Blaming no 8th Maori seat on Immigration

February 7th, 2007 at 9:34 am by David Farrar

People will have seen that last week Tariana Turia rather ungraciously blamed the failure to get an 8th Maori seat on Immigration.

Now apart from the fact we need immigration to replace our own citizens leaving for overseas, Turia is also wrong on the facts.

You see the number of immigrants in NZ does not affect how many Maori seats there will be – only the number of immigrants in the South Island. Because it is the South Island general electoral population which is used to calculate the number of seats in the North Island and Maori seats.

Around 83% of immigrants live in the North Island. A mere 17% settle south.

From 2001 to 2005 there were 430,000 new residents. Just 75,205 settled in the South Island. But 60,653 South Islanders left for overseas so net migration only added 15,000 people to the South Island electoral population.

Now in 2001 the SI general electoral population was 868,289, and divided by 16 seats is a quota of 54,268. The Maori electoral population was 371,765 and divided by the quota gives 6.85 seats – rounded to seven.

In 2005 SI general electoral population was 920,747, and divided by 16 seats is a quota of 57,547. The Maori electoral population was 416,700 and divided by the quota gives 7.25 seats – also rounded to seven. So first thing to note is the number of seats sort of did increase from 6.85 to 7.25 – but rounding meant no physical increase.

Now what if we take 15,000 net migration away from the SI population. That is around 915,000 SI electoral population which is a quota of 56,563. The Maori EP divided by this is 416,700/56,563 which is 7.37.

Hence even if there had been no net migration into the South Island, Maori would not have gained an eighth seat. Turia is wrong with her blame.

No tag for this post.

45 Responses to “Blaming no 8th Maori seat on Immigration”

  1. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    Wouldn’t you also need to factor in NI->SI and SI->NI transfers to get the complete picture?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Farrar () says:

    Graeme – yes. But as unlike the former South Africa we don’t have internal passports that information is very hard to get. The final census data may have some info on internal movements.

    The more non-Maori NI residents who move to the SI, the less Maori seats there will be!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rochelle () says:

    Hi

    I’m filming a documentary on Dads who look after their children during the working week and wondered if this applied to you and if you’d be interested in participating? I have previously made a documentary on recollections of first kisses which I would be happy to show you.

    Cheers
    Rochelle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rochelle () says:

    Hi

    I’m filming a documentary on Dads who look after their children during the working week and wondered if this applied to you and if you’d be interested in participating? I have previously made a documentary on recollections of first kisses which I would be happy to show you.

    Cheers
    Rochelle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wayne mapp () says:

    If the trend continues for the next census and option, it looks like 8 Maori seats for the 2011 election. The increase this time was from 6.85 to 7.25 (0.40 of a seat). Another 0.25 gets the eighth seat. It is almost entirely up to Maori if they will actually get the eighth seat. The level of migration woild have to be very large to push the necessay gain out beyond 0.40 of a seat.

    wayne mapp

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rochelle () says:

    Hi

    Apologies – I realise I mistook a comment that someone else had made (about being a Stay at Home parent) as posted by you. Also I apologise for posting a million times – it kept on coming up as error. My friend James has since informed me it does that. Could you please take them off!

    Cheers
    Rochelle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Farrar () says:

    Wayne – yes I agree 2011 census should see an 8th Maori seat. However it won’t be calculated in time for 2011 election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nicholas O'Kane () says:

    Its good David that you posted this, so we can see clearly what the Maori party thinks of immigration. Personally I think its time to abolish the Maori seats- now and not in 2014. To start with they are undemocratic as if people really want Maori in parliament they should vote them in, not have special seats to get them in. Second they are rascist and discriminate based on race. The sooner the Maori seats are abolished the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. nigel201065 () says:

    Just for my own intrest David were there many on the Maori roll who made the decission to go back onto the general roll this time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Errol () says:

    Just for my own intrest David were there many on the Maori roll who made the decission to go back onto the general roll this time?

    I’m not David, but I discussed details back in August at
    http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/2006/08/mori_option.php
    (I’m only an occasional contributer to this blog.)

