Barton on Maori Seats

June 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

has an interesting article on Maori Seats in Auckland. But first his final summary:

  • Maori make up 11 per cent of the region and 9 per cent of local body winners.
  • Asians comprise 19 per cent of greater Auckland but hold just 4 per cent of council seats.
  • Pacific peoples make up 14 cent of the population. They, too, have 4 per cent of elected local body positions.

So over the Region, Maori are barely under-represented at all – nothing compared to Asian representation or Pacific representation. So the issue is not about representation, but whether the Treaty demands reserved seats for Maori.

Barton says:

The slightly ajar door has the Maori party scrambling to come up with a proposal that would be acceptable to National – understood to be just two, rather the previously proposed three, seats. And with candidates required to show affiliation to mana whenua (local Maori with ancestral ties to the land) and voted in by Aucklanders on the Maori electoral roll.

That is an improvement, but unless they increase the number of ward seats, there should be only one seat for those on the Maori roll – as Maori also get to vote for the at large Councillors.

An issue that may be worth considering, is that some of those currently on the Maori roll, may not want to lose the right to vote in a geographic ward, and be forced into a Maori ward. Normally you can only change rolls after each census – so not until 2011.

Also what if someone wants to vote on the Maori roll for parliamentary elections but would like to vote in a geographic ward for the elections? Perhaps there should be seperate rolls?

Why should there be ?

It’s the Treaty, stupid. Why the Government chose to ignore the Royal Commission’s extensive research and consultation on this matter is difficult to fathom. The Commission concluded there should be three safeguarded seats for Maori – two voted from the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by a mana whenua committee.

And the Royal Commission got it badly wrong. Even if you agree that there should be Maori seats, their proposal had a vote for a Maori Councillor worth four times as much as a vote for a geographic ward councillor.

The principle of equality of vote (within a small tolerance) is a vital one.

Its primary reason was “to give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also came into play, said the Commission, but to a lesser extent.

It is highly debatable that the intent of wording of the Treaty requires reserved Maori seats. They only came about through a desire to allow Maori to vote despite not having individual land titles. Now yes they have assumed a different significance over time – but it is all too simplistic to just call them a Treaty obligation.

The provision of three safeguarded seats for Maori is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to establish processes for Maori to contribute to decision making.

And there is a big difference between a process to contribute, and reserved seats.

I don’t agree with the position Barton advocates, but it is a very good article.

Tags: , ,

65 Responses to “Barton on Maori Seats”

  1. dog_eat_dog (787 comments) says:

    So ‘we grew here, you flew here’ is acceptable for Maori, but not for NZ First or Winston?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    Why the fuck do we have to do what the Royal commissars say?
    We live in a democracy and roughly 85% of people are against Maori seats

    I hope John Key Key is listening to the vast majority and not the noisy rabble.
    If he allows them there is no hope for this government as I doubt even Helen Clark would have let them through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    This kind of over acknowledgement is rampant in NZ. Just check out the Queens Birthday honours list. There are 16 honours for assorted services to maori with about only 7 to other groups.
    The most over- financed, under achieving group in NZ is continually rewarded for what exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. billyborker (1,101 comments) says:

    being the most over- financed, under achieving group in NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Good points. I always felt this would be the saving factor of New Zealand, the increasing numbers of Asians and Polynesians which would reduce the Maoris to a small, lets face it, criminal minority. And they have no one else to blame but themselves.

    Being overseas for some years, I left when they were simply referred to as “the bloody Maoris”, was surprised to see my friends become so racist against them in my absence, but now on my return I see they have metamorphosized to “the fucking Maoris”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    When a treaty of 1840 comes in to conflict with modern concepts of human rights, where all people are equal regardless of race, then modern human rights must win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bringbackthebiff (99 comments) says:

    This makes me steaming mad. I have just returned from a brief visit with family back in NZ and this claptrap gives context to their frustration. The fact that separate seats in parliament are not a treaty right, should never be lost in some modern interpretation. They simply were not and can not be considered as such.

