More race based seats called for
This is one of the reasons why I have concerns over the Maori seats – the precedent it creates for other races to demand race based seats. We see this with the Waitakere Pacific Board calling for Pacific Island seats to be created on all Auckland Councils.
I see the strength of NZ is that we have so many races, and have lots of inter-race marriages so more and more Kiwis have some Maori blood, some PI blood, some Chinese blood etc etc. The US is a great example of how diverse racial backgrounds can create a strong country with an African American candidate for President, an Indian American Governor, Asian American Cabinet Ministers etc etc.
But they never have special seats for Americans of one particular race or bloodline. That is divisive.
I reject this statement especially:
Board chairman Taha Fasi said Islanders were lucky enough to have more than half of voters in Manukau City wards like Otara and Mangere, but the present system would never enable them to be voted become councillors in Waitakere.
“It does not matter how good our policies would be … at the end of the day the majority of voters are mainstream Pakeha and race is always an unseen and unsaid deciding factor,” Mr Fasi said.
This is a shameful view of fellow New Zealanders. The good folks of Wairarapa elected a Maori transsexual as their MP because they thought she was the best candidate. Gisborne and Dunedin have had Asian Mayors. Maori are actually over-represented in Parliament compared to their proportion of the adult population. Auckland City has a Pacific Island Councillor etc etc.
This shameful view seems to be shared by some in Labour:
The Pacific sector council of the Labour Party said Maori, Pacific and Asian communities ought to be represented at all levels of local decision-making through a mix of elected and appointed members.
But why stop there. Should South Africans get their own seats once they make up 1% of the population? And let us not lump all Asians in together. Chinese and Indians should have their own seperate seats. And hell the Scots hate being lumped in with the filthy English, so seperate electoral rolls for them also.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Very well then, you’ve convinced me. I’ll take the Irish seat in Parliament in October. First jobs are the overthrow of the Monarchy and free stout for anyone in possession of an Irish passport.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
This is just silly. By Taha Fasi’s own argument it would appear that it would be almost impossible to get a Chinese or Korean counsellor elected in Otara and Mangere. Do we then need to have Asian seats just for asians? And isn’t it equally as racist to lump all asians in together without recognising their different ethnic backgrounds? So then we would need Chinese seats, Korean seats, Vietnamese seats, Indonesian seats and Malaysian seats etc. I also notice that he lumps all ‘europeans’ in together as if we are all the same because our skin is the same colour. But 9th generation Scottish settlers are quite different from Polish or Russian immigrants that only arrived here yesterday. And who can even begin to understand South Africans?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:24 am
What a marvellous suggestion, David.
Indeed, as one of the larger and most populous counties in England, I would say New Zealand probably has as many people of Yorkshire descent as Maori.
Therefore, I look forward to council seats reserved for Yorkshiremen and women.
Cockneys should have their share too.
And the Irish.
And the Dalmations/Croats.
And the South Africans on the North Shore.
We mustn’t forget the Asians, but do we split them into Chinese, Koreans, others or what?
Oh yes, and there may well be enough for a muslim councillor or two in Sandrabad and Roskillistan.
And if we bring religion into it, then the Exclusive Bretheren can probably claim seats too.
Any other groups I have missed?
But if local government spends so much time sorting out its ethnic and religious quotas, there maybe no time for the councillors to do much damage.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Separate Maori seats are based on indigenity. PIs, asians and people with ginger hair are are not indigenous so there is no need for seperate representation. DPF states there are no seperate seats in the US. Yet they have majority/minority districts in the US specifically set up to maximise the number of blacks in an electorate to provide for such representation, to increase the number and visibility of blacks in congress.
We don’t have that here. We have Maori seats instead.
[DPF: That is a ridicolous comparison between geographic seats and race based seats. Politicians in the US draw up their boundaries and they are not allowed to draw them up in such a way to disadvantage minorities (say by dividing up a community which is 80% black into three seats where they will all be a minority rather than keep them together). That is totally different to having seperate electoral rolls where you choose which race to register as, and only people of that race can vote.