    Full details are at
    http://www.elections.org.nz/maori-option-results.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SPC () says:

    The 58% of Maori registered on the Maori roll of a c700,000 total Maori population gives a 417,000 total “electoral area” population for the Maori seats.

    The trend is probably towards 66% being enrolled on Maori seats and going to 20% of the total population. This would mean about 13.3% of the total number of electorate seats (9 of 70 onto 11 of 80 as the total population rises).

    Where Turia is correct is that is that immigration could reduce the number of Maori seats relative to the total number of electorate seats.

    1 million Maori would be 25% of 4 million but only 20% of 5 million.

    Thats the real point she was trying to make, about Maori participation levels in our/their government.

    Some Pakeha are reacting to this by opposing Maori seats continuing, because of a fear of some collective “Maori” empowerment.

    In my opinion, it would make more sense to have all Maori voting in the Maori seats, so that these MP’s represented all Maori rather than some, also to have these Maori also vote in the local electorate – so that these MP’s represented all their constituents. Besides one would imagine that many Maori on the general roll contact Maori MP’s and many on the Maori roll contact the local electorate MP’s on relevant issues.

    This would not impact on the non Maori, as final seat allocation is ultimately decided by the party list vote.

    The only problem would be how to find an acceptable compromise on electorate seat numbers if one had this mixed voting system for Maori.

    IMO, 10% of the total number of seats is that compromise (given Maori will be 20% of the population and they were voting on both rolls) The status quo is 7 of 70. Eventually it would be 8 of 80 (about which time we will have to review the “120” seat MMP allocation).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Nicholas O'Kane () says:

    “it would make more sense to have all Maori voting in the Maori seats, so that these MP’s represented all Maori rather than some, also to have these Maori also vote in the local electorate – so that these MP’s represented all their constituents” A more sensible solution would be to abolish these racist seats now so then constituent MPs can represent everyone in their constituent and all voters can be treated identically.
    “This would not impact on the non Maori, as final seat allocation is ultimately decided by the party list vote.” Sorry, but electorate seats do have a important impact on the final seat total through overhangs (expect to see more of these as we get more electorate and fewer list MPs) and allowing parties to avoid the 5% threshold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. SPC () says:

    If one wants to make each election about what policy Labour and National have on the Maori seats – sure, one should propose to abolish the Maori seats while Maori oppose this. The number of Maori, is rising towards 20% of the population – it will eventually be 20% of the voting age population. It’s more astute to develop a compromise which takes the heat out of the issue. This would be better for both New Zealand and the political party.

    There is not a direct link between number of electorate seats and the overhang issue. This is more a balance of representation issue.

    Overhang only occurs when a party wins more electorate seats than their voter share would award in party list seats. The existence of the Maori seats allows a Maori Party to win seats while receiving less than 5% of the vote, but all it would take for there to have been no overhang in 2005 – would have been for either the Greens or NZFirst to have finished below 5% (or ACT to have lost Epsom).

    The overhang only occurs when all serious parties get a return to parliament. 2005 was more likely the rare exception and overhang is not likely to be commonplace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fred () says:

    I guess SA was different….

    Racially selected seats?

    Let’s pretend it isn’t happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. partyAnimal () says:

    Should give those seats to muslims,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC () says:

    Doh. There were no racially selected seats in SA, as only whites could vote.

    Perhaps some should bother to do some thinking about the difference between an indigenous with a Treaty right (and choice whetehr to vote on a Maori roll or not) and compulsory race separatism.

    The arguements being used here show a lack of understanding between positive and negative discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. SPC () says:

    Doh. There were no racially selected seats in SA, as only whites could vote.

    Perhaps some should bother to do some thinking about the difference between an indigenous people with a Treaty right (and choice whether to vote on a Maori roll or not) and compulsory race separatism.

    Some of the arguements being used here show a lack of understanding of the difference between positive and negative discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fred () says:

    Bwaaaaaah…

    Doh….100% white racially selected seats that are not racially selected?

    NZ…one of the last bastions of electoral racial selectivity.
    Is Fiji like us or better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC () says:

    Fred

    Are you trying to say there is a link between allowing Maori to vote and choose where they vote and people not being able to vote at all in South Africa?

