by frog
The media jumped the gun a bit over Jeanette’s comments at Waitangi on the possibility of the Greens and Maori Party working more closely together during and/or after the election. Nothing has been agreed and the two parties are only talking. But, as I noted last year, there is an obvious synergy between the two parties that makes the idea possible.
The two parties have similar voting records in Parliament and similar philosophical stances on defining issues. For instance the Greens are the only party that opposed the seabed and foreshore legislation for the same reasons as the Maori Party would have (this was before the Maori Party was elected into Parliament).
Even without an agreement between the two parties it will be interesting to see what strategic decision Maori voters on the Maori role choose to make with their party vote, given the likelihood of the Maori Party gaining more seats than party vote, and thus creating an overhang in Parliament.
Interestingly the government used the occasion of Waitangi Day to announce with Ngati Porou the first agreement to be reached under the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. It seems an odd occasion to draw attention to that particular Act.
Metiria came out very strongly against the decision noting that the Act under which the agreement was reached was a confiscation and the legal elimination of the lawful rights of a group of New Zealand citizens:
The Court of Appeal said that Maori were legally entitled to investigate whether their customary rights in the foreshore and seabed still existed. But the Government, who fought against the case, legislated to strip away that legal right. It was a calculated act of discrimination and confiscation, of the kind seen in the 19th and 20th centuries… this announcement simply reminds us of the 21st century confiscation that took place.
Published in Campaign by frog on Thu, February 7th, 2008
Tags: Jeanette Fitzsimons, Maori, maori party, Ngati Porou, Seabed and Foreshore
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I think that the Greens talking to the M P is a an excellent move .
There is much common ground between the two parties.
And it can only enhance both parties bargaining positions after the next election if they were in someway to have a formal ” arrangement”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the Greens want to cuddle up with an overtly racist party, is there anything else you guys could possibly do that would alienate the middle ground that you so desperately need to stay in the house?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That would be the socially aware middle ground?
Seems you may be a little worried BB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the greens..and the maori party..
with their shared concerns for the guardianship of the land/environment..
and shared priorities on many social issues..
are a ‘natural fit’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, you have a different view of “middle ground” than the rest of us. You seem to be stuck in some white bread 1950s time warp and have no concept of the reality of NZ in the 2000s – an ethnically diverse country. You are the racist one, not the MP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
woah stuey based on what?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey
What on earth motivated you to come out with a comment like that?
The Maori party are a racist party, that is a statement of fact, if you really think this is a vote winner for the Greens then you are the one who does not have grasp on reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Before I get the moderating broom out let’s refrain from labelling anyone else as racist and stick to policy debate?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Don’t moderate on my account please, I know I am not a racist so I am not concerned at all what Stuey calls me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe the premise of the Maori Party is bizarre and its MPs have said some very disconcerting things e.g. When Turia said that there are too many whites coming to New Zealand, and absurdly, that successive governments had used immigration against Maori to stop the “browning of New Zealand”. Maori are not a homogenous group, anyone who says otherwise is on another planet – not sure what BB has to say on this though.
Preserving Maori culture yay, but I think the maori party go a bit far. Incidentally philu had a good point in that above post – the maori party have railed against the use of GDP as an effective indicator of well-being a few times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
policy debate ‘yay’ too
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This development is very interesting, but not surprising. There’s obviously a lot of sense in the two parties uniting together in their post-election negotiations. This will help prevent the two parties being played against each other, and hence their demands and decisions on coalition agreements can be made from a stronger vantage point.
Of course this all assumes that both parties are actually willing to negotiate with parties to the right of Labour. Probably such an assumption is correct. Both the Greens and the Maori parties are increasingly willing to countenance doing deals with the Naitonal Party. This is particularly so for the Maori Party, with some of their leading members and MPs even *preferring* to do a deal with National over Labour. For the Green Party, some sort of deal has become more possible with the rise of the more pragmatic (?) Russel Norman to the co-leadership. And by going into a bloc with the Maori Party, there is now even more chance of the Greens negotiating with National. Quite simply the Maori Party is likely to push the Greens to the right (or alternatively the Greens might push the Maori Party to the left).
I’m really interested to see how Green Party members view the idea of negotiating with the National Party, and even doing a deal with National. It never would have happened some years ago (especially during the Alliance days), but it now seems distinctly possible.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Preserving Maori culture yay, but I think the Maori party go a bit far.
I think that they have to go a bit far to preserve the maori culture
Its the reverse of The Nat’s moving to the centre, meaning that they need to be moderate so that can get the opportunity to be extreme
Shit it made sense to me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce
While I agree that the prospect of the Maori party doing a deal with the Nat’s is not as silly as it once sounded the idea that the Greens and Russel in particular will EVER do a deal with the Nat’s is simply wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro – I’d be interested in reading your analysis for why this couldn’t happen. And are you suggesting that when Fitzsimmons and Norman have advocated considering negotiations with National that they’re being disingenuous?
I think you underestimate the pragmatism of the Green leadership. And you probably overestimate the radicalness of the party in general. Like green parties in the rest of the world, the NZ Greens have been slowly but surely shifting towards the centre of the political spectrum.
And, by the way, we’re talking here about “doing a deal” rather than actually formally entering a coalition government together. Although I reckon the Greens could one day be a junior partner in a National-led government, I can’t see it happening for some time yet. If the Greens (and the Maori Party) did a deal with National in 2008 (or 2011 or whenever) its more likely to involve much smaller concessions by both National and the Greens – eg an agreement on supply etc.
And although such ideas might seem fanciful, don’t forget that even the more left-wing Alliance party actually supported National in government between 1993 and 1995. And of course this support of National was done with the agreement of the Green Party.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro; I’m with you all the way!
I cannot hear the name Maori Party without imagining (with horror) a ‘White Party’.
It is, by definition, a race based party and, as such, is an anathema to all moderate non racist folk.