And you ignore the point I made. Pacific Islanders are not indigenous. So do you or do you not support their call for seperate seats?]
June 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ok, 85% of the seats MUST be allocated to people of Western Eurpean descent. At least 2 must be Shetland Islanders.
Maori are NOT indigenous. They’ve come from somewhere lese jsut the same as everone else. Taiwan in their case.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
thank you dave, it appears DPF is just out blowing the dog whistles today.
[DPF: I have always wondered how stupid someone has to be that they can not debate an issue intelligently, and instead just label someone a dog whistler, rather than actually argue on the merits of a proposal]
June 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
This is more insanity from the left. Which means it will probably be law soon.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Maori are NOT indigenous. They’ve come from somewhere else
Where? the moon?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Therefore, I look forward to council seats reserved for Yorkshiremen and women.”
You’re having a laugh, aren’t you? Those miserable bastards don’t deserve the vote, never mind seats in Parliament…:-)
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
TAIWAN Read numbnuts.
Juses David is the asshole filter set to wide open today or something?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I’m an English, Irish, Scottish and Japanese Ginger… I think I deserve something special too.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
It is garbage to look at the maori seats as race based seats and then make a whole lot of shrill remarks about having other race based seats. Maori have a special constitutional position in the Country as a treaty Partner. The seats guarantee representation in the General Assembly. Without them there is no guarantee the other treaty partner would be represented in the Parliament. If you do away with the seats then there should be a separate assembly for Maori in my view. Keep them where they are and stop all the silly talk about racism.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Tim, Maori seats are NOT based on the Treaty.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Counseling Mike?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Everyone in this country is an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.
No one was here in 1180.
Some came here in 1280, some in 1680, some in 1980 and some in 2008. Voting rights based on when your forebears arrived here is ridiculous
Also Maori were never Treaty partners they were parties to a Treaty. Common mistake . Get it right.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I want a seat for mixed blood Scottish and Italian. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever represented us.
The tax on Ferraris and haggis is putting us at a distinct disadvantage, and this institutional racism shall not continue!
June 6th, 2008 at 11:51 am
… at the end of the day the majority of voters are mainstream Pakeha and race is always an unseen and unsaid deciding factor,” Mr Fasi said.
I think this is the real problem…not that their aren’t PI etc interested in politics just that there seems to be a culture that doesn’t get out and vote. Maybe if more “ethnic minorities” voted then there would be more “ethnic minority” representatives.
One needs only to look at the number of people voting in the US democrat race to see how things can change, with the physical number of voters up, one would hope from women and african americans voting who have not voted before
June 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Maori are NOT indigenous. They’ve come from somewhere lese jsut the same as everyone else. Taiwan
Yeah I read a report on that, , except they came from China first. Shall we have Chinese seats now then? Winston Peters would like that, being part Chinese Maori…
The same BBC report found the Maori population carry unusual genetic codes which protect them against alcohol addiction. heh. Seen Winston when he’s pissed?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I thought the idea was to have fewer seats in Parliament; not more.
With this carry on we would need to double Parliament to ensure every group can be catered for.
An even worse alternative (as Israel has found) is not to have a threshold for proportionality therefore potentially a myriad of minor (ethnic/religious/racially based) parties joustling for coalition.
So, reflecting DPF’s concern, it’s interesting to read the recent essay by Philip Joseph “The Maori Seats in Parliament” arguing reasons for removal of the dedicated Maori seats …being “a form of reverse discrimination and a symbol of racial separatism” which has been of little/no benefit to Maori….moreover, given the possibility for an increased over-hang this election it “has the potential to thwart proportionality and the expressed will of the people”.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Exactly. Mandatory seat allocation is no substitute for active voter participation.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
It’s coz them browns are lazy fuckers aye boys? If they got off their dole bludging asses they’d get more representation…
[DPF: And once agains you show an inability to actually intelligently debate the issues, but instead try to cast those who disagree with you as racists. Do you enjoy havign such a sense of superiority that you don't need to even try debating the issue? Why don;t you actually offer an opinion on whether you support PI seats on Auckland Councils, and if so why?]