    In respect of the Treaty, sovereignty was ceded in the first article. In the third the crown guaranteed maori the rights of british citizens. One such right is the right to participate in free and fair democratic process. I hardly imagine separatism was in the game plan.

    Surely if you are good enough, you’ll get the nod. Why should good hard working and skillful contributors of any ethnicity be discriminated against on the basis of race. Providing separate race based seat does exactly that.

    Setting aside representation can marginalise quality individuals who do not wish to have the stigma of being the token maori, and discourage them from standing, leaving you with whomever else may desire the reigns of power as it were. I agree with PS. Literally billions upon billions have been wasted to date when you look at the return on the investment and racist policies such as this will not reverse this trend.

    When you are gifted a sense of entitlement it is human nature to not feel the need to work for what you get. Representation has the potential to be no different. Why would you need to work hard for any group of or all constituents when you had a free ride to start with.

    Grow up NZ. You are miles ahead of OZ in terms of trying to unity, stop listening to the squeeky wheel and work together for the greater benefit of all Kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    So David what are the stats for the Pakeha population, I’d assume by these figures they are overepresented?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. billyborker (1,101 comments) says:

    easy Sonic, pakeha are 100 – 11 therefore 89% of population and hold 100- 9 therefore 91% of seats. Not much over representation, is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    Maths not your strong point Billy?
    From the article

    “Maori make up 11 per cent of the region
    Asians comprise 19 per cent of greater Auckland
    Pacific peoples make up 14 cent of the population”

    So that leaves, 54% not covered I would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. billyborker (1,101 comments) says:

    I’m OK on maths, better on semantics.

    Until european settlers arrived, maori had no name for themselves as a group, only tribal names. They coined maori to describe themselves as ordinary people, that is, those with whom they held common language, customes, etc. They coined pakeha to describe those who were not maori. Pakeha thus covers asians, pacific peoples and australians.

    My point stands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. virtualmark (1,306 comments) says:

    As I’ve queried on a few other threads here over the last few days … just which part of the Treaty, or the “principles” of the Treaty, sets out an obligation to give Maori reserved seats in either central or local Government?

    Personally, I think large parts of Maoridom see the Treaty as a figleaf to supposedly justify their every want, wish & desire. If they can’t find any rational reason why they shouldn’t have what they want then they resort to the irrational … “honour the Treaty”, “the obligations from the Treaty” etc etc.

    I’d really like to see more people putting the onus back on Maori to outline just what exactly about the Treaty justifies their wishlist.

    As for Maori seats … the whole “principle” of the Treaty was that the Maori conceded governorship/governance/government (kawanatanga) to Queen Victoria, in return for recognition that they had chieftainship (rangatiratanga) over their own land, people and treasures. Maori also picked up the rights of British subjects. That to me says quite clearly that Maori contracted away the opportunity to be represented in governance/government.

    Are they now trying to back-track on that deal? Honour the Treaty Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    A novel approach Billy, totally off the wall, but nevertheless novel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    Maori contracted away the opportunity to be represented in governance/government.

    “Thats not what they thought they had done, and that is not what they signed Mark”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dave (821 comments) says:

    We live in a democracy and roughly 85% of people are against Maori seats. I hope John Key Key is listening to the vast majority and not the noisy rabble.
    Thats about the same percentage of people that were against the smacking legislation passed with the assistance of John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    Out of interest where does that figure come from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. billyborker (1,101 comments) says:

    Not novel at all, sonic, its the truth.

