hoa.
Great! A straight-speaking spokesperson for the new generation, for all the different peoples of Aotearoa / New Zealand, no matter from whence they derive. Keep strong, friend.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
@Jh “You have to recognise and right the wrongs of the past so people can move on.”
The rights and wrongs are current and continue as long as parliament suppresses well founded common law principles regarding the treaty ‘partnership’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Is that all you’ve got Jh?
Do you consider legislative racism obscene?
was the Clarke govt racist to pass the FSB act?
C’mon – you could at least try some supression of your own by getting some mates to give my comments the down thumb too.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Injustice breeds injustice, many Maori feel a huge sense of injustice, yet lack the knowledge or capacity to express it. This leads to anger and frustration. Until we have a treaty based constitution to end the power of political parties to misuse parliamentary powers to suppress Te tiriti, many more young Maori will be headed for a career in the prison system.
What this is about is emancipation (defn – Emancipation is a term used to describe various efforts to obtain political rights or equality, often for a specifically disenfranchised group. How can anyone who has a genuine belief in justice and equality support the continued suppression of Te Tiriti and oppression of Maori?
When one is denied equality there is no equality.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
McTap Syas:
@Jh – “endorsement of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi” Common law and international law follow the contra proferentum rule – that a contract between two parties such as the treaty is interpreted against the imposing party – i.e. the crown.
It is only due to NZ statue law, some areas of which is becoming increasingly illegitimate/unconstitutional; that the Waitangi Tribunal must consider both the english and Maori texts.
If you want to continue to deny justice to Maori through statutory suppression at least be clear about what you are supporting – statutory prejudice – aka legislative racism.
….
what you seem to be saying is once a treaty is signed you have to stick with it no matter what the circumstances (a black/white position)… otherwise it is racism and counter to natural justice. When you look at the real world you get someone with a name like Malchom Mulholland occupying Brighton Pier because the foreshore and seabed should (he feels) belong to his tribe and everyone should support this position as not to do so is racist.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
“Injustice breeds injustice, many Maori feel a huge sense of injustice, yet lack the knowledge or capacity to express it. This leads to anger and frustration”
….
and who are these people that feel this deep sense of injustice:
Some help from Catherine Delahunty.
Self determination
Last issue a letter commenting on “Self determination” under Te Tiriti o Waitangi suggested we are too small a country to address issues of colonisation and we should “forget” about them. The thesis was that few Maori are “pure bred” anyway. My tangata whenua “part Pakeha” mates find this concept quite amusing as they cannot find any pure Pakeha, English, Scots or Irish people
either. The concept of “race” is inherently “racist”. Part of self determination is a human right to define your own cultural identity. And collective self determination has already been exercised by the hapu of Tuhoe and others whether the rest of us understand it or not. This is not a threat to anyone.
We may be a small country but we can lead the world if we have the courage to face our issues and embrace the opportunity Te Tiriti offers us to make peace between peoples. The economic marginalisation of tangata whenua in my home town is a heartbreaking example of a failed system privileging one culture.
I am glad the Green Party constitution upholds Te Tiriti. Let’s keep talking about how we can make it real.
Catherine Delahunty, Turanga nui a
Kiwa (Gisborne)
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
McTaps Says:
“When one is denied equality there is no equality.”
—-
and what equality are we talking about?
Is it the right for a hapu to go to court to claim indigenous title to the local bay or is it under Te Tiritti to claim tino rangitiratanga over a whole region which was the tribal rohe @ 1840? This is the position implied by Meteria Turies 2002 remit.
*****
” 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.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
@Jh “you seem to be saying is once a treaty is signed you have to stick with it no matter what the circumstances”
No. That is your attempt at a ‘strawman’.
@Jh “Is it the right for a hapu to go to court”
Is it right to deny access to the court to hear a claim soundly based on the common law?
When does a tribal rohe stop becoming a tribal rohe?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“I see the treaty as having been made under duress because although the British Empire was the most powerful on the globe at that time, they couldn’t be everywhere at once and when the treaty was signed there were only 2000 Europeans and 60 to 100,000 Maori. The missionaries had no choice but fudge the language.”
Eh? So you are saying that the British crown signed a treaty that they knew was dodgy, but they were under ‘duress’ (having settled in somebody else’s country and thus finding themselves in an (arguably) weaker position), so that’s a reason for dumping the treaty? Because we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we signed it?
“but again the leftist/anarchist entrails would have cocked up the green cause.”
Actually you’ll find anarchists are mostly pretty cynical about the idea that a shonky legal deal between the British crown and rangatira can be used as a basis for a just resolution of the power issues created by colonisation.
