Herald rollercoaster continues

Polls, eh. 44%, how did that happen? The Herald’s latest digipoll gives added credence to the accepted political wisdom that whatever disease Labour has caught it appears to be terminal, and if you want to say goodbye you better push your way up to the bedside now. Of course, that diagnosis continues to rely far too heavily on First Past the Post thinking because the other thing the poll shows is that if people are sick of Labour and looking for change they’ve got more than one option in front of them.

A Labour Party that was saved from oblivion because by Greens and the Maori Party would need to be very different in nature to the current Dunne and Peters supported Labour government that seems to have lost its health so badly in the last few years. Likewise National, which obviously wants to govern desperately, would be kicking itself after the election if it fell just short because failed to do enough to court this potential Maori-Green bloc of seats. It too would need to be very different from its very recent Hollow Men, iwi-kiwi, climate change denying past.

26 Comments Posted

  1. jh, I have tried to answer, but has been held for moderation. No doubt my reply will eventually appear, as I haven’t abused anyone in it, but may have used a word that’s been caught by the filters.

  2. Well, here’s the most obvious example, jh, blogged about by frog just a couple of days ago.

    Not that it doesn’t have its problems, including the overriding of State law that would have genuinely addressed climate change by a Federal agency supposedly charged with addressing environmental protection.

    And the bizarre Presidential election system under which States have their own diverse rules, and demarcation disputes between Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

    But it is one model, that to some degree, works.

    I don’t think it is up to me or the Green Party to put up a model of what we see as the ideal constitutional arrangements here. Such a model should be developed through dialogue and by consensus, among and between both Maori and non-Maori. It requires a proper, and no doubt lengthy, evolution, not someone like me playing smartarse by claiming I know what is in the best interests of everyone.

  3. Give me some examples Toad. Do you propose separate regions or two authorities over one region (you belong to A or B)? It sounds like a Great Leap Backwards.

  4. jh said: tino rangitiratanga (territorial power and control) ie NZ as a series of tribal cantons.

    Well, that could be one model. A federal constitutional arrangement works well in some parts of the world.

    But many other constitutional arrangements are possible. The concept of sovereignty doesn’t have to be unitary. That is the difficulty with the current constitutional arrangements – they assume that because the Crown currently has sovereignty no-one else can simultaneously have sovereignty.

  5. ‘Us and Them’ may have existed back then but as time and sexual intercourse work their merry mayhem ‘us and them’ must eventually become just ‘us’.
    That is the best outcome for all and the Greens should be working towards that outcome, not away.
    I acquired the right to be here by birth, not by treaty. If, as a born New Zealander I’m not Tangata Whenua, then what am I? Is a maori born in Sydney more Tangata Whenua than a Chinese born in Eltham? I hope not.
    By the way, how dare our forebears write up a treaty that didn’t contain a sunset clause e.g. this version of this treaty will become null and void in 100 years at which time a new version will be drawn up. How could they then, or we today speak for those who follow 1, 2 or 300 years in the future.
    A living society must evolve.
    Stick to green, not racist issues and watch the poll % rocket.

  6. Toad says:

    “It did not suddenly create “one people”, but conferred upon Maori the rights held by British citizens.”

    and tino rangitiratanga (territorial power and control) ie NZ as a series of tribal cantons.

  7. jh asked: Frog is the Green Party opposed to genealogical research?

    I think this 27/04/07 media release from Keith Locke sums it up pretty well jh. It doesn’t appear on the Green website (seems someone may have slipped up in that regard), but managed to locate it in my email archive.

    Greens, United Future jointly oppose limits on births, deaths information

    Green Party MP Keith Locke and United Future leader Hon Peter Dunne today presented to Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker a joint letter outlining their concerns about the restrictions contained in the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill, which will impose major limits on the work of journalists, genealogists and historians.

    “We have serious concerns that by restricting access to individuals, their immediate family members and those authorized by them, this Bill will impede legitimate public research. In particular, the legislation would have severe implications for those researching their whakapapa.

    “We believe it is essential for registered information regarding births, deaths, marriages and relationships to remain open to the public.

    “While we recognize identity theft is of concern, we believe that this can be countered by using measures that maintain our fundamental values, and that recognise our right to access information. We note that since 2003, the incidence of identity fraud has decreased each year from 43 cases in 2003 to 8 in 2006.

    “To meet identity fraud concerns, those accessing records for research purposes could be issued copies in a different format, clearly marked to be for research purposes only. Applicants could also be required to supply their name and address so that, should identity theft subsequently occur, a record would exist of who has accessed the information.