    Try reading this fior a maori poerspective on the words maori and pakeha.

    http://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Pre election last year Matthew Hooton stated that “the desire to dump the Maori seats was simply window dressing for the more meat-eating National fringe than genuine policy,”

    If this were true I think National seriously underestimate how many supporters eat meat. What the government does about maori seats in the Super city will speak volumes about Nationals policy on the general electorate seats
    I can put up with the coalition deals, the Clark UN appointment, losing my tax cut and if I try real hard I can almost ignore them hiring Cullen. But a complete policy reversal on racially selected representation would push me over the edge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. virtualmark (1,306 comments) says:

    Really Sonic??? Maori petitioned Queen Victoria send them a Governor, who would provide and enforce control over the emerging towns.

    They had a very clear idea of what a Governor did and what powers they held, because (i) many Maori had travelled to Australia and seen the Governors role there, and (ii) the missionaries had clearly explained it as being akin to Pontius Pilate’s role in Judea, where the “tangata whenua” there (the Jews) didn’t control their own cities, but had to defer to the Romans.

    So no, I don’t buy the line that “that’s not what they thought they had done”.

    I suspect today it’s more like “that’s what a lot of Maori today wish they had done”.

    If you believe Maoridom’s posturings about what the Treaty did and didn’t do then you have to wonder then why on earth would the Brits sign up to such a bad deal that had nothing in it for them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    Nice to see you accepting Maori definitions there Billy, can I ask if you also accept their definition of rangatiratanga?

    Mark, I can assure you no-one signed the treaty thinking about the future local government of Auckland, what amazed me is the fear you guys have about a couple of Maori seats, what are you afraid of. Patrick there would sacrifice everything he believes in, as long as Maori get shafted, what gives, seriously?

    “why on earth would the Brits sign up to such a bad deal that had nothing in it for them?”

    Apart from a whole new country to add to their empire that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dave (821 comments) says:

    @DPF,
    The wording of the Treaty in terms of Maori Seats is not in dispute. You, of course, are aware that the four Maori parliamentary seats were not formed strictly because of the Treaty, they were formed as a result of an Act of Parliament.Having seats to “give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi” is not the same as saying the intent of the wording of the Treaty requires reserved Maori seats.In other legislation “give effect” refers to the principles, not the wording, so the obligations refer to Treaty principles. The use of principles is because the two texts of the Treaty have led to different understandings, and because of the need to apply the Treaty to present-day circumstances and issues. So it is the principles of the Treaty – not the wording – that carry more weight in legislation today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. virtualmark (1,306 comments) says:

    Sonic … “apart from a whole new country to add to their empire that is” … if the Brits didn’t get governance & control over the country then how was it part of their empire? If, as many Maori hopefully wish, the Chiefs kept all control and power post-Treaty then how was it a British colony? Like I said, if you think that’s what the Treaty truly meant then why on earth would the British sign up to it?

    Surely the more honest and sensible interpretation of the times and the Treaty is:
    * The Treaty gave the Brits governance over the developed part of the country,
    * While preserving the Chief’s authority over their own tribal lands and taonga,
    * And conferring “Britishness” on the Maori, which was mainly at the time seen as protection against the possible predations of the French and Americans

    I doubt the Chiefs foresaw the ways that New Zealand would end up developing, or how cities the size of Auckland would evolve. They may not have foreseen that the small towns and settlements would eventually take over the land (and often in ways that weren’t fair treatment to Maori).

    But that doesn’t change what they signed up to. They asked for the British to govern the country. In return they got rights as British subjects. Surely today that means they have no rights to special representation just because they’re Maori, but they do have the same rights as you and I to stand for public office and to vote in an election.

    As for what am I afraid of? I’m not afraid of Maori seats Sonic. I’m just pissed off at people asking for whatever they want using the Treaty as a figleaf to hide behind. If they want people to honour the Treaty then they need to be honest about what the Treaty says. Not just disingenuously think it’s a golden ticket to whatever wishes and dreams they come up with. That’s the sort of argument my 2 year old uses when she wants something she can’t have. And too many Maori behave like 2 year olds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “what amazed me is the fear you guys have about a couple of Maori seats, what are you afraid of.”