But I suspect you aren’t up on anarchist positions – your talk of anarchists is just a little fairy tale you use to frighten those of a nervous disposition isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Eh? So you are saying that the British crown signed a treaty that they knew was dodgy, but they were under ‘duress’ (having settled in somebody else’s country and thus finding themselves in an (arguably) weaker position), so that’s a reason for dumping the treaty? Because we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we signed it?
….
Yes. Pick holes if you want.
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
But I suspect you aren’t up on anarchist positions – your talk of anarchists is just a little fairy tale you use to frighten those of a nervous disposition isn’t it?
…
You’re right I’m not up on what anarchists think. Anarchy usually has negative connotations.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
McTap Syas:
@Jh – “endorsement of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi” Common law and international law follow the contra proferentum rule – that a contract between two parties such as the treaty is interpreted against the imposing party – i.e. the crown.
It is only due to NZ statue law, some areas of which is becoming increasingly illegitimate/unconstitutional; that the Waitangi Tribunal must consider both the english and Maori texts.
If you want to continue to deny justice to Maori through statutory suppression at least be clear about what you are supporting – statutory prejudice – aka legislative racism.
….
So what justice issue are we talking about here. The Treaty has many potential applications. Should we feel a sense of justice if (say) descendants of Maori own every stretch of foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the treaty suggests (as confirmed by the Maori Law Commission)? Am I racist for opposing that?
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
The treaty has no legal standing in my eyes.
Using it as a bases to form a NZ constitution is absurd considering that the vast majority of people had no representative say in the structure or outcome of the treaty.
The Maori lost the land wars its a simple fact, they were not strong enough to hold onto their lands or there resources. Whining about it after the fact becomes irrelevant, should descendants of Celts be whining about Saxon invasions in England.
The reality is that you need to remember that a Nation or people will only exist so long as they posses the will power to defend there land and culture from external forces.
The treaty is irrelevant and the idea that a piece of paper can act as a shield to protect you is absurd a treaty is just a worthless piece of paper unless you are willing to back it up with force. In this sense the Maori were unable to do so, mostly due to the fact there was no such thing as “Maori” in 1840′s NZ. It was rather easy in fact for the English to divide and conquer Maori what is even more remarkable is that the English did that without ever actually beating the Maori decisively on the battlefield.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
jimmy (not that jimmy)
jh the treaty was signed in good faith by Maori as up until that time europeans had been relatively benificial to them. They expected it to cement the relationship between the two races as a mutually benificial one.
……
That doesn’t mean the Europeans signed it in good faith. The missionaries were given the job and had to come away with a result which was never possible in the first place. Ships were on the water; the French were on the way; gold lay in the South Island (as it turned out). Britain and British colonists would never in a million years have agreed to live under the political systems of a people with a neolithic culture (Despite Meterias 2002 remit).
It may be international law that the native version is the one we listen to but under the circumstances the Treaty of Waitangi were it applied would be a great travesty on the non Maori population.
-
Of course the Greens think it will work as Maori are an unmaterialistic race who as tangata whenua have a “sacred duty to look after all their guests”*…. everything will be hunky-doory.
* compare this to [Pakeha culture] Keith Lockes words in his immigration press release: “welcome home this is your country now”
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
McTap Says:
“It is unfortunate that some will continue to try to fear-monger and polarise opinion from their soapboxes – such as trotter. We need to rebuke the rantings of such narrow-minded fools.”
…….
Too many McTaps in the Green Party.
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
“Yes. Pick holes if you want.”
I’m OK with that – next time I sign an employment contract I can say “Oh yeah, I signed it, but I was under duress (I needed an income and I was outnumbered) so I can’t be expected to keep to it, and anyway I was gambling on being made company director withing a few years and having enough power that the contract would be no longer being relevant.”
“You’re right I’m not up on what anarchists think.”
Fine – so perhaps you should stop citing them as an influence on the Green party policies, given you don’t know which policies have anarchist roots and which don’t?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Sam Buchanan says:
“I’m OK with that – next time I sign an employment contract I can say “Oh yeah, I signed it, but I was under duress (I needed an income and I was outnumbered) so I can’t be expected to keep to it, and anyway I was gambling on being made company director withing a few years and having enough power that the contract would be no longer being relevant.””
…..
I suppose you have to see it in context one employment contract v’s a whole population being subjugated to a racial minority because “a deals a deal”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
jimmy says:
)
jh you just go round and round. Lets just face it, you hide behind brute force (especially turnip as well) and uncomprimising majoritarian democracy. Its just so easy to dictate what other people should think when you have them outnumbered and you got the biggest gun isnt it jh?