Anyway I thought this was the GREEN PARTY not the brown/white/red or any other party. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again… there are vast numbers of concerned kiwis out there just itching to vote for GREEN if only the GREEN Party would be GREEN and GREEN ONLY.
Phil U; I’m sorry, but the Maori destroyed the environment just as fast as their technology allowed before other immigrants came along and did it even better! I just can’t accept that any group can claim the high ground on care for our environment.
Stuey; Way out of line, mate. You have assumed that Big Bro is both white and a racist when (I assume) you know no more about him (her?) than I do.
Bryce; The Greens should negotiate with the party with the most votes. That is how democracy should work.
If the Nats can be leveraged towards sustainability by the Greens then I applaud both parties. You see I’m a supporter of green issues rather than the Green Party.
As I said above you aren’t the ‘red’ party or the ‘blue’ party… GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN is the winning colour parked firmly in the center of the political storm, guardians of our future, regardless of which way the political winds blow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samiam – this idea that the Greens should ‘negotiate with the party with the most votes’ seems to be increasingly popular. And that’s one of the reasons that the party will indeed probably end up negotiating with National. But shouldn’t democracy sometimes mean more than this? Otherwise MMP elections will always been won by those parties that win the greatest number of votes regardless of whether they receive 30% of the vote or 50%. Shouldn’t the Greens only consider helping parties into government that they actually approve of?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam said The Greens should negotiate with the party with the most votes. That is how democracy should work.
Wrong, samiam, absolutely wrong! This is not how democracy works. The Greens should negotiate with every party to try to get the most Green Party policy implemented, and if they enter a coalition or confidence and supply arrangement, it should be with the Party or Parties that will move furthest in the direction of implementing Green Policy. It should be about policy, not about numbers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad
If the majority of the people decide that they do not want left wing or green policy then how on earth could it be democratic to form a govt AGAINST the wishes of that majority?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad has given a very clear elaboration on the Green Party’s stance towards negotiations. This is a negotiations policy that is fairly neutral, policy-based, and incredibly pragmatic. It’s also a very reasonable stance, and one that correctly reflects the political nature of the party. It’s a policy that’s not strongly based upon ideology or being opposed to one party (eg National) and in favour of another (eg Labour). And this is why the Greens can legitimately claim to be neither leftwing nor rightwing – they are truly willing to support whatever flavour of government as long as it’s willing to give the Greens the most concessions on environmental policy. And this is why there’s no particular reason that the Greens will never negotiate with – or go into coalition with – the National Party. This isn’t to say that such a government is about to be formed, but it’s clear that it’s entirely possible.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam and big bro – I just don’t get what you are basing your assertion that the Maori party is racist on. Their Rules state:
3.1 The Maori Party is an inclusive and broad political movement and accepts membership from any persons who:
a – work to support the Maori Party kaupapa and tikanga;
b – act within the Maori Party constitution;
c – abide by lawful decisions made in accordance with the Maori Party constitution;
d – pay the appropriate membership fee;
e – and who is not a member of a competing political party as determined by the National Council.
So Whities like me can join the Maori Party, and if the Green Party didn’t exist, I probably would.
And I can’t find anything in their policy that could be considered remotely racist either.
As for the name of the Party, “m?ori” means “normal,” “natural” or “ordinary”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro said: If the majority of the people decide that they do not want left wing or green policy then how on earth could it be democratic to form a govt AGAINST the wishes of that majority?
The Green Party’s role in post-election negotiations is to represent those voters who voted Green – not those who voted National, Labour, Maori or any or the rats and mice parties. They will have their own negotiators around the table to represent the interests and aspitations of their voters. Following your logic, if a Party can’t get 50% of the vote, it shouldn’t be able to get any policy implemented. And, despite the Nats hovering close to it in recent months, no Party has ever got 50% of the vote, at least as far back as my memory goes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro
If the Green Party can, by forming coalition with Maori and others, supply the votes to form government, then by definition the majority will IS being represented. If that coalition is necessary to either of the major parties that hope to form government then it realistically MUST be included.
The party with whom the negotiations take place will not have an outright majority, or there would be no need for negotiation. The election is not a referendum on an individual party. People aren’t voting “against” anyone, nor do they have to… and that is one of the advantages of MMP.
For your scenario to make sense I think, the Greens would have to be in a position to force their inclusion in ANY government formed… including a coalition of National and Labour. Winston Peters and Peter Dunne made their positions vis-a-vis the Greens quite clear. The combined Maori and Green numbers are not an insignificant part of the electorate and having managed to ignore them so far is quite an accomplishment for the establishment. The question is realistically “how long can that last?”
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “Metiria came out very strongly against the decision noting that the Act under which the agreement was reached was a confiscation and the legal elimination of the lawful rights of a group of New Zealand citizens”
Given that the Greens are among the worst enemies of property rights, you’ll forgive us if we don’t take your professed outrage too seriously when you cynically and selectively invoke the concept for the benefit of some of your target constituents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad; I should have been clearer, Greens should negotiate with the party with the most votes IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. If that’s a failure, then by all means talk to the others. If egos weren’t what they are we should always end up with a national/labour coalition and the minnows would never get a look in!
Hey does Maori really mean ‘normal’ Gee what does that make everyone else? Half Maori = half normal? Now I am worried.
I go by the fact that all born New Zealanders are Tangata Whenua. Regardless of their racial mix. I’d like to think that’s about as non-racist as you can get.
Bryce; If, as you say, the Green Party is neither left or right, then they are doing a stunningly lousy job of marketing the fact. The wider population see them as left of Labour and Labour’s labradoodle.
The rumour of any Maori party (or ANY other party at all) snuggling is guaranteed to alienate the huge numbers of hesitant Green supporters out there. You need to give people reasons to go Green, not excuses to avoid. The Green party just needs to stick to green issues and watch the votes roll in.
