by frog
I thought Audrey Young’s comment about ‘strained‘ relations between the Maori Party and the Greens was an odd one yesterday. I’m sure the Maori Party never believed that it would have an uncontested run at collecting Maori people’s party votes. Or that it believes that it has any ownership over those votes. The Greens know that as well as any party, except perhaps Labour. After all in 2002 the Greens won 11,588 votes from the Maori roll or 10.7 percent of the party vote. By 2005 that had fallen to 4,458 votes or 3.3 percent.
The close parliamentary voting pattern between the two parties on a majority of common issues suggests this competition for votes has not soured an evolving political relationship.
The question that Maori voters are asking though is that if the Maori party wins 6 electorate seats (it thinks it can win seven) is it worth also giving a party vote to the Maori Party? Last election each seat in Parliament was worth about 20,000 votes. So the answer is yes, a party vote for the Maori Party can deliver another parliamentary seat but only if there are about another 140,000 votes to go with it and help it climb above the seat overhang the Maori Party is expected to have. In other words, Maori voters who are leaning towards the Maori Party would need to give 7 times as many votes to the Maori Party to get one seat in parliament as they would to the Green Party. It’s important to remember that the Green Party has voted with the Maori Party in Parliament this term more than any other party in Parliament, including supporting it on core issues like the Seabed and Foreshore.
I think it is mistaken to describe this tactical debate between the Maori Party and the Greens as either ‘war’ or ‘peevishness’ as Young does. Young is right that the Maori Party needs to grow its party vote if it is to expand it’s independence. But Maori voters also recognise this is a balancing act and that they could also potentially gain interdependent, rather than independent, political power from voting for a strong negotiating block after the election if both parties maximise their collective results.
Published in Campaign by frog on Sat, June 7th, 2008
Tags: Audrey Young, Maori Electorates, maori party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Why don’t the Maori party and the Greens combine as you have a common policy on the treaty (ie) it guarantees tino rangitiratanga. Working together you’ll be able to clarify the details which are unclear*.
* Chris Trotter suggested “a series of tribal cantons”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4392654a1861.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“……. dissolve the New Zealand state into a patchwork of independent tribal cantons?” [see link above]
Note: the Greens have an impressive line up of Titiriti experts with a lot to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good post frog..
jh..trotter is a ‘very strange’ person..
(he ‘hates vegetarians’..didn’tyaknow..?..)
..his self-indulgent ramblings are just that..
quoting/linking to him just shreds your/any argument..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maori voters who are leaning towards the Maori Party would need to give 7 times as many votes to the Maori Party to get one seat in parliament as they would to the Green Party
That, of course means that the Greens should be trying seven times harder than the Maori party to secure these votes, because the Greens need these votes at least seven times more than the Maori Party does.
To give Maori a reason to vote green, you have to tell them why they should, and if your main reason is that the Greens voted with the Maori party more than any other party in Parliament, well, that’s not good enough, really…
You have a Maori in the Green caucus. What is she doing to advance effective representation of Maori? For example, I haven’t seen any private members bills from her that effectively represent Maori at all because the rest of the Greens don’t think effectively representing Maori is a high priority.
And if that’s what the Greens think, why the hell should Maori vote Green?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil the onus is on those who shake a stick at the rest of society and say: “honor the treaty” while claiming to be well versed in all aspects to clarify what is required. They cannot reasonably maintain a moving position (open cheque) and be taken seriously.
I seriously suspect we have people who are seriously anti the status quo and would welcome some sort of internal revolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can’t be serious supporting one group of immigrants claiming to ‘own’ the foreshore & seabed over another group of immigrants!?
The only sustainable option is that it belongs to nobody.
The Maori party was formed on the back of that blatant racist land (water) grab, how can any thinking Green support that?
The Greens should be advocating for the annulment of any titles to foreshore/seabed regardless of who holds them, it’s the only fair outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH: Because part of the strength of the Maori party is that it is an independent voice and represents local-level Maori electoral concerns as well as national-level ones? Combining with the Green Party would weaken the overall position of the two parties and require Maori buying into Green principles or vice-versa- which is not necessarily the case for all voters or even all party members.
I’d have to disagree with you that it’s unclear what the treaty means. It means at least decentralised local authority and relative autonomy for Maori- or Tino Rangatiratanga. It means protections and equality equal in fact, not just in theory. It means holding our collective property in common, not the central authority confiscating it.
Samiam- “racist” land grab? Hardly. It is distrust of authority that it will allow Maori to keep their rights to traditional usage, and with good historical precedent. There was backlash, sure, but the way to deal with backlash is to stop perpetuating inequality and show you have some credibility when you try to mend bridges.
As for whether Maori ought to be defined as immigrants- that is an argument that doesn’t hold water very well. The only people you could argue as having never been immigrants would be central Africans. Maori were here before Pakeha and other more recent ethnic groups came to New Zealand, and had de facto ownership of the land, and we grossly mishandled that relationship. We should take responsibility so that we don’t perpetuate our ancestor’s mistakes and so we can truly form a society that values Maori for who they are, in the spirit of the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens support Maori on this for two reasons. First, they agree with the UN approach on indigenous rights. Second, they support the rights guaranteed by Te Tiriti.