    DF has a thread about dumb posts – I nominate yours for this week.

    1. No one is being disciminated against in there being the right to CHOOSE to vote on a roll or not.

    2. There is no foreign criticism of our Maori seats – partly because of this right of choice and also because they are of an indigenous peoples continuing status under the Treaty.

    3. Have you heard of Swiss cantons? Is that selective? Next you will be arguing that there is area discrimination by having separate electorate seats …

    4. I guess you raise Fiji coz the SA black rain technique is so phony, and even you know it’s nonsense.

    In the end you come out of the closet and admit you don’t like it when “uppity indigenous peoples” have too much say in government (ignoring the defence of some of white Europe’s right/responsibility to keep immigrants in their place – see Investigate on line for Wishart on theme and the new Moslem hordes from the south and East).

    When Maori have too much say in our government you will be able to read all about it in Investigate.

    Allowing Maori a fair go, in settlements and continuing Maori seats will probably mean a benign political future. They realise they have to continue living here with us as a minority in their own country. There is nothing to fear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Richard () says:

    No one is being disciminated against in there being the right to CHOOSE to vote on a roll or not.

    Last time I checked, I couldn’t legally choose to be on the Maori roll (because I’m not Maori). So someone is being discriminated against – on the basis of race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. SPC () says:

    Next people will be complaining that they cannot vote in church elections, because they are not Christian. Or they cannot vote in certain electorates, because they cannot afford the rents there.

    People ALL vote in elections.

    The Maori seats are a legacy of the Treaty and are of an indigenous peoples claim under that Treaty. If people see themselves as “victims” for not being born Maori, they can blame their ancestors for coming here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ABE () says:

    Why is Key going soft on this anyway – the policy should be to get rid of them now, not 10 years time. At least Brash had the guts to be bold!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Oliver () says:

    SPC,

    Sometimes the best outcome for a group is what seems counter-intuitive.

    Barrack Obama is the only black elected politician in the US to have a shit-show of aiming for really high office. Why, he learnt how to appeal to all people in his electoral area (half a state, there are two senators per state) not just a closed off group. Black members of congress have without exception all being elected from the so-called ‘black seats’. While not enshrined in law these seats are so gerrymandered that for all intents and purposes they are the black US equivalent of Maori seats. The members of congress for these seats are the most leftwing members of the Democratic party. The reason for this is that democrats always win these seats so the vote that counts is not the election ut the primary, only the most active and most leftwing members of the Democratic Party bother to vote in the primary. The upshot of this is that these Members of Congress owe their place more to the most far out elements of the party and the most active interest groups than they do to the general voter. The other consequence of this is that members of congress from other areas can do all sorts of things to the disadvantage of blacks at little cost.

    In NZ if all those Maori voters were spread amongst general electorates then every electorate MP would have to pay due care to the Maori vote and thus Maori would be better represented. Those Maori MPs that were elected in general seats would be better trained at dealing with the broadest possible cross-section of society and would be more likely to reach high-office.

    A final question, which Maori MP has reached the highest rank in Parliament and which seat did they stand in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC () says:

    Because National needs coalition partners to govern?

    And anyhow, can any one party abolish the Maori seats/change the electoral system?

    Does this not require a certain level of parliamentary majority or a referendum or both?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. M Hunt () says:

    Maori aren’t indigenous. They’re the descendants of settlers, like every other native New Zealander.

    The Treaty of Waitangi doesn’t give Maori any special rights in a democracy as far as I know, although I’d love to be corrected. And I really don’t see any special rights for indigenous people in government. I wouldn’t go to wherever my European ancestors were from and expect special representation.

    The Maori seats are racist, and there shouldn’t be racism in a representative democracy. The only reason I’m not out protesting them now is that they are mostly benign–Maori seats represent the same number of voters as general seats, and their only effect on Parliament is being gimme seats for Labour or putting the Maori Party in Parliament.

    The Maori electorates were created because Maori were generally barred from voting by property requirements. Non-Maori usually owned title on land, and Maori mostly had communal ownership. Until 1976 some people were required to vote in Maori electorates and the number of Maori electorates was fixed at four. For most of their history the seats have been used to partly disenfranchise Maori. It wasn’t until 1996 that Maori electorates were made to be the same size as general electorates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. SPC () says:

    Oliver, I agree with a lot of what you wrote about the gerrymandering of the Congressional districts.