Shaun the Sheep for President!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp.
Please would you explain to me what you actually mean when you say that the Green Party “are among the worst enemies of property rights?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Joy
From their redistributionist plundering – which assumes that the state has a call on everyone’s wealth – through to their support for any and all restrictions on what people can do with what is supposedly their private property, the Greens behave like a democratic tyranny. So does Labour, and so does National.
It is all done under the false pretext that achieving (buying) a majority in an election somehow gives the winning coalition the right to steal from the minority and treat supposedly free individuals as serfs.
The foreshore and seabed issue is simply another instance of these vices in action: The state wanted something; the state took it.
Any confusion you may have is, I think, because I am applying the same principle universally: It is as wrong to steal from a rich man (under the guise of taxation) as it is to steal from, in this case, Maori land owners.
Now, I rarely hear Maori politicians on television decrying the injustice of income redistribution and the welfare state, yet they scream like they’ve just sat on a tack when Maori land is “redistributed.”
I fear they will, as the Americans say, just have to suck it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can’t for the life of me see why the Greens should negotiate with the party with most votes first This is not FFP it is MMP . National will probably be the party with the biggest percentage of votes, however If they get say 45%
55% of people, the majority didn’t vote for them.
That said the Greens have to negotiate to get as many policies as they can implemented , without sacrificing their core values.
I can’t see this being National but I won’t have too much of a problem if that happens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp
The State DOES have a call on everyone’s wealth. I feel sorry for you sometimes, believing so vehemently in the ideology of finder’s keeper’s but I don’t think that your assertion that this is wrong makes it so. If you want the advantages that government brings, you have to pay for them. Vigilance against government abuse is part of the price, often put on a credit card by current society but that isn’t the point either.
The rich live in the same country as the rest of us. They have to pay, just as we have to pay. It would be nice if they paid the same percentage as the middle class winds up paying but that hasn’t been true for a fairly long time. Don’t quote tax RATES either, you know they have accountants and businesses to drop their part of the load on the poor sods getting PAYE incomes. If they don’t like it they can always move to ANOTHER country… but… Oh dear… every country on EARTH has taxes. What a shame.
The Maori however, have a TREATY that says some pretty vague but powerful things about THEIR ownership of the land and who gets to buy, sell and use it. Historically that treaty was ignored for a while and so there are some problems.
In all likelihood it is you who will, as we say, just have to suck it up.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj, Monaco doesn’t have taxes, that’s why it was so popular with British sports stars and pop stars back when they were hit with Heath’s wealth tax. The British government lost a huge amount of revenue by being stupidly greedy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) ACT voted against the FS&SB too.
2) The Greens saying they would go with the largest party would be seen by the green’s supporters as saying they’ll go with National – it’s already widely expected that National will get more seats than Labour though Labour may be in a better position to put together a coalition. The Greens might survive doing a deal with National after the election, but their support would collapse if they were seen to be doing this beforehand.
3) Bryce, The Greens are a divided party. There are the enviromentalists and the socialists. There may be a little crossover, but thats essentially it. I’m sure the enviromentalist wing would be happy to go with National, but the socialists would never stand for it, and, as has been seen with the election of Russel as leader, the socialists are in control of the party at the moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Petermcc: Given National’s record on environmental issues is even worse than Labour’s I don’t see how your third assertion is true. Also, keep in mind that a lot of the “socialist” policies of the Green Party are directly derived from the same principles that lead to their environmental policy.
While I do agree that everyone should ideally be for helping the environment, some people don’t seem to see the inconsistency between this and some of the more neoconservative policies proposed by other parties. For instance, one of the principles that leads to protecting the environment- that policy should have a view for very long-term (past the current generations) impacts whenever possible. This view is yet to gain major traction with any party other than, perhaps, the Maori party.
I also don’t see how your comment doesn’t apply to other parties. Labour is divided between the leftists and the centrists. NZF is divided between the populists and the centrists. UF is divided between the far right and the populists. ACT is divided between the far right and the libertarians. National is divided between the right and the “compassionate conservatives”, or whatever you’d like to call Key’s new centrist approach. Green support certainly divides between general leftism and people from other parts of the political spectrum with wider support- but if they didn’t have policy outside of the environmental arena, they would be a one-issue party without a leg to stand on in a political environment where everyone is paying lip service to the environment, even if their policies are inadequate or not-yet-existent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp,
Thank you for explaining your views.
For me, to live in any community, let alone a commonwealth, means shared resources, and the clearest way to do so is taxation.Of course taxation imposts can be uneven, unfair, so it behoves any ruling party, local or central, to strive for consistency and balance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Pardon my confusion but could you explain the apparant contridiction between these two statements?
“The State DOES have a call on everyone’s wealth.”
“The Maori however, have a TREATY that says some pretty vague but powerful things about THEIR ownership of the land and who gets to buy, sell and use it.”
The way I read it has you saying that the State has a call on everybody’s wealth but because Maori have a treaty it does not include them?
So the State can tax, confiscate, or do anything with your individual wealth (be it assets, intelectual property, actual property, man power as in mobilisation, etc.) but it excludes similar Maori “wealth”?
I dont understand what you are saying.
The way I read it there can only be one answer and that is seperate and racial laws for one sector of society that is not binding on another.
And I dont think that is what you are implying, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ & Gerrit – It is not just Maori who have a Treaty – it belongs to non-Maori (tangata tiriti) just as much as it belongs to Maori (tangata whenua). It is what gives those of us who are not Maori the right to live in this country.
BTW, the Foreshore and Seabed Act has very little to do with the Tiriti – it is a far simpler issue of property rights and the denial by the Act of the right of one particular group (Maori) to go to Court to establish potential property rights they may have otherwise had over areas of foreshore and seabed – i.e. another confiscation.
Mouldwarp – the Greens are actually strong supporters of property rights. Where you are coming from is the “taxation=theft” ideology of the extreme right.