…
Waaaaaaaa! the majority won’t recognize our right to be number One Everything (and geta rental
-
Professor Margaret Mutu:
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 and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
And if they decide to stay 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:
1 
7 (-6)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12 (-10)
@turnip28 7:02 AM
Sorry, that is just not historically correct. Most of the land confiscated was not seized by conquest, it was expropriated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. That law was enacted under the pretext of seizing of land from iwi rebelling against the Government to achieve the permanent protection and security of the country’s inhabitants and establish law, order and peace by using areas within the confiscated land to establish settlements for colonisation, populated initially by military settlers.
However, the reality is that the confiscations occurred by legislated process after each of the conflicts had been concluded, rather than as a direct consequence of the conflicts, and the eventual confiscations showed little distinction between pro-Government and rebel iwi and hapu.
Much of the land that was never occupied by settlers was later sold by the Crown. None was returned to the iwi or hapu from whom it had been taken, despite the fact that any supposed rebellion or war situation had long since ceased.
So the colonisation was not by conquest, as you suggest Turnip – the colonisation was by deception and misapplication of the law.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
How is progress on the discussions relating to terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori in Aotearoa (as per Meterias 2002 remit)?
Kevin Hague:
The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
Two thumbs down from those in the know. Does that mean there has been no progress or is the thumbs down referring to “terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori in Aotearoa”?
I think it’s an issue the Greens will need to sort out. Perhaps, Kevin, David and Meteria should get on to it so non Maori know where they stand?
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Toad Says:
“Sorry, that is just not historically correct. Most of the land confiscated was not seized by conquest, it was expropriated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.”
Oh gwad here we go again your talking about land confiscation in the central North Island
and then your talking about:
“So the colonisation was not by conquest, as you suggest Turnip – the colonisation was by deception and misapplication of the law.”
as if this applied to the whole country and every Maori from wherever, (which is rather typical of the discussion where your ticket to be aggrieved can be based on “cultural identity” rather than actual proximity to real events ).
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
The small population of NZ at the time Captain Cook arrived had a lot to do with available foods. Have a think about what you have eaten over the last few days and remove fish and a type of sweet potato (a sub tropical plant). What would Maori have had to eat and so increase their numbers (= carrying capacity = feet on the ground)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
@jh 4:51 PM
Your comment there strengthens, rather than weakens, my case – I should have actually mentioned it myself, but didn’t want to make the comment too long.
Much of the alienated Maori land in many rohe was not acquired by conquest or alienated by confiscation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 – it was alienated through the imposition and non-payment of rates charged on it to pay for services that hardly any Maori owners of the land, but lots of settlers, received.
Other land was alienated by finding some owners who were prepared to sell, without consultation among their hapu, and the Native Land Court accepting the sale without investigating whether those selling actually had the authority of their hapu to do so.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Sadly none of the Green leadership nor commentators like your goodself and others can address ther issue of what to do about the question of what to do about Maori land grievances.
Yep there were wrongs in the past, but what are you (and the Greens) proposing to do about it.
We go round and round the solution like a morris dancer on heat but noone is willing to come up with solutions.
Reason is actually quite simple. There are solutions but they are unpalatable to both parties.
So we keep going arguing about the past without looking at the future.
What would you like to see happening?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
“Other land was alienated by finding some owners who were prepared to sell, without consultation among their hapu, and the Native Land Court accepting the sale without investigating whether those selling actually had the authority of their hapu to do so.”
…….
In how many cases did this occur as I recall it in relation to the invasion of the Waikato?
and I suppose on their European side many tangata whenua were also victims of the clearances has anyone investigated the compounding effects on the psychy?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Gerrit Says:
We go round and round the solution like a morris dancer on heat but noone is willing to come up with solutions.
Reason is actually quite simple. There are solutions but they are unpalatable to both parties.
So we keep going arguing about the past without looking at the future.
What would you like to see happening?
…
I suspect it all has a lot to do with being an anti establishment (“wrecker and hater”), or is “wrecker and hater” a myth like the yeti? …hmmmm?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
Toad Says:
“Much of the alienated Maori land in many rohe was not acquired by conquest or alienated by confiscation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 – it was alienated through the imposition and non-payment of rates charged on it to pay for services that hardly any Maori owners of the land, but lots of settlers, received.”
…..