June 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Thanks for that very subtle playing of the race brick david.
As a representative of the part brown peoples, cram it whitey.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Really? You want to hold up the US as a symbol of racial harmony? Really?
[DPF: I did not claim they were harmonious. But you have Americans of very diverse races being elected to senior political roles, which is good]
June 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“The good folks of Wairarapa elected a Maori transsexual as their MP because they thought she was the best candidate. ”
Really? The rest of the candidates must have been piss poor then.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I am not a South African. I was born there, raised there, but I was told by the government that I don’t belong there, so I left. I would like a seat reserved for my kith and kin, but I’m from South Africa, and I don’t think that that system worked out too well.
However, the Māori were parties to the Treaty with the Crown whereby New Zealand was established as a nation in which the rule of law protects all its inhabitants. The Treaty gave Māori certain expectations which were not always met in practice, but most significantly did implicitly recognise their status as tangata whenua- which is why they, but not me, have separate seats, as a means of ensuring that their voice is heard. Abolishing that may well have implications for the rule of law- getting rid of seats because they vote for the other side is not good democratic practice; it happened in South Africa when non-white seats were removed, and the idea rings unpleasant bells for me.
As the electoral population of a Māori seat is roughly equivalent to that of a general seat, I don’t think that Māori get a disproportionate strength from the seats. I can see an effect being possible under a FPP system but would be interested in seeing an analysis of election results should the Māori vote have been subsumed into the general vote under MMP.
Is this an issue on which perhaps National is simply flogging a dead horse? Apart from the “it is apartheid” argument [it isn't- apartheid disenfranchised the tangata whenua of South Africa, it did not make them central players] what is the objection to a special system of representation for the tangata whenua alone?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“It’s coz them browns are lazy fuckers aye boys? If they got off their dole bludging asses they’d get more representation…”
This is a bit rich coming from a whitey who obviously fancies himself the saviour of minorities. Martin Luther King you are not, david c.
(Anyone want to guess what the ‘c’ stands for?)
June 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Are we allowed to say cunt without mentioning Britney Spears David?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
dave – one small problem I have with you identifying Maori as “indigenous” is this: if the kiore rat arrived at the same time as the Maori migration, does this mean that the rat is “indigenous” too? Why therefore is the rat not allowed on Kapiti Island wildlife sanctuary etc etc – if they are an indigenous species? Or are there different applications of “indigenity” – to suit the purpose of whoever is claiming the fact?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
And theres the kill shot.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
” “It does not matter how good our policies would be … at the end of the day the majority of voters are mainstream Pakeha and race is always an unseen and unsaid deciding factor,” Mr Fasi said.
This is a shameful view of fellow New Zealanders. The good folks of Wairarapa elected a Maori transsexual as their MP because they thought she was the best candidate. Gisborne and Dunedin have had Asian Mayors. Maori are actually over-represented in Parliament compared to their proportion of the adult population. Auckland City has a Pacific Island Councillor etc etc.”
Interesting that DPF talks about how easy it is for minorities to achieve representation, and how they are in fact overrepresented in local and central government. The example he cites, Georgina Beyer, was a Labour candidate. In, fact this diversity in representation has only been achieved by the active promotion of minority candidates within parties of the left-centre-left, whereas the centre-right parties like National (and its local body client Citizens & Ratepayers) have both numerically and proportionally far less candidates from a minority background.
It certainly doesn’t help attract ethnic voters when the rhetoric machine goes into overdrive saying that minorities are “overrepresented” in government (civil service, parliament etc.), or appealing to the fears of “mainstream New Zealanders”.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@DPF:Politicians….. are not allowed to draw [boundaries] up in such a way to disadvantage minorities
You mean to draw them up in such a way to provide an advantage to minorities? Well, yes they are, provided that minority is indigenous. “In the US [minority representation] is achieved by drawing special minority/majority districts that maximise the number of blacks in a congressional district.”
You ignore the point I made. Pacific Islanders are not indigenous. So do you or do you not support their call for separate seats? Given that I did make the point that PIs were not indigenous, no I don’t.