The court ruling on foreshore and seabed was simply that Maori rights had not previously been extinguished, so a claim could be heard if they wanted to pursue it. Rather than let the law take its course, Labour legislated a 21st century ropatu and took away their rights. They claimed to be worried about f&s falling into free hold title, but the vast majority of Maori were not seeking this and it could have been protected against by amending the Maori Land Courts Act. Maori at the time said this would be fine. So why didn’t they? Think about the potential natural resources under the seabed and you’ll have a clue. The govt didn’t want to have to share any of this with Maori. Now that’s racism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Maori are right to feel aggrieved at the extinguishing their right to a court hearing, what I’m saying is the government didn’t go far enough. We need to extinguish everyones right to foreshore & seabed. Find any titles that exist and rip them all up. That’s the fair and non racist way. Further to that is the next step of very robust protection of the F&S before any customary harvesting is permitted and, lastly, before commercial operations.
Fish first, people last. Use of the F&S should be a privilege not a right. I’ve seen too many Maori taking more than they should under the guise of ‘customary’ when all they are is greedy plunderers like everyone else.
Ari, even the original (african) humans were immigrants when you look at it from the point of view of the shellfish. Shellfish, over muti millions of years, have earned the rightful ownership of F&S, we humans are recent, nasty, invaders. It’s the Greens job to protect the shellfish not the Maori.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, I understand your sentiments, but the treaty exists and Greens feel strongly about it. What you propose simply runs roughshod over those issues and therefore would also create grievances.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s easy, The treaty is between Tangata Whenua and The Crown. All born New Zealanders are Tangata Whenua. Instantly you turn a historical racial document into a broad, inclusive, blueprint for the future. Where’s the grievance in that?
I’d prefer to chop the Crown bit off, but that’s another story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“They claimed to be worried about f&s falling into free hold title, but the vast majority of Maori were not seeking this and it could have been protected against by amending the Maori Land Courts Act. Maori at the time said this would be fine.”
Yet it could be argued that under some form of official customary right we wouldn’t know the difference except that we wouldn’t see the effect that (say) a property development would have.
As a footnote to that buying into the idea that Maori have a specialised role as kaitiaki is stretching a point (and racist).
There is also the fact to consider that there would be few places (if any) where Maori didn’t in the past have some sort of presence (as Chris Trotter says) and so overtime as sort of creeping and creeping.
“So why didn’t they? Think about the potential natural resources under the seabed and you’ll have a clue.”
What exactly are we talking about here? Oil and gas?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, most likely oil and gas.
Re kaitiaki, its not that they have a special role, but simply have rights that have been extinguished. Fortunately, Maori do have a ethos of caring for the land for future generations. There are abuses of course, but they could teach the rest of a thing or two about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam, go tell it to the treaty partner and let us know if they accept.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
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 athreat 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)
==============================
Part of self determination is a human right to define your own cultural identity.
[ie it doesn't depend on how many of a certain type of ancestor you have]
But…………..
“The economic marginalisation of tangata whenua in my home town is a heartbreaking example of a failed system privileging one culture.”
[is this the culture that the individuals have (chosen to) define for themselves? Is the failed system the capitalist system? Do we have another *system* or do we adapt the system as we go along?]
‘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 athreat to anyone’.
[The Solicitor General didn't think so (if that's what we are referring to)]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>we can lead the world
I do wish people would stop using this ridiculous phrase….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
valis Says:
“Fortunately, Maori do have a ethos of caring for the land for future generations. There are abuses of course, but they could teach the rest of us a thing or two about it.”
…………..
The Chinese peasants were noted for the same and I suspect where ever you look you’ll find that people who manage land in situations were they get feedback from year to year and only localised resources to use, will use it sustainably.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, its so much easier to snuff out people’s aspirations if we just realise how insignificant we are and keep in our place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fiji is the best example of what is being proposed I think and during the coup Indians got turfed off and even murdered (?).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>snuff out people’s aspirations
It’s called being in touch with reality.
How much of a lead does New Zealand take from Antigua?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
how about a song..?
“we can lead the world..
..if we only knew..
we can lead the world..
..if only we knew what to do..”
(suggested chorus..?..)
let’s wheel out dave dobbyn..and the rest of the usual suspects..
..have them all waving/pointing aimlessly..
..while belting out the chorus..
(i’m sure key would be up for a cameo..
..he’s the political version of ‘will turn up for the opening of an envelope’..
..how about norman and key..together..?
..staring towards the future..?)
(first verse..)
‘we’re adrift on a darkening sea..
all of us..you and me..
no -one has a clue what to do..
we just know that what is now..
will no longer be..
(chorus:..)
our politicians just rearrange the deckchairs..
fools and charlatans all…
braying donkeys wearing blinkers..
playing their games..
as we go to the wall..
(chorus:..)
our future’s looking grim..
this many of us can see..
and this is certainly not the time..
to fall back on ..
‘what will be..will be..’
(chorus:..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Lead the world” is nationalist dribble.
Who gives a toss about what the rest of the world thinks? They’re not listening, and neither should we care less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
aww..!!..sad-peter..
you’re not getting into the spirit of this ditty ..are you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, it is indeed a touching song. It will unify New Zealand and show the world we are true leaders, and they will follow us. And Dave Dobbyn. Or something….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)