That axiomatic position confuses ownership with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts.
Traditional principles of property rights include control of the use of the property, the right to any benefit from the property, a right to transfer or sell the property, and a right to exclude others from the property.
However property rights do not include uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another person or group of people or uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights or uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience.
So the Greens are consistently strong in supporting property rights as I understand them to be – it is only when the assertion of rights derived from ownership interfere with the rights of others or with the future viability of the planet’s ecosystems that the Greens advocate their curtailment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Tax is money that is taken from me every week, It is taken without my permission and without my consent, how on earth could it be anything other than theft?
The treaty is another issue, IMHO it is the single biggest problem we have as a nation, all it does is remind us on a daily basis that our country is divided, we would be better to scrap the thing and treat all Kiwi’s equally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not at all big bro (on your second point). It’s simple really, all born NZers are Tangata Whenua. That in one fell swoop removes racisim from the picture and gives all us Tangata Whenua the same treaty rights. 1st generation immigrants may become citizens but only born kiwis get to be people of the land. Thus the treaty is no longer a means to divide our people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam
That would work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
I regard the Maori as having a unique position with respect to the government BECAUSE of the treaty. The treaty effectively makes THEM the government in terms of some things that are covered by the treaty, or would if the treaty had been honoured in the manner that they expected it to be. Of course various NZ governments have had various ideas about how to honour the treaty and that leads to the current state of litigious excess. The government doesn’t have anywhere near as clear a right to take property from Maori as it does to simply tax its citizens (including Maori).
As to the fact that it is a separate treatment for Maori vs the rest of us, that is INHERENT in the treaty and while I don’t like it I do not see ANY way to avoid it. Where others have de-facto apartheid and all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, we have a treaty that, as one of our founding documents, provides that some people here DO have rights and responsibilities that are different from the rest of us.
Personally I would like to see a proper constitutional convention and debate, and some manner of embedding the treaty principles in a more equitable governmental structure. The Maori share of responsibility in terms of government could be increased, but their separation from the rest of us decreased, if we simply accepted that we NEED to do something differently. Nobody wants to change things though.
No matter. The situation will muddle along, enriching lawyers and impoverishing the soul of the nation until enough people realize that it IS wrong to do it the way we’ve always done it. It is appallingly hard to get a new idea across sometimes. “We don’t need a constitution, we have an unwritten constitution, we have precedent… ” — rubbish. We have a unique situation in global experience and history. Precedent is almost worthless to resolve this problem.
Toad… The treaty divides us even as it joins us together. It creates BY ITS EXISTENCE, two classes of people, and there is no way to fix that without replacing it WITH the consent of the Maori, with a constitution that embeds and enshrines their power WITHIN government…. and no, it wouldn’t be all that easy to do.
Then government (which would include Maori rather differently from the way it does today) can make law without worrying about the weasel words of a century ago coming back to haunt us in extended litigations. One law applying to every citizen, and every citizen equal before the government. It is the only way I can imagine in which NZ can bind itself together and make itself a nation of and for all of us.
BB… you cannot “scrap” the treaty. We cannot “scrap” the treaty. If we were do do that without the CONSENT of the Maori people we would be guilty of a crime against their sovereignty and an illegal “taking” that vastly exceeds any imagined or real theft by taxation you’ve ever considered.
I can’t believe someone as keen as you about property rights missed that point.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big bro – tax is taken under the rule of law, and therefore implicitly with the collective consent of society. If it were not taken, society would soon start to disintegrate. Furthermore, tax is taken on a relatively equitable basis across the board from earners (although there are exceptions, such as the peverse exemptions that allow people to make capital gains tax free).
It is a completely different scenario to that of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which is racist legislation designed to abrogate the property rights of one particular group within society. The equivalent in tax terms would be a law that imposed a particular tax on Maori, or on non-Maori, while leaving the other exempt.
BB also said: The treaty is another issue, IMHO it is the single biggest problem we have as a nation, all it does is remind us on a daily basis that our country is divided, we would be better to scrap the thing and treat all Kiwi’s equally.
BB, treating all Kiwis equally is exactly what the Treaty does. Article 3: “Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.”
This is the only Article of the Treaty that accurately translates between Te Reo and English: “In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”
Or “one law for all”, BB, which is what I thought you would support.
I’d also have thought you would have generally supported the principle of protection of Maori property rights contained in Article 2 (although there are here differences in translation as to exactly what rights are protected).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So my son is Tangata Whenua but my daughter is not?
It is a nice idea but I don’t see that view espoused by many Maori who, I think quite rightly, regard that the signatories to that treaty were THEIR ancestors and that only people accepted by them as Tangata Whenua can be considered such and the rest of us are only legally here because the treaty allowed for that.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks BJ,
You put into words exactly as I feel and how I understand the problem to be, cheers.
I think your solution is spot and what we need.
Toad,
I think this issue goes beyond property rights and includes all the rights we as the people of have in common. Your thoughts?
samiam,
As a naturalised immigrant I dont think you can seperate those born here from the new comers. Maybe those who have taken citizenship is a better cut off point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn
I had forgotten Monaco. Yup… That’s where the wealthy folk will go. One big ghetto of glitz… entirely defenceless when the po’ folk decide that it’s time to revolt… as they are wont to do from time to time as excesses of inequality become too blatant.
Sounds about right to me.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chris trotters latest column has it all summed up John Key: A Hongi too far?
(from memory): Michael Cullens foreshore and seabed Act had the effect of nationalising the foreshore and seabed for all NZr’s (Maori and Pakeha)… Act [on behalf of the super rich], national and (to their shame) the greens support its repeal.
… after all who can deny that the state of NZ was (prior European Settlement) divided into a series of Maori tribal areas (so) if we have customery rights to foreshore and seabed why not rivers lakes etc………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
If it were one law for all then I would support what you are saying, clearly it is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is an obvious connection between a sustainable economy in the environment and conservation aspect to another policy in the area of social policy – public provision.