So they weren’t farming it Toad?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
I see hj picked up on my posts here at Kiwiblog.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@Gerrit 5:46 PM
Personally (and given that I often quote Green policy here, and wanting to clarify this is not Green policy), I would give the Waitangi Tribunal adjudicatory powers with the ability to determine a bindng settlement on the basis of the strength of the evidence, rather than go through the process of making recommendations and then the subsequent protracted negotiations between the Crown and hapu/iwi.
Hopefully, with a mediation process before the adjudication begins, that would encourage the Crown and iwi/hapu to negotiate a settlement with far more enthusiasm than happens now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:56 PM I see hj picked up on my posts here at Kiwiblog.”
jh – It’s my belief that you are hj on Kiwiblog.
Am I wrong?
Are you ‘hj’?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Toad,
Good call. We could all live with that but somehow, ehhh, I doubt that it will make anyone happy.
We have had so many “full and final” settlements that I dont think the binding settlements are going to answer the call.
I see two scenarios.
The first is that the treaty claims will disappear over the next 50 years (I used to think 200 but have revised it down) as Maori extremists drift away on the waka in the sky.
The population demographics in New Zealand are changing fast to a Asian and Pacific Island majority and those people care very little for treaty settlements especially as the british crown influence (read white New Zealanders) diminshes.
The second senario is a civil war one. Again one Maori cannot win (or win and keep control) with just maybe 5% of the population willing to fight physically for Maori rights (Fiji wont be repeated here).
So Maori and the rest of New Zealand need to intergrate. You cannot have a seperate development based on race especially in a democracy.
I find it interesting that the socialist element of the Greens find it OK to have Maori seperatism in a socialist setting. The two just dont go together.
But interesting times are ahead.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Here’s a relevant excerpt from Civil War and other Optimistic Predictions By David Slack
“P57
If you want to know where to apportion the credit for China’s booming economy, you might consider giving some to Deng Xiaoping. He famously declared that he didn’t much care whether a cat was black or white as long as it caught mice. Thus, the world’s largest communist nation got permission from its leader to take an altogether more open market approach to its economy: Pragmatism can sometimes be a useful way of looking at the world. Pragmatism, Andrew Sharp notes, has been a feature of our negotiation of Treaty issues. He has written that people who took this point of view were happy to ‘fudge’ it. We had arguments, he points out, that didn’t seem capable of being solved: people could not agree on what rights Maori and Pakeha respectively had, and what was due to them. In the face of impossible disagreement, the past two decades saw deals, settlements and arrangements that could be lived with. Pragmatic resolutions, in the face of altogether—too- difficult philosophical disagreements. If that’s so, is there a better way of going about this? Sharp says we fail to look at issues in a useful way Take, he says, the way the foreshore debate developed: You’ve replaced a common law regime with a statutory one — and a statutory one in the end more favourable to Maori than the common law one. It’s just a statutory regime, which will work, substituting for a common law regime which probably did nothing. But the problem with doing anything was what bedevils our politics — brash symbolism. That’s why, he says, he doesn’t like the Treaty much, because it doesn’t mean anything until you get down to details and clarify your meanings, and once you do, you’re in trouble because whatever you do there’s going to be disagreement. And it’s the same with this. It was a debate where meanings were uncontrolled – anything could happen, anything could be said, all of this might seem somehow to be relevant to what was at issue, but none of it was. He says we New Zealanders do a pretty poor job of isolating, clarifying and writing about precisely what it is we’re arguing about. And because we don’t analyse and understand those arguments, we don’t actually see the consequences of our arguments. He gives the example of the way the debate took shape in the mid-1970s about reparation for past wrongs: It was assumed – far too easily I think – that there was some substance in the argument. There wasn’t any substance at all. What there is, is an emotional commitment to repairing the past, doing something about it. But the moment you think about that » that justice requires putting back people in the position they would have been in if the wrong hadn’t been done, compensating them in such a way that they’re now capable of competing in the way that they would have been [able to] – the minute you begin to phrase it specifically in one of those ways or otherwise, then you’ll see that intellectually; the task’s totally impossible. You cant put people back in the position that they would have been in had the wrong not been done. Why not? Because, he says, so much has happened since the wrong took place. History could have taken people in so many different directions, depending on what happened next and what happened after that and so on, that we just can’t say what position they would have been in today if the wrong had not happened. It would depend on ‘external accidents, their own effort, luck, all sorts of stuff like that. If you are thinking about compensation that we could make in the present, it’s impossible for those reasons to calculate what that would be” “
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I guess you are a pessimist, if you think Treaty claims being “disappeared” or civil war are the only two alternatives.