[DPF: But you again miss a key point. There is no law which mandates how the boundaries are done. In fact it it pretty much up to each state so Justice Dept policy has little effect. And the Supreme Court has struck down boundaries where race is the predominant factor.]
June 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I think the example of the maori transexual is exactly what the new zealand system of government should be, a representation of the views of the voters, not the ‘view’ of the representative (what he/she looks like).
And yet this seems to have become more about who got here first, rather then who gets representation….
It is arguements like that that will see my 22 year old Graduate self along with a huge number of my young graduate friends leave NZ for more enlightened shores
June 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
The good folks of Wairarapa elected a Maori transsexual as their MP because they thought she was the best candidate
Of course, when the alternative was Paul Henry I suspect most people would elect a bar of soap.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
david c – I think it’s a well known fact that voter registration and turnout are low from our Maori and PI communities. If this is of concern to you why not get out there and help make a change… rather than yell sarcastically about what you think others might think the problem is.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
3-coil: dave – one small problem I have with you identifying Maori as “indigenous” is this: if the kiore rat arrived at the same time as the Maori migration, does this mean that the rat is “indigenous” too? Why therefore is the rat not allowed on Kapiti Island wildlife sanctuary etc etc – if they are an indigenous species? Or are there different applications of “indigenity” – to suit the purpose of whoever is claiming the fact?
Just in case anybody missed 3-coil comparing Maori to a species of rat.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@DPF:There is no law which mandates how the boundaries are done. In fact it it pretty much up to each state so Justice Dept policy has little effect
Apart from the fact that it is a 1982 amendment to the 1965 Voting Rights legislation that created the minority districts. Apart from the fact that US Justice Department policy has actively encouraged the boundaries since the 1982 law change to allow for such boundaries. As a result of these policies, the number of such districts have increased. So, despite the autonomy of each state in the role of minority districts, it is not true to state that justice policy has no effect. The courts have also backed the Justice Dept’s policies.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Interesting someone has mentioned Martin Luther King. Remember that he said wanted “his children to not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
Demanding seats based on skin colour is exactly what he was against.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Oh get over yourself chrissy.
He did no such thing. The rats were brought by Maori, they have the same claim to status in these islands, one claims all kinds of indigenous rights and the other is targeted for exclusion because its an exotic.
Any more race bricks to be plated by those who can’t debate?
Except en masse.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
this diversity in representation has only been achieved by the active promotion of minority candidates within parties of the left-centre-left, whereas the centre-right parties like National (and its local body client Citizens & Ratepayers) have both numerically and proportionally far less candidates from a minority background.
Ummmm… have you SEEN the C&R councillors lately? They’re all the colours of the rainbow! Whereas I challenge you to find anybody other than whitey on the City Vision slate last year.
Oh, and kids, ignore the troll with the Pope-slagging website.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I love it.
It is essential that the Waitakere Pacific Board are encouraged in their wish for more racially based seats in local government.
Once they have their racially based seats then we must campaign for the myriad of other races.
Then, and only then, will people say;
“This is bloody ridiculous. Get rid of all racially based seats and let common sense prevail.”
I saw too much of racially based elections when working in Marico County, western Transvaal.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Tres amusement that you all have assumed I’m white.
No I do not support PI seats on the board. I support PIs being on the board – but not enforced.
I do however support Maori seats – compulsorily so.
Nor am I a champion of the minorites, I’m what I like to call ‘tolerant’ and ‘fair’.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
No no, I thought he was comparing Moriori to birds.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
You’re what we like to call a race card playing dick.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Strangely enough I’m not actually opposed to race-based seats. Nor gender-based seats, or faith-based seats, or seats based on whether people can wiggle their ears or not. They are no less silly than basing representation exclusively on geography.
What I AM opposed to is not being able to change the seat you enrol in. I would love to be enrolled in Epsom, for example, because it means that Rodney Hide would be my MP instead of Helen Clark. People want to be represented by people who are more like them. If that means Maori or PI seats, so be it – as long as everyone can choose.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
BlairM: I would love to be enrolled in Epsom, for example, because it means that Rodney Hide would be my MP instead of Helen Clark.