An obvious connection between conservation of the environment which underpins the physical economy (fisheries, forestry, land, waterways, etc – resource mangement) and social policy sustaining the human resource. Such as adequate housing and community facilities and services, public health and education provision etc.
It would seem some on the right would try and turn the party into a blue greens construct supportive of those with the means going about “hunting and fishing” in our environment with only passing regard to regulations affecting various business interests and the general well being of the wider population (because the taxation required for public provision was some sort of theft of their “private propert/wealth/income).
Of course many of the wider “sustainable society idealism” would depart from a blue greens party whereas few who advocate such a change would actually support vote for it.
What those on the right fear is the Green Party being the base for a new sustainable society idealism and being a rival to neo-right philosophy (ambitious to dominate geo-politically post Cold War and note their religious right supporters see Green politics as some sort of false religion). They have every reason to fear the competition, because their rejection of the validity of Green causes is becoming increasingly suspect amongst the mainstream public.
The real issue in 2008 is whether any government but a National led one is possible. If so, the issue for the Green party is which option delivered the the better future for New Zealand (in the three year period concerned). If no option, but a National led one was available would the Greens even be considered by National. They would consider first ACT, then United, then either the Maori Party or NZ First (who they would play off), then the Greens. Only if the alternative to the Greens was to include all the other parties would the Greens get a look in (that is a National and Green coaliton – which might still include ACT and United if National wanted an excuse to adopt some right wing policies not in their own manifesto and also if Dunne was prepared to work with the Greens).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some years ago I suggested an “electoral” unity between Greens and Maori activists (sharing a list) – but now the MP has shown they can make their own way.
While consultation with the MP on strategy before and after elections is useful for both, in the end each is now accountable to their own voter base.
Thus it is more likely is that one and not both will be in any coalition government, this despite common ground on many issues. The only exception is of course a Labour Green Maori Party government. The MSM, hostile enough to the idea of a Labour Green government, is going to have to be buried half alive to end their campaign against any such prospect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
All of a sudden I have a new found love for the MSM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# big bro Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
> If it were one law for all then I would support what you are saying, clearly it is not.
Indeed, we don’t seem to have one law for all. The government wanted ato annul perpetual leases over parts of the south island high country, So they negotiated with the lease holders to compensate them for the confiscation of the lease by giving them money and freehold to some land. They wanted to annul possible customary right to the foreshore and seabed, so they confiscated it, with no negotiation and no compensation. Spot the double standard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp – the treaty settlements process is currently giving back to Iwi less than 5% of the land that was wrongly taken from them in the first place. If you truly believe that property rights are absolute, you should be marching in the streets, calling for the government to make it 100%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
I have only one useful piece of advice – accept Crown land ownership title to the foreshore and seabed, perhaps under the “public domain” label (until we become a republic and we become the sovereign people), in return for commercial title (or compensation in lieu of) and customary rights (including associative management with the Crown) – this in return for iwi compenasation settlement values being adjusted for land value change since the early 1990′s (watch how the 1 billion becomes about 5 billion, and get in before the Pakeha eat up all the surplus on imported electronics and boats etc).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
- “tax is taken under the rule of law, and therefore implicitly with the collective consent of society.”
By the same token, this Maori land is being taken under the rule of law, and therefore implicitly with the collective consent of society.
I think it’s called ‘reaping the whirlwind.’
bjchip,
Your attempted defence of Maori land ownership is based not on individual rights and freedoms (because then you would have to concede that redistributive taxation is equally illegitimate.) Instead you defend it on the flimsy basis of contract law (they “have a TREATY”). But you forget that the state, encouraged in all its other pillaging by people like yourself, does not feel itself inhibited by such niceties: In this case, it just changed the law – nice and legal.
So you can’t cite individual rights in your defense, and you certainly can’t make any legal case, because the state, freed from any habit or obligation of acting in accordance with pesky individual rights, exists solely to legitimise the demands of the mob by writing them into law.
How could it be otherwise? It is the entirely predictable result of you people using the vehicle of the state to smash down inconvenient individual freedoms; once you start, there is no logical end to it. You want a state that will plunder at your command, yet get wonderfully indignant when it turns round and bites you on the backside. Either the state recognises all the rights of all individuals, or it is simply a facade for untrammeled mob rule. There is no half-way position. You have chosen the latter.
I’m reminded of Thomas More’s lines from A Man For All Seasons, discussing those inconvenient but legitimate laws, which can simply be described at the state’s recognition of, and support for, individual freedoms:-
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp said: By the same token, this Maori land is being taken under the rule of law, and therefore implicitly with the collective consent of society.
It is indeed, Mouldy. But I had two parallel and integrated strands to my argument, and you have responded to one in isolation. The issue you have chosen to ignore is that taxation is not discriminatory against anyone on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, family status etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp
Ah… you’re referring to the Foreshore and Seabed specifically? I was not. I was making a more general case. I have never allowed that the state should be permitted unrestricted rights over the individual, any more than that the individual rights should trump the states. Once AGAIN you pull a straw man out and demolish it… very prettily it is a favorite quotation you choose. Yet… If there is no state, there are no laws. If there are no taxes, there is no state. Hide from the devil if you can.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea, There is no double standard between the high country leases and the seabed and foreshore. In both cases compensation was paid for loss of earnings and the cost of improvements made to the land by the leaseholder (fences, buildings, etc). The absence of any such improvements to the seabed and foreshore and the fact that no loss of earnings was suffered because no customary rights were extinguished means nothing to pay compensation for.
The only real difference was that the government has had the luxury of time to deal with the high country leases in a cooperative manner. With the seabed and foreshore it panicked and acted propitiously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Meanwhile, back on task….