I am an optimist. I hope we can work something out that doesn’t leave a significant, but minority, proportion of this country’s population harbouring a grievance over what they have unjustly lost, but doesnn’t either substantially harm the economy or expropriate property from people who have acquired it (although unjustly) in good faith.
A tall order, I must admit, given the passage of time since the first confiscations. But not an unobtainable goal, I hope.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
“I hope we can work something out that doesn’t leave a significant, but minority, proportion of this country’s population harbouring a grievance over what they have unjustly lost, but doesnn’t either substantially harm the economy or expropriate property from people who have acquired it (although unjustly) in good faith.”
…..
Who would have acquired it unjustly?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
The name david slack sounds indicitive,
” But the moment you think about that » that justice requires putting back people in the position they would have been in if the wrong hadn’t been done, compensating them in such a way that they’re now capable of competing in the way that they would have been [able to] – the minute you begin to phrase it specifically in one of those ways or otherwise, then you’ll see that intellectually; the task’s totally impossible.”
*******
Sounds like a bit of ‘too hard basked’ mixed in with a Nozick’esque argument against redistribution (the intelectually part).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Jack McDonald Says:
“I do not propose all land being returned to Maori, nor is the Green Party to my knowledge. ”
….
Toad Says:
“I hope we can work something out that doesn’t leave a significant, but minority, proportion of this country’s population harbouring a grievance over what they have unjustly lost, but doesnn’t either substantially harm the economy or expropriate property from people who have acquired it (although unjustly) in good faith.”
….
Kevin Hague Says:
“The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.”
….
Catherine Delahunty Says:
“I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa.’
http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/more-sophisticated-era-under-te-tiriti-o-waitangi
——-
[from David Slack's book above]
“But the problem with doing anything was what bedevils our politics — brash symbolism. That’s why, he says, he doesn’t like the Treaty much, because it doesn’t mean anything until you get down to details and clarify your meanings, and once you do, you’re in trouble because whatever you do there’s going to be disagreement. And it’s the same with this [Foreshore and Seabed]. It was a debate where meanings were uncontrolled – anything could happen, anything could be said, all of this might seem somehow to be relevant to what was at issue, but none of it was. He says we New Zealanders do a pretty poor job of isolating, clarifying and writing about precisely what it is we’re arguing about. And because we don’t analyse and understand those arguments, we don’t actually see the consequences of our arguments. “
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Compare the thorniness of treaty fundamentalist Kevin Hagues:
“The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.*
…..
With the sweetness of Keith Lockes call to new migrants: “welcome home: this is your country now”
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Thumbs down to “brash symbolism” bedeviling our discussion re the status, rights, territory of Maori/ non Maori?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
“Posted July 29, 2010 at 6:56 PM I see hj picked up on my posts here at Kiwiblog.”
jh – It’s my belief that you are hj on Kiwiblog.
Am I wrong?
Are you ‘hj’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
You’d have to ask hj.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
I believe I am.
Straight up jh, you’d know if you are also posting as ‘hj’.
Are you bullsh*tting us?
If I’m wrong, I’ll apologise unreservedly.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
jh?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
toad,
No i’m incredibly optimistic that, with the population dempographic changes in the next 50 years, Maori will see that their self imposed colonisation chip they have carried on their shoulders never was and never has been the problem that prevented them moving from tribal 19th to the intergrated New Zealand 21st century.
The reason for the perceived Maori problem centres totally in Maoridom.
Not in colonialism, not in “whities”, not in Catherine’s reason of one man (person surely) one vote pakeha democracy, not in a host of other perceived injustices.
The perceived problem that Maori see are totally fixable by and within Maoridom.
They can either choose to join New Zealand society or not. The choice is theirs.
As I said , I’m incredibly optimistic that they will join New Zealand society.
And enrich New Zealand society with their history and culture.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
15 (-14)
“I suppose you have to see it in context one employment contract v’s a whole population being subjugated to a racial minority because “a deals a deal”
Kind of like workers being subjugated to an economic minority?
“They can either choose to join New Zealand society or not. The choice is theirs.”
So Maori aren’t part of ‘New Zealand society’ now? New Zealand society is just a Pakeha thing then? Gee, I guess all them dumb Maori ever needed to do was give up being Maori and be good little brown-skinned Pakeha and everything would have been fine, why don’t they realise this?
“the past two decades saw deals, settlements and arrangements that could be lived with. Pragmatic resolutions, in the face of altogether—too- difficult philosophical disagreements.”