I’m in the same boat. So who is standing for ACT in Mt Albert?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Sorry Murray, just can’t quite get my head around what he’s trying to get across to me.
Is he saying he wants proportional representation for rodents? Specialised rat seats to compete with Winston peters? No? Then what the fuck do rats have to do with the issue at hand?
In case you haven’t noticed Kiore are rats, Maori are people. Indigenous or not, trying to apply the same set of rules across mice and men is ridiculous.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I’m enjoying this “Maori aren’t native” dispute.
It’s cute.
I mean if you wanted to follow this to its natural conclusion, no continent barring Africa has “natives”.
So why don’t we all shut the f*ck up and accept, Maori are New Zealand’s natives.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Theres a lot you can’t seem to get your head around chris. Your lack of comprehension isn’t my problem.
I’m a fucking New Zealand native david. Shut the fuck up and accept it.
Either that or tell me at which particular point do people cease to be “colonials, settlers and foriegn” and transition into “indigenous”.
Give you answer in terms of years less that 800 because thats all you’ve got to work with.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
getstaffed:
Maybe if more “ethnic minorities” voted then there would be more “ethnic minority” representatives.
Exactly. Mandatory seat allocation is no substitute for active voter participation.”
Couldn’t agree with you more. It was reported in yesterday’s DomPost that 49,641 voters (1 in 5 of whom are Maori) have been removed from the electoral roles (7,352 from the Maori roll)…
June 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Pascal – much as I’d like to it’s unfortunately not going to be me. I’ve got something significant happening right bang smack in the middle of October that can’t be avoided, which would make me a poor choice.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Yeah the VRWC retreat, should be a real party.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Murray – Ancestors on my father’s side family trace their arrival back to 1841, and on my mother’s side to 1852. Tracing back thru my 62 parents/grandparents/great-grandparents/etc I know that 56 were born in NZ, 4 where born in the UK, and two are unknown. Yes, I’m a NZ native.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
We need Prime’s advertising agency on the case:
District council seeks councillors — all applicants considered, even from Pacific Islanders.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Surely any form of participation in anything based on race is racist and should be stopped, in the same way as things sexist have been stopped (except for boys not being allowed to join brownies or guides).
When there is the slightest possibility that a statement by someone can be viewed by activist Maori as racist they scream and shout. Yet they fight to preserve the most visible and public racism in New Zealand – The Maori Seats.
One New Zealand Citizen = one vote for parliamentary representation. Lets do away with constituencies altogether (the list shows they do not constitute an either or and so equate to a bob-each-way-bet for many). Let the parties pay an appropriate fee to be on the ballot, and let every citizen (and NO ONE ELSE) have a ballot. Do away with a minimum percentage to get a seat, just round everything down to integers and leave it at that. Then we may see a Maori party with seat(s), a chinese party with seat(s) (there’s nothing stopping them from forming that party now,) and even possibly a McGillicuddy seriously folks party with seat(s). This way we have democracy in a true form, real proportional representation of the popular vote, and EVERY vote counting, and everyone having one-citizen one vote equality.
Any problems with that folks?
June 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
ChrisS – my question re kiore/Maori arrival in NZ was: why are Maori considered “indigenous” (by some) while the rat that arrived at the same time is not? If you do think the kiore rat is indigenous, feel free to try letting a few loose in an NZ wildlife sanctuary – warning: DOC may not share your interpretation of “indigenous”.
Fisiani (11:45am) makes the point clearly – we are all immigrants to NZ, we just arrived at different times than others. Getting here first does not make any people (or animal) qualify as indigenous – if it did, we would have “indigenous” examples of every “exotic” species in the land.
I know it may be difficult for some to give up the exclusive tag of “indigenous” for Maori, but the term is applied inconsistently and incorrectly.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I don’t think so – someone more eco-savvy than me feel free to correct me, but I think that might illustrate the difference between the terms “native” and “Indigenous”. Ie, birds such as fantails are native to New Zealand & Australia, but the Kiwi is indigenous to New Zealand.