    But the “black people” issue would not be an issue, if so many blacks were not in the lower income groups of US society and trapped in disadvantaged neighbourhoods/districts. The problem is that the US is a successful dream society. They celebrate wealth with tax cuts, they ignore those struggling to access health care or to realise a viable aspiration living in their neighbourhoods – as if this is alien to “their America”. They even have materialist blessing Christianity, which implies those not successful are unworthy of it. As Tapu Misa pointed out in the Herald this week – an “underclass” has overtones of lack of moral standing.

    I also agree that there are advantages to Maori having a full role in the general electorates.

    But I also see the value of a visible recognition of their Treaty status/indigenous people status, which the Maori seats provide.
    This is why I suggested they ALL be allowed to vote in both.

    “In my opinion, it would make more sense to have all Maori voting in the Maori seats, so that these MP’s represented all Maori rather than some, also to have these Maori also vote in the local electorate – so that these MP’s represented all their constituents. Besides one would imagine that many Maori on the general roll contact Maori MP’s and many on the Maori roll contact the local electorate MP’s on relevant issues.

    This would not impact on the non Maori, as final seat allocation is ultimately decided by the party list vote.

    The only problem would be how to find an acceptable compromise on electorate seat numbers, if one had this mixed voting system for Maori.

    IMO, 10% of the total number of seats is that compromise (given Maori will be 20% of the population and they were voting on both rolls) The status quo is 7 of 70. Eventually it would be 8 of 80 (about which time we will have to review the “120” seat MMP allocation).”

    So in some ways I do agree with you. Maori should recognise the value of such a compromise sufficiently to reduce their aspiration for greater Maori seat numbers, to have a greater presence in general seats. But if all Maori also voted in the Maori seats, they would reflect the full and total Maori voice more credibly.

    “Those Maori MPs that were elected in general seats would be better trained at dealing with the broadest possible cross-section of society and would be more likely to reach high-office.”

    Yes. If there were 7 Maori electorate MP’s and
    7 general electorate MP’s who were Maori and 7 other Maori MP’s on the lists (list parties without seats) that would reflect the fact Maori were such a share of the population (it will be c20% in the 2016 census – now 16-17%).

    “A final question, which Maori MP has reached the highest rank in Parliament and which seat did they stand in?”

    Is this a trick question? WP was deputy PM while MP for Tauranga. But is that a parliamentary office?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC () says:

    M Hunt

    “IF” Maori are not indigenous, then no people is anywhere in the world.

    They are regarded as such officially in New Zealand and have such status with other indigenous groups around the world and at the UN.

    MH “The Treaty of Waitangi doesn’t give Maori any special rights in a democracy as far as I know, although I’d love to be corrected.”

    They were promised continuing chieftainship – self government (even in the English version of the Treaty).

    “And I really don’t see any special rights for indigenous people in government.”

    In North America there are areas where the indigenous peoples continuing astatus as a people is recognised. Here we anexed Maori Land (and now offer token compensation) and ended their chieftainship.

    “The Maori electorates were created because Maori were generally barred from voting by property requirements.”

    So you think it was coincidental that they had no seats until they were dispossessed of their land and their chieftainship? Incorporating Maori into our parliamentary rule system, only occured because we had ended their chieftainship and this was required to to legitimise parliamentary rule over Maori/all New Zealand.

    Tacitly the Maori seats recognised their status under the Treaty. Pakeha did this because it was a means to partially disenfranchise Maori. Maori no longer disenfranchised, now celebrate the Maori seats as their particpation in their self government, as a continuance of their lost chieftainship. They had this chieftainship recognised in the Treaty because of their indigenous people status.

    Maori might exchange Maori seats for a restoration of self government on iwi land, if we gave it all back. Somehow I doubt we will make them that offer. Maori seats are the price Pakeha pay for taking too much of their land for too long and offering only token compensation 100 years later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nichlemn () says:

    Why does every measure need to be a compromise? Should the civil rights bills in the US have been compromised to avoid friction, so for instance, approximately half of the (educated, wealthier) blacks were able to vote? It may be may be more controversial, but sometimes you might have to go the whole way rather than be left with some toned-down discrimination.