    “Our future support for this Bill will be contingent on amendments that ensure the continuation of open access to those important public records,? the MPs conclude.

  8. toad Says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    “That still doesn’t justify abrogating property rights or the right to a fair judicial hearing to attempt to establish such rights.”

    Except that (as Chris Trotter says):

    “For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?

    And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else??

  9. samiam said: Toad you ask me not to redefine Te Reo and that it’s up to them to do that. You see that’s the problem: Us and Them.

    The difficulty with your approach, samiam, is that te Tiriti was between an “Us” and a “Them” – the two parties being Governor Hobson on behalf of the British Crown and Maori rangatira on behalf of their hapu.

    It did not suddenly create “one people”, but conferred upon Maori the rights held by British citizens.

    It did not abrogate pre-existing Maori property rights or other customary rights to the Crown. To the contrary, it affirmed those rights.

  10. What we are talking about in this thread is the statement ‘Maori-Green block’ and I, for one, won’t have it.
    Toad you ask me not to redefine Te Reo and that it’s up to them to do that. You see that’s the problem: Us and Them. There is no us and them, I won’t have two classes of Kiwi based on race. The Maori party is set up on that premise, it’s wrong!
    Look at all born kiwis as Tangata Whenua and all Tangata Whenua as having the same rights under the treaty and you will have the blueprint for a far more harmonious future for us all.
    Secondly a language that has rigid definitions with no change of meaning is a dead language (aka latin). If Te Reo Maori has a future in the modern world it will inevitably blend with the languages it comes across. That’s good.
    It’s interesting to take the word ‘Taboo’ and the word ‘Tapu’ as a word that has made the journey around the world from it’s asian roots, via completely different routes, and has come together in NZ to be spelt differently but is still virtually identical.
    By the way, I asked this before but got no debate…
    When the original polynesian colonists arrived they can’t have been ‘Tangata Whenua’ by the modern definition. So how long did it take for them to become locals or people of the land? 100 years? 500 years? 1 generation? 10 generations? So when do the ‘white trash, yellow trash etc’ earn the right to dine at the brown table?
    Again I say, I won’t have it. It’s racist, it’s wrong and no good can come of it.
    Fight for the rights of the fish, not the Maori.
    Either that or go join the other party.

  11. We generally think of the Treaty as an agreement between Maori and the Crown; agreement is a debatable concept under the circumstances. The negotiators on the British side had an impossible task. How could they get the chiefs to sign without maintaining tino rangitiratanga, (knowing colonisation was proceeding)?. The Treaty has never been fully honoured and never will be. People need to get real and move on.
    Some people maintain the view that Maori “let us come here”. That is true up to a point but it takes a while to get over ancient enmities. In addition there were gold rushes, and, you only have to sell once. Available foods limited the population size.
    The present strategy of standing tall is to try to dominate Pakeha.

  12. No problem with Michael King (as quoted by you above) on this issue jh. Agree that Pakeha culture has become indigenous.

    That still doesn’t justify abrogating property rights or the right to a fair judicial hearing to attempt to establish such rights.

    Somehow, I’m not even sure we are talking about the same thing on this thread???

  13. Michael King refers to “tuakana or senior sibling”. What’s troubling is an interpretation which may be taken as meaning something like the people in whose territory you stand. The Green party policy is about as radical as you can get without attracting the ninja police.

    “In the new edition of Being Pakeha, I go on to say that, as another indication of how far Pakeha culture has become indigenous, it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree.

    In saying this, and in saying what preceded this, I am in no way taking anything away from the position of Maori as tangata whenua, the nation’s First Culture. Maori were, are and will remain the tuakana or senior sibling in our whanau relationship with the land, with each other, and with the outside world. They remain the people who, by virtue of being here first, signed with the Crown a treaty that is still recognised as having moral and judicial force.

    http://sof.wellington.net.nz/origins.htm

  14. I have a lot of respect for Chris Trotter’s views on many issues, but not on this one. And like him, I have a socialist outlook on many issues.

    If the State wants to take someone’s house to build a motorway, they pay compensation. So why is it okay that if they want to take someone’s beach or river or swamp or forest, and the “someone” happens to be a Maori hapu, they just do it by legislation rather than negotiation and with payment of compensation?

    Confiscation of property rights without appropriate compensation is not socialist, it is simply unfair and totalitarian (BB, where are you when I need you? Surely you’d agree with me on this one).