Indigenous means something that was the earliest inhabitant of its kind, so yes, Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, there was no-one here before them (except maybe some Celts & vikings, but we won’t push that in this comment…)
See above, because they’re not indigenous (3rd most numerous kind of rat in the world), and even if they were, they’re not endangered & they eat the birds. That’s my take on it anyway.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
llew: when the kiore rat arrived in NZ, they were “the earliest inhabitants of its kind” (there were no other rats here before them). Following your line of reasoning, that makes them indigenous.
I disagree. When the Brits arrived with a few sheep – they (the sheep!) were the first of their kind, but it doesn’t make them indigenous.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“I’m what I like to call ‘tolerant’ and ‘fair’.”
Always always always the worst kind of bigot and fuckwit..
June 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
My definition is wrong 3-Coil – try this instead
The term indigenous peoples can be used to describe any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection. – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
Maori are associated solely with New Zealand, Kiore Rats are far more widespread.
I know you’re going to come back & say that Maori came from somewhere & so are not indigenous to New Zealand, but I don’t think you can make a serious case that they’re Taiwanese.
But the bottom line for your rat analogy is as I said – they eat the others, & they’re not endangered, that’s why they’re excluded from wild life sanctuaries, not because they’re being denied their indigenuity (is that a word?
June 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
PS did the maori introduce the pitbull terrier, at the same time as the native rat,was this the eating native dog
ps how tasty was the pitbull terrier ,after mauling kids???
June 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
WTF?
They’re “native” to America. That’s why they’re called American Pit Bull terriers.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
On the new they are called pitbulls ,native mostly to maori ,dog of choice, of maori gang members, need i say more
June 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
You could probably say less & no-one would protest.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
cc_vince says:
And therein lies the flaw in Mr Fasi’s self-serving argument. Since by his own admission PI voters make up more than half the voters in some wards then if Polynesians block voted for PI candidates (or indeed voted in sufficient numbers) in many wards they’d achieve Mr Fasi’s objective of increasing the number of PI councillors.
So either:
a) PI voters aren’t voting in sufficient numbers for PI candidates, which they’re perfectly entitled to do; or
b) PI voters aren’t voting in sufficient numbers period, which again they’re entitled to do.
Regardless of the reason, it’s a failure of the candidates and/or community leaders like Mr Fasi to motivate their support base in sufficient numbers, not any racism on the part of other voters.
Reduced to it’s core, Mr Fasi’s claim amounts to “We can’t be bothered to get off our asses and vote, so just give us the election anyway”. How do these people, with not even a crumb of understanding about the deomcratic process, get themselves elected spokespeople for their communities?!
Oh, of course… hardly anyone bothered to vote.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Maori were here when Europeans arrived and the Crown of England negotiated a treaty with much like the one the Normans negotiated with the “Saxon” warlords and for similar reasons.
IN recent times the UN tried to deal with the issue of indigenous peoples who are not “first arrivals” but are peoples (normally tribal societies) who elect to remain outside of the mainstream culture and economy – there are genuine indigenous people in New Guinea and South America and even in the north islands of Japan.
In this sense the Amish of the US are indigenous people if you like. The problem is what responsibilities to government have to these people. Can government force them to be educated or force them to attend health centres and so on.
Maori are not outside of mainstream society. Their complaint is normally that they do not participate sufficiently and do not have the same outcomes as Non Maori.
So when the UN debates the rights of indigenous peoples these debates have virtually nothing to do with Maori unless one day a group of Maori elect to go and live on some remote island or form an inland island and pay no taxes and receive no benefits.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
If you mean the news media… they have no idea what a pitbull terrier is anyway – they use the term because it evokes menace, but their pitbulls usually turn out to be English or Staffordshire bull terriers (or some unspecified cross breed). And in the most misleading cases, mastifs or rottweilers.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Have i abused you IIew, (do you own a native pitbull)???? dont be nasty, or your pitbull could express itself John
June 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I’m not being nasty JSF. I DO have a bit of a niggle with the media blaming lovely pit bull terriers for things they usually haven’t done, but hey, we don’t really expect the media to get things right do we?