    There would be a greater case for retaining the Maori seats if Maori had remained largely as they were in 1840, in the traditional tribal lifestyle. However, with many Maori having very little connection with iwi and live similarly to “Paheka”, it becomes more of a “bonus”. It’s aristocratic in a way: an inheritance of a voting privelege due to the ancestry of one or more of your parents.

    Now, at this point you may claim that Maori, with higher representation in negative statistics, also suffer from the “inheritance” of poor attributes (either less opportunities through less affluent parents, or bad examples). This is almostly certainly the case, but that fact does make it exclusive to Maori: lack of mobility exists everywhere, although has improved significantly in the last century. There are “Pakeha” families which have been poor for generations, and most of the members will likely remain poor. Maori (and other identifiable groups) may have more of such problems, but the Maori seats fill a very different purpose to improving equality of opportunity for everybody.

    The final problem is thinking ahead to how the Maori seats could work in centuries to come. Hundreds of years in the future, it’s possible that the vast majority of the NZ’s non-first generation immigrant population could have some Maori ancestry. So if 90% of the population could be on the Maori roll… it just becomes discrimination against immigrants. How would you draw the line? Use a blood quorum? Whoever calls themselves Maori gets to use it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nichlemn () says:

    Why does every measure need to be a compromise? Should the civil rights bills in the US have been compromised to avoid friction, so for instance, approximately half of the (educated, wealthier) blacks were able to vote? It may be may be more controversial, but sometimes you might have to go the whole way rather than be left with some toned-down discrimination.

    There would be a greater case for retaining the Maori seats if Maori had remained largely as they were in 1840, in the traditional tribal lifestyle. However, with many Maori having very little connection with iwi and live similarly to “Paheka”, it becomes more of a “bonus”. It’s aristocratic in a way: an inheritance of a voting privelege due to the ancestry of one or more of your parents.

    Now, at this point you may claim that Maori, with higher representation in negative statistics, also suffer from the “inheritance” of poor attributes (either less opportunities through less affluent parents, or bad examples). This is almostly certainly the case, but that fact does make it exclusive to Maori: lack of mobility exists everywhere, although has improved significantly in the last century. There are “Pakeha” families which have been poor for generations, and most of the members will likely remain poor. Maori (and other identifiable groups) may have more of such problems, but the Maori seats fill a very different purpose to improving equality of opportunity for everybody.

    The final problem is thinking ahead to how the Maori seats could work in centuries to come. Hundreds of years in the future, it’s possible that the vast majority of the NZ’s non-first generation immigrant population could have some Maori ancestry. So if 90% of the population could be on the Maori roll… it just becomes discrimination against immigrants. How would you draw the line? Use a blood quorum? Whoever calls themselves Maori gets to use it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. SPC () says:

    The Maori are claiming that the seats are part of their Treaty rights.

    Any compromise is over how this Treaty right claim, to participation in their self government, is manifest.

    I don’t think anyone is claiming these seats are there as vehicles for redressing any “ethnic disadvantage”.

    If the majority of New Zealanders had Maori ancestry, they might not feel any need to have the seats. A decision for Maori to make then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nichlemn () says:

    Where does it say anything about permanent seperate Parliamentary representation for Maori in the Treaty?

    They were created as a measure to compensate for a quirk in the property qualifications. That’s all.

    Since that is no longer relevant, the question to keep Maori seats must be on their worth today.

    The Maori academics, iwi and the radical sovereigntists make up a minority of Maori. Yes a majority likely definitely want to keep the seats, but doubtfully for any great separatist reasons. I believe it’s more to with the removal of them seeming “anti-Maori”, rather than any great attachment to their “heritage”. They are not so seperate from “mainstream society” that racial visibility is necessary. And nor need it be. Maori leaders would much rather there be many differences between Maori and others: you can’t have identity politics without something to distinguish for identity.