    Is that how to resolve the ever increasing demands of one already very costly minority group. Simply give in, give them a couple of seats with the hope it may shut them up? Is that your solution Sonic ?
    I always thought this was about racial equality, not giving special privileges to one racial group over others. I’ll bet you moaned like hell when they were doing that in South Africa?
    Besides, the Super city is about making it more efficient, not less

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Viking2 (11,684 comments) says:

    Well that suggests that we should actually use the Littlewood Treaty as the correct version as it is identical to the Maori version. But no poly has the intestinal fortitude to correct that error.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    A “costly minority group”

    If I may paraphrase good old Oscar Wilde, You seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    Thanks for clarifying Patrick, we now know that the only thing that matters to you is not justice, or fairness, it is merely money.

    So anyway, apart from Patrick and his obsession with the bottom line, any other reasons that the whole idea of Maori sets makes you lot spit the dummy?

    Oh and please, don’t kid us on about “racism” an issiu you all ignore totally except when it is a useful smokescreen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    I’m glad DPF has picked up on the article that I quoted in support of Maori seats.

    As per usual he only uses those parts which advance his views. As I said, Barton makes the following statements with regards to Maori seats:

    Why should there be Maori seats?

    It’s the Treaty, stupid. Why the Government chose to ignore the Royal Commission’s extensive research and consultation on this matter is difficult to fathom. The Commission concluded there should be three safeguarded seats for Maori – two voted from the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by a mana whenua committee.

    Its primary reason was “to give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also came into play, said the Commission, but to a lesser extent.

    The provision of three safeguarded seats for Maori is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to establish processes for Maori to contribute to decision making.

    It’s simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “You seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

    OK, tell us all the value?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. virtualmark (1,306 comments) says:

    Kingi. As I’ve asked before. Just exactly which obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi do you believe entitle Maori to special undemocratic representation on the Auckland Supercity council in 2009?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    There is no principle of the treaty that guarantees Maori x seats in any government, local or otherwise. The only “principle” that comes close (as found by the court of appeal) is the right to consultation. However this right is redundant: Maori have this right anyway through the standard democratic process (maiking submissions etc). Neither does consultation equate to the power to make decisions; it is thus difficult to understand how one can justify Maori-only positions in a controling group such as government, based only on the right to be consulted. Indeed one might argue that including Maori only seats disrupt the crown’s right to government, another principle of the treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    Virtual, the principles of the treaty as articulated by the Waitangi Tribunal stipulate very clearly, that the crown in its dealings with Maori should take into serious consideration the principles of the Treaty. One of the utmost amongst these principles is partnership, and also the relative understandings of rangatiratanga/kawanatanga. To say that the crown is not in partnership with Maori, when Maori originally gifted all land to Hobson so that Auckland could actually be established in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002″

    and we’ve had a change of government since then

    (but thanks for picking up on the link I quoted
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/05/general_debate_30_may_2009.html#comment-567670)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    Paradigm its not simply about being consulted. Its about being AT the decision making table. Maori need to be there, as key economic stakeholders, as partners unders the treaty and in line with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission, which National BINNED, there should be seats. How can a process whereby three distinguished public servants, along with 3500 submission, continue to have integrity and credibility if the government is just going to ignore the recommendations. To say the whole thing was corrupted solely by the terms of reference, is ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Peter (1,695 comments) says:

    Then Kingi, the treaty can mean absolutely anything. What political arrangement doesn’t qualify as “partnership”?