  15. “As a Pakeha New Zealander, it’s not up to me to define the term. It can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.”

    The context is in relation to those who do not have any ancestral line to the first settlers (non Maori). The difference is pure technicallity.

    “Do you think you have a right to wander over someone’s farm without asking them first? Why is a beach somehow different?”

    Your comparing a dairy farm or pig farm with Sumner Beach?

    As Chris Trotter said:

    “For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?

    And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?”
    :mrgreen:

  16. Oh, and samiam, please don’t try to redefine Te Reo Maori – we’ve had enough strife in this country as a legacy of colonialism without that. Accept how Maori define “tangata whenua” in its various contexts – it is their language, not ours. I’ve given my best shot at interpreting what it means to them, but am open to correction. It’s their language, not ours.

  17. samiam: You miss the point. What the Foreshore and Seabed Act did was to remove the right of people who claimed that the foreshore and/or sebed belonged to them to ever have a judicial determination of whether it actually did. Instead, it vested all of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, regardless of who may have actually had ownership rights previously.

    Hmm, actually, it was worse than that, because it discriminated agaisnt Maori. Port companies etc who had established property rights over foreshore and/or seabed were unaffected by the Act -the only ones affected were Maori who were attempting, through lawful judicial process, to establish their ownership.

  18. jh, by the way, and without knowing the particular circumstances you relate, if Navaho have retained customary ownership of the beach, they have every right to seek permission for people to walk on it.

    Do you think you have a right to wander over someone’s farm without asking them first? Why is a beach somehow different?

  19. jh said: Define “tangata whenua? Toad. ps Some people told me yesterday, that when they were in Canada they wandered on to a beach to be accosted by some Navaho, and told they had to ask before they walked onto their beach.

    As a Pakeha New Zealander, it’s not up to me to define the term. It can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.

    My understanding, in the context I used it, is it means those people who have customary property rights and tino rangatiratanga (soveriegnty) under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a particular rohe.

    It can also mean, in a tikanga context, “people of the marae” – as opposed to “visitors to the marae” (manuhiri). Where you stand and sit and when you speak and waiata is determined in this context. In this context, and the one above, Maori, sa well as tangata tiriti (non-Maori) are often manuhiri, rather than tangata whenua.

    It can also mean “Maori” – tangata whenua, as opposed to tangata tiriti (those who have acquired the right to live in this country through Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

    But, as I say above, it is not my place as a Pakeha New Zealander to to define it, because it is not a term derived from Pakeha or tangata tiriti culture. I am just relating my understanding of how Maori themselves use the term, and am open to correction.

  20. “In this two-part essay, I will examine how this postmodernist left has provided philosophical arguments for Hindutva’s claim that Vedas are “just another name” for modern science. As we will see, postmodernist attacks on objective and universal knowledge have played straight into Hindu nationalist slogan of all perspectives being equally true – within their own context and at their own level. The result is the loud – but false – claims of finding a tradition of empirical science in the spiritual teachings of the Vedas and Vedanta….[etc, but y’ know what I mean]

    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=45

    😉

  21. Best Answer= samian.

    Define “tangata whenua” Toad.

    ps Some people told me yesterday, that when they were in Canada they wandered on to a beach to be accosted by some Navaho, and told they had to ask before they walked onto their beach.

  22. You can’t confiscate what never belonged to anybody. It does not belong to anybody, it never will belong to anybody. You cannot (claim to) own the unownable. What theForeshore and Seabed Act did wrong was to not extinguish all titles in the tidal zone no matter who they pertained to
    Further I see the shellfish etc as the ones with the customary rights and I thought the Green party would be the first to take that stand. The (racist) Maori party thinks it all ‘belongs to’ a small sector of society.
    Please don’t hyphenate the greens with the browns, different agendas, despite some commonality on a few issues.
    Tangata Whenua = all born New Zealanders.

  23. Yes, IMO, to the extent that hapu should not have had their right to have the Courts determine whether they did, in their own rohe, have property rights over foreshore and seabed extinguished by legislation. That legislative action amounts to confiscation.

    In some rohe, the slogan is correct, because the Foreshore and Seabed Act extinguished the property rights they would otherwise have been able to establish.

    In others, tangata whenua property rights would have been extingusihed before the Foreshore and Seabed Act as a consequence of other legislation or the decision of tangata whenua to not exercise their customary rights re the foreshore and seabed in their rohe.

Comments are closed.