    The number one beef I have with the Maori seats is that it is something you’re born into – an added option due to an accident of birth. The mention of ethnic disadvantage is brought up because that’s a likely counterargument (and yes, has been used to justify Maori seats) claiming that say, non-Maori are born with their own “silver spoons” in the positive statistics that are “inherited”. Personally I dislike group identity overall, especially “inherited” ones. It leads to unnecessary conflict over imagined or needlessly kept differences, as a result of peoples’ need to feel a part of “something”. “We are Maori”, “We are New Zealanders”… both attempts to give the image of homogenuity so we can all feel better about the various achievements and problems “we” face.

    A “decision for Maori to make” is problematic: this is along the lines of requiring the monarchy to decide whether the monarchy should continue. I highly doubt any group would vote to reduce their own enfranchisment.

    I’m sure the Maori Party and Maori leaders would be horrified to find that Maori no longer exist for all intents and purposes due to there being so many with Maori blood that can vote on “Maori issues”. Particularly if iwi and other Maori interests still operated. How does one clutch to a separate identity when the lines become blurred onto what that is? How can Maori be promised cheiftanship if most people are a bit Maori? Having it a decision that most people could make would not sell with the “identifying” Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC () says:

    The Maori were promised chieftainship in the Treaty (English version – the Maori version is said to suggest to some that their independent sovereignty was not extinguished).

    If one understood this chieftainship as part of their property right, because it was a promise of continuing status as an independent people in this land (their land), then their “inheritance” of this right has more meaning to some.

    It’s not just a small section of Maori opposing an end to the Maori seats – if it were, National would adopt the Labour position and promote a referendum amongst Maori.

    “So you (also) think it was coincidental that they had no seats until they were dispossessed of their land and their (associated) chieftainship?

    Incorporating Maori into our parliamentary rule system, only occured because we had ended their chieftainship and this was required to to legitimise parliamentary rule over Maori/all New Zealand.

    Tacitly the Maori seats recognised their status under the Treaty. Pakeha did this because it was a means to partially disenfranchise Maori. Maori no longer disenfranchised, now celebrate the Maori seats as their particpation in their self government, as a continuance of their lost chieftainship. They had this chieftainship recognised in the Treaty because of their indigenous people status.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. SPC () says:

    A Treaty does not end with a generation of Maori. A status as an indigenous people does not end over a few generations. An inheritance from ones ancestors does not diminish because of the generations of subsequent inter-marriage.

    We don’t even have estate taxes in this country, yet want Maori to forgo their inheritance – lose their separate people status/assimilate because that was then and this is now?

    And yes I realise few vote to give away their birthright. But some do. And ours includes our unique founding by a Treaty. Which some would vote away because they don’t want Maori to inherit their’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. SPC () says:

    As for the Maori seats – I simply note that they were established ONLY when Maori “self government” on their own iwi land had been rendered impossible by defeat in the Land Wars. It was a recognition of conquest and assimilation of Maori (a betrayal of the Maori Treaty right to self government). The succession of events is hardly a coincidence, but part of the dynamic of the flow of events -our history.

    If one is annex the land of others and incorporate them into one’s government system and yet then does so in a way which allows for their continuance as a “separate people” – one is recognising their separate people status. And this is of their self government right in the Treaty. That Pakeha fulfilled this conquest/betrayal of the full self government/chieftainship promise in the token award of a limited number of seats, was par for the course in those times. But this does partial disenfranchisement of Maori (promoted as because of their different land tenure and which did not end when the property test was extinguished soon afterward) does not change the fact that even these Pakeha recognised that separate people status. That they did so for their own empowerment over Maori is obvious. That Maori now find value in that separate people recognition being continued is also obvious.

    The problem for National, is that possession of their lands and continuing chieftainship were both promised to Maori. Token compensation for the land theft, does not extinguish the right to a continuing chieftainship. The Maori seats are the only viable vehicle for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Craig Ranapia () says:

    SPC:

    That’s pure junk history – but I’ll let the Elections website take it from here.