    The Maori seats are utterly racist. No way in hell should Auckland have racist seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    rofl @ “utterly racist”

    Perhaps you should investigate further the interpretations of the treaty in the modern day context. That will answer your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “How can a process whereby three distinguished public servants, along with 3500 submission, continue to have integrity and credibility if the government is just going to ignore the recommendations. To say the whole thing was corrupted solely by the terms of reference, is ridiculous”

    Kingi
    as I said to you before the maori seats were actively pre-empted ; i.e, the Royal Commission had a seperate maori submission process that solicited submissions for seperate maori seats
    http://www.royalcommission.govt.nz/rccms.nsf/0/6DA40D136E5C193FCC25740F00797705/$FILE/Maori%20consultation%20paper.pdf?open

    who do you think put that in place for them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    >>Out of interest where does that figure come from.

    http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/poll/pub/polls/index.cfm?action=results&pollid=73FCA2C9-A478-376E-D41DD4CD94F33841&CFID=444901&CFTOKEN=5c086a26157cadc0-40861515-0971-66B3-9D51BC1B4802A759

    And a similar result on Stuff

    BTW don’t bother to tell me these are not broadly accurate
    Or what are you going to say – that redneck hicks are way over-represented in terms of internet access?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    How does 3,500 submissions out of a population of 1.2 million plus represent the wishes of the majority?

    Why do you assume all those 3,500 were against the Super City concept and how many of them included anything about Maori seats?

    If you put this much energy into supporting a Maori candidate and door knocking you would probably have more of a representation than now.

    It is because you are lazy and expect this to be handed on a plate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Kingi, when you make a gift of something, you lose control of it. Your property rights are handed over to the one you are giving the gift to. Your evidence only shows that Maori did lose control of Auckland legally and fairly, and thus on that basis have no special claim to it.

    Now if you want to argue intent of why the Maori gave the land. The primary reason would have been a powerplay to get a major Pakeha settlement nearby and thus have access to trading opportunities as well as mana, to the detriment to those tribes in the bay of islands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    If Kingi is going down that track can we please have all the rock and land back between Beach Rd and the Port as this didn’t exist 100 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    That is simply a gross untrue Patrick! If you actually read the document, it asks Maori for submissions on a wide range of issues, from representation, to ownership or assets to environmental protection. In fact, nowhere in the document you provided does it even MENTION Maori seats. So it doesn’t even support your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Untrue? Really Kingi?

    Heres an example of what the Royal Commission sent to every maori group in the greater Auckland area prior to the submission process

    Representation
    20. If new bodies or forums were created as part of any restructuring of Auckland’s governance,
    Māori may wish to have specific representation on these bodies. If so, this is likely to lead to
    further issues. For example
    • How should Māori representatives be appointed/elected?
    • Should a set number of Māori representatives be drawn from each of the iwi whose
    rohe fall within the Auckland region? If so, how many people should represent each
    iwi?
    • What role should urban Māori have in any representation?
    • Should a pan-tribal organisation (such as the Mana Whenua Forum) have a part to
    play?
    Access
    21. Currently, many councils in the Auckland region employ staff to work on Māori issues.
    However, we have been told that in many cases, simply having internal liaison staff within
    councils is not meeting the needs of Māori. The Commission would like to know
    • What sort of arrangements or relationships with local government work best for
    Māori?
    • How can we ensure that Māori know whom to contact within local government about
    a particular issue, and vice versa?
    Hei Whakapuaki i te Kōrero 9
    How important is it to Māori • to be able to speak with council staff in person, such as at
    council service centres?
    Ownership of assets such as roads, shares, and land
    24. Changes to the structure of local governance in Auckland may involve changes to the
    ownership of assets. This is likely to involve issues of particular importance for Māori. For
    example, if the ownership and responsibility for parks were to be changed, this would raise
    the issue of how to give effect to kaitiakitanga in respect of those parks.
    25. The Treaty of Waitangi may also need to be considered.
    Environmental concerns
    26. We know that the protection of the mauri of natural and physical resources is of particular
    importance to Māori. Therefore, the governance structures that are put in place to deal with
    access to, and exploitation of, natural resources are also likely to be particularly important.
    27. At our preliminary meeting with mana whenua, concern was expressed about the demands
    placed on iwi by resource management consent processes.

    and who ensured that happened? heres a clue
    http://nzlabour.bluestatedigital.com/page/-/assets/images/08/Mahuta.jpg/@mx_125@my_125

    (the inmates were in charge of the asylum)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dave (821 comments) says:

    @paradigm.
    Do you understand the difference between the principles of the Treaty and its provisions?