If the Green Party want’s average Kiwi votes then cuddling up to the red/ blue/ brown parties (prior to voting day) is just A BLOODY STUPID WAY TO GET THEM.
Green issues are so much in focus now, you guys can stand proudly on your own.
Spongebob & Patrick own the foreshore & seabed.
Shaun the Sheep rules the land
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn,
Maori were trying to redress court decisions in the 1850′s which took away their commercial title, government intervention took away this legal right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Spongebob & Patrick
Oh my!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seabed makes odd bedmates
FROM THE LEFT – CHRIS TROTTER
The Dominion Post | Friday, 08 February 2008
“The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law”, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title” came as such a bombshell.
Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.
The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.
…”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4392654a1861.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does no one know the difference between land ownership, “commercial” title and customary rights?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What happened to the spiritual ethos of commonwealth and shared destiny, which has been the only true custodian of respect for the environment since time immemorial whateva the colour of your skin?
DSC 08.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
My understanding is that all the land’s of New Zealand are vested in the Crown.
For a fee simple a person or other legal entity can buy an exclusive entitlement to occupy an area of land. ie they buy the title to the land rather than the land itself. Coastal land stops at the high water mark.
The entitlement to occupy the land doesn’t include entitlement to the minerals under the land or the water flowing over it or the air above it.
In essence this is a tenant-landlord relationship with the Crown or it’s agents having a right to vary the terms of the “lease” from time to time if they follow certain procedures. Usually that means passing a law or by-law.
As I understand it, Hobson’s intention with the Treaty of Waitangi was that tribes would automatically get the titles to the land within each chief’s jurisdiction at the time of signing the treaty. His failure to get the Maori translation properly verified and his failure to appreciate the implications of customary Maori “ownership” of land not being recognised within existing British law left the door open to legalised theft of Maori land by the Crown. The absense of a single entity as owner of the land created an insupperable problem for the British based legal and banking systems. So even when Maori retained ownership of their land they were unable to access the same sources of development capital available to settlers and settler companies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How can one own the unownable? Seriously Spogebob & Patrick have more rights to the foreshore and seabed the us ‘Johnny come lately’ pathetic humans. I think people get Tangata Whenua mixed up with Whenua Tangata. I live near a beach and I have great affinity with it, I belong to it. But it will never belong to me. People-of-the-land does not make it land-of-the- people. That’s why the Maori immigrants should have no more claim to it than any other immigrants. The government should go further and hunt out any remaining “title” to areas of foreshore/seabed and nullify them all. Ports etc should have a lease only.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Moriori were here 1st but they were the first of us to get here from Aviki or (Avaiki) (not very good at ancient names) until our numbers grew to consolidate the scattered many into a whole and it’s been that way ever since. The treaty was a rushed document to secure our allegiance to the empire as french and american and dutch interests were here also (though the british thought we were part of the australian colony they didn’t seem to tell all of us that at the time)
Hobson was’nt some visionary he realised that the maori were canny and fast when they grabbed ahold of new ideas and that the settlers were far outnumbered by the natives and if they realised the british way of colonization there would be wars all up and down the country, explained in a very simplistic way a treaty was the only way to divert the natives attention while gathering numbers under the pretense of so called protection-am i wrong?
The past is the past and i hope the poms hold out against the euro ands keep the pound, The americans are a lost people we should call them Amerons after their new dollar.
I look at the greens and wonder are you guys bankrolled by other concerns out to make adollar off the G-warming craze? is Sue a secret clone of Hilary who was a champion of a great cause and then changed sides abruptly.
i have one simple way the government can spend some money that will get the public proud once again start planting natives on useless land at it’s own exspense and help bring back the rainbelts.
has anyone looked at the west coast water line lately
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp- I’d have to disagree that the Seabed and Foreshore legislation was even legal, ignoring the issue of discriminatory legislation. I don’t see anything in the untranslated version of the Treaty about the Crown’s ability to confiscate land, and technically we are still governed by the Crown.
I’d have to disagree with Chris Trotter that it’s a shame that the Green Party opposes the Seabed & Foreshore legislation as-is. Right now, it not only confiscates land, but it puts it into ownership of the Crown. If one thing has been clear in New Zealand history, it’s that Maori have little or no reason to trust Crown ownership.
While I support the stated principle of the legislation, (making sure none of the foreshore or seabed is in private ownership, and that it is available to all) the way it was done was simply stupid. Even if you accept it had to be done by confiscation, rather than legislating away the possibility of denial of access, surely the land should have been put into the public domain instead of given to the Crown?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Notice David Farrar hasn’t picked up on Trotter’s column.
In the Otago Daily Times it had a cartoon of John Key doing the tango with Titiphi Harawera and the title was Keys Gambit: A hongi too far
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4392654a1861.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
trotters’ column is drivel..
as always..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari
The original intent was public domain status, but the NZF party’s support was required and they insisted on Crown title. This speaks to Winston’s concept of one New Zealand under the Crown (he being assimilation Maori placing primacy on the 3rd article) whereas many Maori still see the Crown as “the other” in relation to Maori – that is their Treaty partner, the one who is required to honour it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS If National in government was to propose a change to “public domain” status, no doubt Labour would support this. Labour could at any time negotiate with National the introduction of such legislation. National’s policy however, seems to be to prolong Maroi discontent with Labour, while looking at such concessions once in office.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why on earth would any political party negotiate with something that belongs to all of us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kevyn,
I would add, to what you wrote, “ownership” of the foreshore and seabed is associated with national sovereignty. This speaks to an important sub-plot to the debate. Some Maori claim that Maori never conceded sovereignty, but only allowed governorship to the Crown over Pakeha settlements. Whereas the Crown view is that they obtained sovereignty and Maori iwi had chieftainship in the communal land areas.