    QUOTE
    New Zealand’s 1853 electoral franchise was theoretically ‘colour-blind’. But in reality very few Maori could qualify under the property requirement because they possessed their lands communally (as iwi, hapu or whanau groups) and not under individual freehold or leasehold title like Europeans. In 1859 the British Crown Law office confirmed that Maori could not vote unless they had individual title granted by the Crown.

    European colonists generally welcomed this state of affairs, because they did not think Maori were yet ‘civilised’ enough to exercise such an important responsibility. They were also worried that if large numbers of Maori were enrolled, they could ‘swamp’ the votes of settlers in many North Island electorates.

    In any case, in the 1850s and 1860s few Maori were interested in the ‘Pakeha Parliament’ – they preferred to deal directly with the Governor (and the Queen) or, like the Kingitanga movement, create their own political structures.

    During the wars of the early 1860s, however, some European politicians argued that it was vital to assimilate Maori into the political mainstream to ensure lasting peace between the two races. They were also keen to reward those Maori tribes who had fought alongside the Crown.
    Maori Representation

    After much debate, in 1867 Parliament agreed to set up four electorates specifically for Maori. This solution was similar to the ‘special representation’ introduced for gold miners earlier that decade.

    To avoid difficulties with property ownership, all Maori men over 21 were eligible to vote (and stand for Parliament).

    The small number of Maori who owned individual freehold land were still allowed to vote in the European electorates. This ‘dual vote’ would survive until 1893.

    On the other hand, four seats was a fairly modest concession: on a per capita basis at that time, Maori deserved 14 to 16 members (Europeans then had 72). In addition, the arrangement was to be temporary, lasting only five years. Most politicians expected that in due course Maori would own or rent land as individuals and the seats could be done away with.
    END QUOTE

    Please go to http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/maori-vote.html and keep reading. I think anyone with anything resembling an open mind will find it rather ironic – and massively self-interested – that this relic of Victorian paternalism is what the MP believes can take Maori forward into the 21st century.

    I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, SPC, but Maori aren’t Te Borg on any subject. We didn’t curl up and drop dead like good noble savages. And the world didn’t end when New Xealand decided you didn’t have to be a Protestant landowner with a penis to responsibly exercise the franchise. (And here’s something else to think about: An all-male Parliament passed allowing womens suffrage, not a referendum of women – which might not have been such a bad thing, considering some of the most passionate and vocal opponents were… women.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SPC () says:

    Craig

    I don’t expect Maori to believe the official history as written by those who won the Land Wars. I am not Maori, but I know what history written by the victors of a war is.

    The same people, who developed that account of events, were ripping off Maori and their courts were legitimising it.

    The fact is, that when land title for voting was done away with, the Maori seats still continued to exist. This extinguished any claim that they only existed because of collective land title amongst Maori. It showed that the official reason for them, was the lie that it was.

    You say that the Maori who favoured Pakeha in the Land Wars were “rewarded” with Maori seats – exactly how when all Maori were treated equally – all partially disenfranchised with the small seat allocation?

    How are Maori who support National/Pakeha getting rid of Maori seats going to be rewarded (finishing off the job of elminating Maori chieftainship/ guaranteed participation in their self government)? By believing that progress is assimilation and forgoing Treaty rights? Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC () says:

    As for the “spin” that Treaty rights were Victorian “paternalism” – are you for real?

    Recognition of an existing independence and of an equality for Treaty purposes and the guarantee of continuing chieftainship and possession of their property is not “paternalism”.

    As for claiming that men gave women the vote when many women opposed this. Are you serious? The campaign was women led and it’s award by the male parliament was a confused affair (the outcome was not what some intended).

    And are claiming to believe that Pakeha men know what’s best for others – women and Maori?

    craig “the 1850s and 1860s few Maori were interested in the ‘Pakeha Parliament’ – they preferred to deal directly with the Governor (and the Queen) or, like the Kingitanga movement, create their own”

    Of course they did, they were then protecting their own separate people status and chieftainship – as was awarded them in the Treaty.

    “During the wars of the early 1860s, however, some European politicians argued that it was vital to assimilate Maori into the political mainstream to ensure lasting peace between the two races.”