By ‘pragamatic’ you mean ‘political horse trading’ – both sides agreed to what they could get given the political power they held at the time. Which is why these agreements haven’t removed grievances. They didn’t attempt to deliver justice, just to get people to grudgingly put their signatures on a piece of paper and go home feeling pissed off.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Kind of like workers being subjugated to an economic minority?
….
got a better idea: loaves and fishes, Garden of Eden, money trees?
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
jh??
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sam,
If you had been reading my comment from the start you will would have seen my remarks regarding population demographic change.
There wont be a predominance off “pakeha” culture in New Zealand (whatever “pakeha” culture is I dont know – perhaps enlighten us).
The predominant culture will be Asian and Pacific Island.
Nobody is asking Maori to give up being Maori at all. Just the opposite.
My question to you Sam, is the same as I asked of Jimmy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Pakeha culture involves the use of the English language, institutions formatted on European (mainly British) models, a legal heritage dating back to English common law, an English-language literary tradition and a privileging of European arts.
“The predominant culture will be Asian and Pacific Island.”
Can’t see that hapening, but why is it in the interests of maori to abandon their own culture and ‘join New Zealand society’ by becoming Asian/Pacific Islanders.
“I suppose you have to see it in context one employment contract v’s a whole population being subjugated to a racial minority because “a deals a deal”
Actually it applies to a whole bunch of employment contracts, but the point is whether it’s OK to dump an agreement because it no longer suits one party – who you say signed it hoping that the other side wouldn’t press for its ratification.
“got a better idea…?”
Yes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Sorry Gerrit I have been avioding that question somewhat.
Basicaly my beleif is that we need to capitalise Maori (which is why we have the treaty setelment process) and build capacity of Maori to enable them to ‘be all they can be’, for lack of a better term (which also links with the setelments i.e. scholarships, etc). When these two prerequisites are met the treaty principles of partnership, participation, and protection will be able to function as a constitutional guide with Maori and setlers both being at resonably equal levels of material capability, skill, and understanding of eachother.
Im Pakeha by the way so my ideas are focused on what we can do, what the eventual relationship would look like is something to be decided in the future. My main points of capitalisation and capacity building is focused on what we can do to ensure that we dont think we can settle the issues once and for all before we have gotten rid of the ways Pakeha (and other setlers) could dominate any negitiations that may take place in the future.
In the near future I would personally like to see cumpulsory Maori language from pre-school upwards, if only to make us all have a better understanding of english.
Thats my two cents…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
This thread was a response to Jack’s speech – I think it was a credit to him and to our young people generally that they have moved beyond the old ways of thinking. Kia kaha Jack.
For me, the Treaty/rangatiratanga is about mutual respect: both cultures and the rising Asian and Pacific ones that Gerrit mentions have much to offer each other. Trying to compute which is better is futile – acceptance and respect goes a long way to creating good relationships and good neighbours as does good communication. If communication is only one way, then it is not surprising there is resentment – not from everyone by any means, but if people are not respected, resentment grows.
On the other hand, listening to other points of view (the purpose of the Tribunal) can defuse resentment and violence. One of the many things that Maori culture has to offer is the way that disputes are dealt with on a marae – everyone gets to speak and to be listened to, uninterrupted (very hard for some Pakeha!) until the issue is either resolved or some compromise has been reached.
jh – don’t start off on that nonsense about women not speaking etc either, it’s untrue and irrelevant to the point I’m making. If we relaxed a bit about the way things are done, from decision-making to ideas of what ownership means, we would actually benefit.
Jack is a good example of a young man who is comfortable in his society and cares about it – may we see more of him.
So give it up, please, and either go somewhere else or try to pay attention – you aren’t going to convert us to whatever it is you’re trying to make us think.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Totally agree and would like to see more open forums on Marae’s by Maori where ALL are invited to put a view point.
It is the start of intergration for ALL races and cultures. Something Maoridom could facilitate?
Looking forward to that opportunity.
That listening without interuption is indeed difficult and not confined to a pakeha culture alone. Maybe if we made it compulsory to learn at school how to listen we may just get along a bit better!!
Jimmy, Totally respectful (and in some way in agreement) with your viewpoint. Good to see solutions being offered.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Janine – ask him if he’s being honest @ 6:56pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Janine Says:
“For me, the Treaty/rangatiratanga is about mutual respect: both cultures and the rising Asian and Pacific ones that Gerrit mentions have much to offer each other. Trying to compute which is better is futile – acceptance and respect goes a long way to creating good relationships and good neighbours as does good communication. If communication is only one way, then it is not surprising there is resentment – not from everyone by any means, but if people are not respected, resentment grows.”