But no, I don’t have a pitbull.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
IIew, i hope your pitbull dosnt express its anal glands on you,it (STINKS), Be polite with your posts, as im not;
and a american pitbull anal glands still stinks, IIew
PS lets not talk dogs as im owned by three,the nz pitbull is native to the NZ maori,(no one else is as STUPID around kids with killer dogs)
June 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Maori as a treaty partner have a special constitutional position in this country and the maori seats which guarantee representation are an important part of that. They do not set a precedent at all for other races. It is a matter for maori whether they want the seats to continue and if not what other alternatives they seek. They have this right as a treaty partner under the Treaty of Waitangi and there is nothing anyone can do about that. It is the one issue I strongly disagree with Don Brash who argues the case in narrow racist terms. I would defy the National Party whip over this.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Great to see racism is alive and well in New Zealand.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
good comment D4J and i stand by my posts
June 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
TB is typical of the linguistically confused.
Let me be patently clear. Claiming or as is usually the case, declaring, that Maori are Treaty partners, is a historical fallacy and stems from judicial activism saying for the first time that the relationship was ” akin to partnership” . Maori were parties to the Treaty. A Party is not the the same as a Partner.
Pushing Partnership shows a clear agenda and bias to giving Maori disproportiate power not ceded by the Treaty
June 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Tim Barclay said it is a matter for maori whether they want the seats to continue and if not what other alternatives they seek. They have this right as a treaty partner under the Treaty of Waitangi
As I said before, that’s complete rubbish.
The Treaty DOES NOT guarantee Maori seats, it has nothing to do with the Maori seats. Maori seats occurred 27 years after the Treaty was signed, based on indigenity as reflected in the 1867 Maori representation Act. Both Maori and non Maori are signatory Treaty parties but neither may assert any political rights under it. Even “active protection” under the Treaty does not extend to political representation.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I know y’all don’t like ME much, but does anyone else find JSF2008 truly disgusting?
JSF2008 (195) –3 Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
IIew, i hope your pitbull dosnt express its anal glands on you,it (STINKS), Be polite with your posts, as im not;
and a american pitbull anal glands still stinks, IIew
PS lets not talk dogs as im owned by three,the nz pitbull is native to the NZ maori,(no one else is as STUPID around kids with killer dogs)
June 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
ARE you truly stupid RRM, who else in the majority owns KILLER DOGS, and why do you sound or post like a fuckwit, i train dogs to do dod sports, in my own way, and RRM why do i have to post at your pathic level , if i am disgustingWHO GIVES A SHIT my grand daughter is playing with my three american cockers, RRM TOSSSIER ps why do they hate you tossier are you a arsehole
train your dogs
June 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
opps my editing was to slow , but shit i have been owned by a few dogs(a lot) with love, BUT WHO WOULD WANT A CHILD KILLER OTHER THAN A TOTAL FUCKWIT(A FUCKWIT)RRM you turn killer lover
June 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The Maori seats were introduced because at that time the franchise was available only to property owning males and the governors of the time recognised that very few Maori owned land in personal private title.
Once the property requirement was removed the Maori seats should have been removed too.
And once MMP was introduced they definitely should have been removed – indeed that was the recommendation of the Commission.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
OPPs PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Pc pit bulls only savage and kill with love IT WAS THE KIDS FAULT ,LOVE THE MAORI CULTURE, RED NOSE PITBULL love maori IDIOTS nice killers,idiot lovers
pitbulls were on the first canoe, PC PC PC PC who else without a brain owns them put your hands up i,diots RRM maybe its a innocient post as a multiable dog owner
June 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
mr Farrar have a great weekend.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I’ll have a double shot of whatever JSF’s been having, please.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Have a good weekend everyone, and love your family and pets and RRM the world isnt going to end and CE you dont want to know what im on. come back next week fired up to impress mr farrar and remember Mr Farrar iam disappointed with demerites JOHN
good blogg
June 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
The flaw in this debate is that we are conflating the local government system in Auckland with the central government system.