    They took Maori Land (where there had been self government, continuing chieftainship)and to assimilate the conquered people into their parliamentary over-rule of all New Zealand they gave them a few token seats. It was annexation and without equality in the democratic governance. But by resorting using the Maori seats to partially disenfranchise Maori, they left a means for continuing Maori particpation in their government. Something Maori have held onto ever since as a remnant of their Treaty right. However much of a token insult it was at first to a defeated people.

    “I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, SPC, but Maori aren’t Te Borg on any subject.”

    And there was I, a Pakeha, disagreeing with National policy as many other Pakeha also do. Do you really think by saying that some Maori disagree with others, there is not a clear majority of Maori supporting retention of the Maori seats? I would go so far to say that am majority of the 42% of Maori on the General Roll support the retention of those seats.

    “We didn’t curl up and drop dead like good noble savages.”

    Some Pakeha did not bother to revisit the Maori seat issue because they thought Maori would die out.

    Later the roll option was used to split Maori amongst both and thus enable continuing with 4 Maori seats (The race based Maori test was becoming embarrasing, particularly with the tradition of Maori being partially disenfranchised in these seats)

    “And the world didn’t end when New Xealand decided you didn’t have to be a Protestant landowner with a penis to responsibly exercise the franchise.”

    So why abandon Maori seats, how would the world end with their continuance, when that is what most Maori choose?

    I wonder if someone could confirm what sort of process would be required to abolish the Maori seats. How realistic or unrealistic is National Party policy? What sort of parliamentary majority would they need to promote change of our electoral system in this matter – and would a referendum be required to establish popular consent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fred () says:

    Twist and turn in the wind for all to see, SPC…you do a better job on yourself than your tormentors

    A seat reserved for a particular race is a racially selected seat.
    The Sith Erficans will recognise the concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. SPC () says:

    Gee Fred, let me guess, you are unable to actually debate this with any credible arguement.

    No one in the world outside this country draws any link between the situation in South Africa in the 1960′s and 21st Century New Zealand.
    That indicates how ridiculous your arguement is.

    You simply expect that most Pakeha would simply race vote against Maori Treaty rights as an act of protection of Pakeha privilege. Of course those of such prejudice will find all sorts of spurious reasons (most they can barely articulate in public) for this.

    The fact remains that Pakeha have inherited the land stolen from Maori and use the majority of their race in parliament to remain in possession of their stolen property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. SPC () says:

    And Fred as you have insinuated that my position has changed in some way in this debate, perhaps you could suggest where and when and how? It’s the cheapest of ad hominem’s to put down without puting up any evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fred () says:

    The facts destroy you.
    Maori seats…….are what, not Maori seats perhaps?
    Another dirty little bit of de facto race privilege in NZ.
    I’d milk it for all it’s worth while you can bro, because the in denial majority that allows it to happen eventually won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. SPC () says:

    Like you know of some (facts)?

    1. You cannot even cite anyone outside of New Zealand who supports your racist seats talk back radio sound bite case.
    2. An inheritance of a Treaty award, like an inheritance of property, is not racist.

    Dishonouring Treaty committments to Maori and then claiming that their doing so is part of some Pakeha fight against racism is truly cynical. Next you will be claiming that the continaution of iwi is racist because those not members by descent from Maori cannot join in and receive some benefit from the token settlements. You probably don’t even realise that your arguement is socialist – taking that others (iwi land) for the common collective (the now not so land/property poor Pakeha). Taking the remnant of Maori self government/chieftainship and taking it into the collective – where opposition to Pakeha first government can be marginalised/silenced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fred () says:

    Talk back authorities?….my,my.

    I understand your embarrassment arguing for the selection of MPs by racially selected electors……stick with it, you must eventually see the problem.

    You can argue that racially based electoral rolls for some seats are ok if you want, but you can’t argue they’re not racially based or that the electoral system isn’t therefore racist.

    There’s a smart kelpie nodding here, how did you go?

    Oh yeah, “twisting and turning in the wind” is a reference to a hanged man.
    Probably on his own petard.
    You missed that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. SPC () says:

    Keep searching for anyone in the wider world, without a vested interest, to agree with your arguement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fred () says:

    You mean among young students? ;-)

    Lefty racists like SPC eventually have to choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.