——–
Over here they are saying something different
.
Tamati things must come to a head sooner rather than later ,why do process of this nature take so long , good things take time i guess nonetheless govt as usual holds all the cards , and that “Public Domain” is just a kind way of saying “Govt Own” we had started to like John Keys right up until the Tuhoe settlement agreements had begun , and now we are abit confused and unsure on his tactics of dealing with issues of this nature ,our trust has completely gone after Gerry Brownlee knowingly went ahead and pursued the drilling of oil on the east coast and whanau-Apanui without consulting iwi , as expected its the waiting game again..
about a month ago
#
Trez Agreed, will be a matter of time before our shores and seabeds will be exclusively maori owned,tho we shouldnt have to wait to protect our takutaimoana otherwise will be too late, would we really want to procrastinate on our depleting resources??? .. and as for gerry brownlee he will get his coming and it wont be nice.
http://my.greens.org.nz/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=79240&qid=3156125
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I do get tired of jh’s boring, narrow-minded posts – if he wilfully refuses to try and understand Greens why is he allowed to dominate like this? Why is he here? He just says the same things over and over again. I don’t know what he imagines a future NZ society to be, but if it is full of monocultural, probably monolingual, bigots like him, I don’t think I’d want to live in it. What is he so afraid of?
…..
You call me a bigot but my position is that Maori are no different from anyone else.
I have no doubt that there are Maori who are wonderful wise and kind but it is racist to characterize all Maori like that, which is pretty much what happens when you make the sort of assumptions as in for example the foreshore and seabed where Maori are painted as wise accommodating kaitiaki. Or when you assume Maori only want dialogue and to be “consulted” never to actually exploit a mineral or whatever. In addition on many occasions the green Party refers to non Maori as “tauiwi” = foriegners. How offensive is that????
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
jh???
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
jh-For sometime I have been a member of a treaty based organisation and, despite the fact that it has been a bit of a rocky journey to realize what it meant, it has actually made our organisation much stronger. We have both benefited by celebrating different cultural perspectives. Your huge assumptions of what different iwi actually wish and your determined view that Maori should not be allowed any form of self determination or to have equal access to legal process displays great arrogance.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
“your determined view that Maori should not be allowed any form of self determination or to have equal access to legal process displays great arrogance.”
……
and what legal background is that Sprout?:
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party
2008年8月29日17:42
You don’t have to look very deeply within the Green Party to see that one of the values that unites us all is an absolute commitment to integrity – both personal and collective. Every aspect of our processes, our policies and our behaviour as Greens testifies to a fundamental commitment to acting in ethical ways.
The principles of the Green Party Charter are an embodiment of our collective commitment to values like honesty, fairness and respect for one another and for the planet.
Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.
We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.
Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.
The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.
Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.
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.
Nineteenth century colonisation worked pretty well the same way the world over: a beach-head of traders and missionaries was established and stalling tactics like treaties used to negotiate a safe space for the colonisers while numerically fewer. The coloniser then increased military strength until it had superiority (sometimes misjudging this, or almost doing so, in fact), at which point the treaties could be set aside and power secured by force.
In our determination to breathe life into our Charter’s commitment, guilt and hand-wringing are unhelpful. Our particular contribution must be a resolute determination to do what is right and our toolbox of Charter principles that equips us to step into a leadership in this new discussion. Now’s good.
This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.
…………..
And
the Maori Law Commisions view
Fact sheet Foreshore and Seabed
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“your determined view that Maori should not be allowed any form of self determination or to have equal access to legal process displays great arrogance.”.
……
More “brash symbolism”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
jh – do you post as ‘hj’ on Kiwiblog?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
robertguyton, aka greenfly?
Does it matter?
You contribution to this discussion centres around a fixation with jh.
Guess you dont have an opinion of what New Zealand society will look like in the future.
Ah well, back to the garden with you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Gerrit – (ex)greenfly indeed, it’s no secret.
Well, I think truthfulness does matter. Hj, over on Kiwiblog, presents a consistantly anti-Green comentary, jh made reference to hj just recently and I’ve asked him the question. It’s not a hangable offence, having an alter-ego, but coming clean about what you say on other forums seems a reasonable ask to me.
I do have strong opinions about a future NZ society and curiously enough, it does involve gardens!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh????
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Sprout.
You paint Maori separatism as virtuous. My thoughts are a soccer match and rugby match simultaneously in the same stadium.