My original point was the distinction berween land title and commercial title and customary rights. For example regardless of who has “sovereignty” over the foreshore and seabed, Maori claim that article 2 allowed them possession of their “fisheries” (their way of life). The question is whether this is merely a customary right (right to go and fish in the traditional iwi area) or a commerical title (which implies any fishing that occurs, occurs within a right to fish or exploit the fisheries resource).
As you will know Maori were awarded a share of the national outer water fishery (this dispersed amongst Maori after a long debate). This however is seen as separate from the more immediate and specific area in question (possibly because it involves other areas, such as commerical shell fishing). The court case which sparked the F and S legislation was over such inshore commerical ventures. This could extend to commercial fisheries in rivers. This does not involve just Maori monopoly over such ventures, but pariticpatory involvement in any such venture which other propose. Which speaks to the share of the outer water fishery which Maori received.
In the late 1850′s a court decision dismissed the Maori claim to commercial title, Maori see this decision as a parital theft of their possession of their fisheries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro
Do you believe that all New Zealanders own the coastline of our lakes, rivers and sea?
Would you support legislation to that affect?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – we have to believe it, because the Government legislated to ensure it happened.
Whether we believe it is correct or not is another matter. IMO there are instances where public interest overrides property rights .
But if property rights are to be extinguished by the State in the public interest, fair compensation should be paid to those who formerly held the property rights.
This did not happen with the Foreshore and Seabed Act – in fact they never got the opportunity in Court to assert their property rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My question related more to the lack of inclusion of the coastline of rivers and lakes … in the F and S Act.
I have some sympathy with iwi in the issue of loss of possession of their fisheries, but not so on the issue of land title. The issue here speaks to the issue of two languages of the Treaty and how vast the difference in meaning the two can be. If Maori successfully asserted their preferred version in the courts – this country as we know it, would cease to exist. While it allows them some negotiating position, to realise some justice for themsleves, if it goes too far, there is always the whirwind to reap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil if Trotters column is rubbish you’ll explain why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
how about you read it..?
and you tell me what is not ‘drivel’ about it..?
(that will take far less time/energy..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chris Trotter’s Friday column was very insightful and interesting. No doubt he stung a few Greens however by pointing out the party’s shameful approach on those issues.
For what it’s worth, I’ve written a blog post analysing the relationship between the Maori and National parties. See: ‘Why the Maori and National parties fit together’ at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/02/why-the-maori-a.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t have a problem with nationalisation per se, as long as it is in the public interest.
But the problem I have her with what Bryce and Chris Trotter are advocating, is that the Foreshore and Seabed Act amounted to nationalisation without compensation.
Nationalisation without compensation smacks of the worst excesses of totalitarian regimes – Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot were infamous for it.
What should have happened if, Government considered it was in the national interest to nationalise the foreshore and seabed, was to resource the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims to it, and, where customary property rights were established, to negotiate agreements to extinguish those property rights in return for compensation.
But, no, the Government chose to legislate over whatever property rights may have existed, and removed the legal ability for iwi to establish whether they had existed.
I believe this will go down in history as the most shameful act of the Clark Government, and one that will be a blight on race relation in this country.
Unless, of course, we can elect enough Green and Maori Party MPs to ensure that, whatever Government forms after the next election, this despicable Act is repealed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
- ” The issue you have chosen to ignore is that taxation is not discriminatory against anyone on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, family status etc.”
So non-discriminatory crime is okay? Who knew?
If I choose a house at random and pillage it, that’s okay because I’m not discriminating against anyone. A scary insight into your moral flexibility.
Can we expect lawyers to start citing the ‘toad defence’? “Yes, m’lud, my client *did* bludgeon the victim to death with exhibit A, but not because of his ethnicity, gender, sexuality or family status, because that would be wrong.”
- “Nationalisation without compensation smacks of the worst excesses of totalitarian regimes – Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot were infamous for it.”
So you are *against* the RMA, which partially nationalised all property in the country with no compensation whatsoever?
bjchip,
- “I have never allowed that the state should be permitted unrestricted rights over the individual”
No, your problem is that you think you can pick and choose which rights to recognise, in the same way that many others decide that there is no reason to respect free speech and freedom of religion.
The clue is in the word “rights”. We don’t call them privileges, because they are inaliable. The fact that you favour the suppression of property rights puts you in the same camp as others that imprison political protestors, because you choose to believe that you only have to uphold those rights you find appealing and convenient for your purpose.
Once you conclude that rights are no more than a shopping list from which you can choose, the very concept of rights disappears altogether. You are reduced to mob rule.
- “If there is no state, there are no laws. If there are no taxes, there is no state. Hide from the devil if you can.”
You are conflating taxes raised for public goods with taxes raised for redistribution by self-interested politicians to a self-interested voting majority. I have specifically been addressing the latter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldy: You presume that property rights over land mean you have sovereignty over the land. That is legally, and philosophically, incorrect.
The property rights you have are over a title – a legal document that grants you rights to do certain things on the land. You own the title, not the land itself.
The RMA therefore did not natinalise any property rights whatsoever – it simply put in place a framework to determine what could and could not be done with land (and air, rivers, seabed and foreshore for that matter).
Before the RMA there was the Town & Country Planning Act, which did the same thing – just less well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad
How does one compensate for the two versions of the Treaty difference – which speaks to the issue of land title to the coastline – foreshore and seabed?
At it’s core, there is an issue which is about sovereignty, not property rights.
What exactly is the Green objection to public domain status for the land title, or to iwi negoatiating their own arrangments with the Crown in regard to “property” rights otherwise?
The whole point of the legislation was to enable a government to iwi settlement arrangement without court involvement.
It’s all very well arguing that government should compensate through the Tribunal process – but such could not occur until the F and S legislation stopped court involment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have a question for those of you who favour NZ becoming a republic.