MMP by it’s very nature encourages parties to seek candidates representative of all the larger minority communities within New Zealand. It is obvious that if a particular etrhnic community comprises about 3% or more of the population then it is the interests of any serious party to attempt to reach out to that community in order to maximise their party vote under the MMP system. This is why we see MP’s on both sides of the house from minority ethnic communities – Pansy Wong and Su’a William Sio are just two examples.
Now I am not for a moment suggesting that either of these MP’s would not have found their way into parliament through their own abilities, but rather that MMP is conducive to parties reaching out beyond the traditional european candidate base for MP’s who are able to contribute to their parties and to the broader NZ community. This reality is further demonstrated by the candidate selection for the upcoming election where both National and Labour have selected Pacific candidates and it is likely that both parties will select Asian candidates for election to parliament. It must be noted however that it is MMP and the List that have encouraged this to occur.
The flipside though is that the local government elections in Auckland (and indeed around the country) still primarily utilise the FFP system. This is the prism through which the submissions of the Waitakere Pacific Board and the NZLP Pacific Sector Council must be viewed.
It is totally understandable that representatives of communities that make up double digit percentages of their electorates become frustrated with their seeming inability to gain representation on their local body councils. The FFP system is inherently biased against minority groupings and favours the prevailing majority grouping (in this case pakeha). One need look no further than all pre-MMP governments to verify this. Even distributive voting systems (STV) contain this bias – just look at the Australian parliament to confirm this.
Rather than being narrowly viewed as race based, the call for representative seats in local government should perhaps be seen as a legitimate expression by minority groups for a voice in their local communities.
I have not viewed all the submissions to the Royal Commission so cannot assert the veracity of the following statement, but perhaps what is missing from the whole debate is the issue of introducing a form of MMP in local government to ensure that all our citizens have an active and engaged say in the decisions that impact upon their daily lives.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Fuck this racist left wing bullshit! Skin colour is so mastubated over by Lefty scum is sickening..
June 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The English are not ‘filthy’.
Except in bed.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“and CE you dont want to know what im on”
Au contraire. I’d love to know!
“Skin colour is so mastubated over by Lefty scum”
Beats doing it alone into an old gym sock though, surely?
June 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
brendensheehan
In the midst of the idiocy about dogs, thank you for your well reasoned contribution.
As I remember, we (in Wellington) were involved in a plebiscite recently on the voting system we would like to use in the future to elect our local council. (I voted for STV as I remember.) Which may mean that a more representative form of election is on its way. However, as half of a marriage between different ethnicities (POHM and Sri Lankan), I have had quite a significant involvement with a number of ethnic groups through association with the local Ethnic Council; and I can assure you that most people who contribute to the ethnic diversity of this city do not want to see separate, ethnicity based, representation on governing bodies such as WCC. They have come here to be integrated into local society, not to stand out as so different that their expectations from local government are different from everyone else’s’.
There are some people who play the race card in an attempt to stack the deck in their favour. In the main, these people are not respected or sought out by their fellow in ethnicity. The average immigrant wants to retain their cultural values and assets, as long as they do not come into conflict with the laws of New Zealand, and enjoy the benefits and values of the society they have joined as well. They will happily share their cultural assets (food, dance, clothing, history, myths, religions, etc.,) with their neighbours, but generally don’t seek to impose them. So please, don’t anyone see more in this one-person’s bid for preferential treatment in the Auckland CC elections as representative of the plethora of ethnic communities we have in New Zealand. See it for what it is, a man who wants to be elected, and will employ an approach of ‘I’m different so I should get special treatment’ to achieve his aims.
We are all immigrants, even our Maori friends, and we are all New Zealanders (or at least all of us with the right to stand for election and vote should be) and that should be enough – lest we fall into the horror that has been Sri Lanka for the last 25 years, and engage in brutal warfare to achieve separation of this beautiful land of ours.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
c_e good post, sorry for being rude last night , enjoy your weekend and like your good witticisms, too many wierd hours of work,sorry, john