I agree with Chris Trotter (although in the Green Party he’s not on the recommended reading list):
Ethnic Defection – Balkan Style: The fate of the former state of Yugoslavia offers a tragic rejoinder to all those New Zealanders (Maori and Pakeha) who see no dangers in posing the question: “Why not apart?”
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/05/coming-apart-or-holding-together.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Next Green Party candidate?…. Just the stuff*!!!!
*passed “litmus test of authentic revolutionary praxis”.
Trotter Taking Te Greens seriously Bowley Road Blogspot.com
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
robertguyton “Gerrit – (ex)greenfly indeed, it’s no secret”
That was pretty obvious from your/greenflys MO of “Forget about the issue – just attack the person”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
jh@10:05
Greenfly?
Yes!
hj?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
jh, Your description self determination or recognition of different cultural perspectives as separatism seems a rather extremist approach. Within my afore mentioned treaty based organisation we have parallel organisational strands that come together at different points and we share common organisational and aspirational goals. There is often a sort of cross pollination of ideas and shared initiatives.
You appear to believe that, as European culture is now the dominant one, all New Zealanders should accept and follow european organisational and governing structures and yet even within European culture there are examples of groups with seperate governance and degrees of self determination (many christian churches for example).
As for you concern around ownership, the contested areas of the seabed and foreshore are a fraction to that which is already in private ownership. I personally feel that land under the governership of Maori would now be more likely to be protected from exploitation than if it was in the hands of the Crown-which essentially is the National Government.
To claim that the whole of New Zealand will be divided up into tribal cantons (as you have previously claimed) and administered by individual iwi, if the Treaty is adhered to, is utter nonsense.
I am far more worried about the current threats from the National Government to have foreign mining companies ripping out our mineral wealth for little long term benefit and the selling off of our farm land and industries to foreign interests. Overseas companies are driven purely by profit margins while Maori do have a connection to the land and a recognition of the need to protect, manage and save resources for future generations.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Jh – articles in Te Awa are not necessarily Green Party policy; they are opinions of the writer, which will very often be based on policy issues, but are not policy as such. You may find this difficult to believe, but there is a pretty broad range of opinion in the Green Party and policy is carefully worked through by as many as wish to be involved in developing it.
The legal q and a by the Peace Movement is a very useful fact sheet about the history and existing legal situation – again, not Green policy as such.
I repeat, I don’t understand your problem with us – if you don’t like where we are coming from, then you don’t need to be in here. Your wilful obtuseness is more than irritating.
Perhaps you could look at other postings from people who are definitely not members or supporters but nevertheless manage to say things that are worth reading, even if we disagree with them.
Gerrit – I have been on many a marae where all are allowed to speak, have spoken (in English) more times than I can count at different kinds of hui. Like other kinds of meeting procedures it can be learnt and adopted/adapted by any group for many different purposes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
To claim that the whole of New Zealand will be divided up into tribal cantons (as you have previously claimed) and administered by individual iwi, if the Treaty is adhered to, is utter nonsense.
……..
So what do the greens have in mind when they endorsed the Maori version as per Meterias 2002 remit? Do the Greens not agree with the Maori law commission that under article two (“forests and fisheries”) the foreshore and seabed belong in tribal territories?
And is it not your policy that (eg) oil outside the 12 mile limit belongs to Iwi? Isn’t that the point of David Clendons post here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/07/08/has-brownlee-broken-the-law/
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Janine says:
“Gerrit – I have been on many a marae where all are allowed to speak, have spoken (in English) more times than I can count at different kinds of hui. Like other kinds of meeting procedures it can be learnt and adopted/adapted by any group for many different purposes.”
and I suppose there are many other ways to skin a cat too?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
jh??????????????????????
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jh – articles in Te Awa are not necessarily Green Party policy; they are opinions of the writer, which will very often be based on policy issues, but are not policy as such. You may find this difficult to believe, but there is a pretty broad range of opinion in the Green Party and policy is carefully worked through by as many as wish to be involved in developing it.
……
Nevertheless the membership must like what Catherine Delahunty, Kevin Hague, etc have to say or they wouldn’t be so high on the list.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Greenfly…..????
Oh I see. Yes I couldn’t log on as jh so I had to come up with something else… I didn’t exactly make it devilishly difficult to figure out as I was cross posting …..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh I missed your post above. Yes I couldn’t log on to Kiwiblog as jh (a wordpress thing I think) hj was what I came up with. I did a lot of cross posting so it wasn’t hard to figure out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers jhj
[frog: And let that be the end of it, jh and Robert. It was starting to get rather boring for the rest of us.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)