If we do eventually become the socialist republic of NZ would the treaty still apply? I can not see how it could given that the original treaty was an agreement between the crown and Maori.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mouldwarp
If you live in a society with other people your rights are necessarily and absolutely curtailed by theirs and their existence. If you cooperate with them to do various things you accept still more curtailment but as a group you obtain more power. I fail to see what your continued tirades about individual rights accomplish. You have nothing like what you want in any society of any country on earth because what you WANT is completely inconsistent with actually maintaining a society.
Rights – your inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… I haven’t ever seen the idea that property was to be on that list and that is probably because it is one that HAS to be supported by the state, and it exists to the degree that the state says it exists. You don’t get it from any natural law. You get it by agreeing with all your neighbours about how you will govern yourselves to guarantee it.
If you don’t see the logical inevitability that any such right and agreement is impossible to have without putting control of property rights in the hands of the government then you’re not as smart as I think you are.
I’m sorry you hate your fellow humans so much that you are unwilling to accept that any form of government gives them some say over what you do (except for a monarchy in which you are the monarch).
I favor “suppression of property rights” ? I fail to see where that is. I favor balance. I favor citizen’s having control of their government.
You are conflating taxes raised for public goods with taxes raised for redistribution by self-interested politicians to a self-interested voting majority. I have specifically been addressing the latter.
I missed that specification. I accept it if you offer it, but I didn’t see (could have missed it, long thread) it above. You simply assert that taxation is a crime. Of course we can’t pick and choose the taxes we wish to pay or the laws we wish to follow (We CAN but we must be prepared for the consequences).
You either are a citizen of the country or your are not.
BB
Wanting a constitution doesn’t leave out the possibility of retaining the monarch. I have no particular interest in whether the crown continues to be represented here or not. The nuts and bolts of how we govern ourselves isn’t much affected by the choice of a titular head-of-state.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big bro said: I have a question for those of you who favour NZ becoming a republic. If we do eventually become the socialist republic of NZ would the treaty still apply? I can not see how it could given that the original treaty was an agreement between the crown and Maori.
BB, although I think the monarch is a complete anachronism and, in principle, support a republic, you make a good point. I have long maintained that, given the Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement between the Crown and Maori, grievances that have arisen under that agreement, and the continued ability to address future grievance, must be addressed to mutual satisfaction between the parties to the Treaty before we can move towards republicanism.
Some in the Green Party disagree, and think we should move to a republic sooner, or have a referendum on it, but as Greens we tolerate a divergence of opinion.
So you won’t find any specific Green policy on whether/when New Zealand should become a republic, because this is not an issue there is a consensus withinh the Party on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What happens when those of us with with Maori blood in our veins (to a greater or lesser amount) constitute more than 50% of the population? Don’t ‘The Crown’ and ‘Tangata Whenua’ become one & the same?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is about cultural identity, samiam, rather than bloodlines.
And you can’t assume that all who identify as Maori will be united behind a particular Government (i.e the “Crown, for all practical purposes), even if they do make up 50% of the population.
History tellsus they clearly will not be – even if there were to be a Labour Party / Maori Party coalition that included most Maori and addressed Treaty issues in a genuine manner, there will still be likely to be dissenting Maori.
Constitutional reform must be agreed to by consensus through dialogue and resolution between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti, not imposed by some Government, even if it were at some stage in the future to have a majority of members who identify as Maori.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
doesint keith have a bill in the ballot at the moment proposing republicanism? though it doesint realy state the form it would take.
unfortunatly it is bloodlines as one being maori is defined by ones ability to trace ones Iwi. so many out there claim to be maori but eaither cant trace their Iwi or follow the maori culture no more than the ‘tangata whenua stick together’ kind of thing, often both. having said that there is a small number who do follow the culture and there seems to be an increasing number of pakeha individuals who take interest in the culture.
Im Maori, though i wouldint normaly claim it, im Te AtiAwa O Te Wai Pounanmu, yet my skin is whiter than most pakeha and i dont speak a word more of Te Reo than the average NZer, probaly less. i dont particupate in maori cultural activities or any such things, maybe it can all be explained by my dads racism but eaither way im as white as can be and yet since i can trace my Iwi i can claim all those benifits such as Maori only grants and scholarships, but hey, oviously i deserve it because of my blood, though, i cant even pronounce Maori to be honest
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sapient said: doesint keith have a bill in the ballot at the moment proposing republicanism? (sic)
He did, but it wasn’t Green policy, and in the run-up to the election he, and other MPs, have agreed to put only Bills that are supported by Green policy into the Member’s Bill ballot, even though the ballot rules allow MPs to put in anything they would personally like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
As to the issue of the Crown and the Maori, as per the Treaty upon becoming a republic.
All that is required is a restatement of the Crown as becoming the sovereign people of New Zealand upon our becoming a republic. It becomes a relation between the collective whole and one group of that collective.
As we New Zealanders are the only ones involved in deciding whether the Treaty is honoured, there would be no change from the stratus quo.
I suspect some Maori cite the Crown issue in the republic or not issue, so as to imply we must honour the Treaty first (gain support for honouring the Treaty from republicans). Conversely others opposed to our becoming a republic, “enjoy? the Maori tactic while having no intention of honouring the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Defining all born New Zealanders as Tangata Whenua neatly cuts a swathe through all these problems, whilst still allowing for historical claims to retain their original claimants.
The point is… If, as a born kiwi, I’m not ‘people-of-the-land’ then what the hell am I? Are some ‘more’ people of the land and some less because of “It is about cultural identity, samiam, rather than bloodlines.” Oh dear that’s sad.
Maybe it’s about bloodlines rather than cultural identity? Oh dear that’s even sadder.
When do those without the ‘correct’ blood/culture in their veins become Tangata Whenua?
How long were the Maori immigrants in NZ before they became Tangata Whenua? As soon as they stepped ashore off the seven canoes? 100 years? 10 generations perhaps?
It’s a crock.
I am born Kiwi, I am Tangata Whenua.
Eliminate Racism.
The Maori party is racist
Don’t snuggle up to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)