    @kingi
    can you point out where in legislation it even implies that Maori need to be at the decision -making table in Local Government to the extent that to not provide special Maori seats is a gross injustice and completely unacceptable? Because that appears to be your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    In response:

    1. Emmess you foreshadowed my response. Are you seriously trying to peddle a Herald poll as being credible or having any integrity? I wonder if you were saying the same when Helen Clark was named Greatest living New Zealander.

    2. Southern raider get real. The royal commission was responded to by the people who wanted to respond! They consulted with people, unlike the National government who have consulted with NO ONE AT ALL and are simply ramming through their ideologically driven super council in a manner that only fits their right wing hacks like John Banks.

    3. Paradigm, the issue isn’t about control of the land, it is about acknowledging the place of Maori in NZ Society. Honouring the past, the treaty and the tangata whenua status Maori have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    4. my apologies to Patrick for saying it was untrue

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    Are you somehow trying to say that people were “conned” into supporting Maori seats? HAHAHAHAHA.

    Is that your argument? That if only people hadn’t been “hoodwinked” by the Commission, they may have been able to see the light and oppose Maori seats.

    Oh Patrick Starr, I hate to break it to you but there are MANY MANY MANY people out there who don’t share your views. And it doesn’t mean that they have been “manipulated” into thinking that way, it just means they don’t hold your views. I know that might be hard to come to terms with, but its true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “Are you somehow trying to say that people were “conned” into supporting Maori seats?”

    no, maori weren’t “conned” They were simply offered a choice;

    #1./ a big fat reward for doing and achieving absolutley nothing
    #2./ be part of the democratic process same as everyone else

    and guess what they chose?

    (and there are MANY MANY MANY more who dont support yours)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Kingi none of your reasons are relevant. I would further be very careful if I were you about the implications of some of them. For example “as key economic stakeholders” implies that vote should be assigned on the basis of contribution to the economy, rather than equally. If we take this scenario to its logical conclusion, we’d always have a National/Act government; Maori, representing a drain on the economy due to overrepresentation in welfare, would have a vastly reduced say. Many major companies in Auckland can be considered key economic stakeholders, but there is no legislation that certain companies get a seat on the council.

    You argue that as treaty partners, Maori need to be on the council. This too is rubbish. The only requirement is that partners act in good faith (something the tribes around Auckland did not do when they used European settlement as a chip in inter-tribal competition to the detriment of those in the bay of islands). The weakness of the partners point is illustrated by the need to include an explicit point requiring a duty to consult with Maori. If there is no implicit requirement to consult, there cannot be and implicit requirement to set aside maori seats in government.

    You then suggest a Royal Commission must be right. Another royal commission recommended the removal of Maori seats from central government. Is it right as well? Did it occur to you that a commission expressly forbidden from challenging the need of maori seats on a council would always end up recommending Maori seats on the council.

    Finally you suggest Patrick Starr consult interpretations (subject to debate) of the treaty. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary on the definition (not subject to debate) of racist. Or perhaps consult a mirror.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    “@paradigm.
    Do you understand the difference between the principles of the Treaty and its provisions?”

    I consider the the principles to be those established through case law in 1987 and onwards.
    The provisions are contained within the articles of the original document.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Owen McShane (1,182 comments) says:

    This belongs here rather than under a past general debate where I originally posted it.
    A point about the Super City Maori seats which has been overlooked is that an unexpected outcome will be to increase the power of the planners who have developed a state religion called “the Maori World View”.
    Just have a look at your District Plan. A chapter called “Maori Issues” or some such will open with a statement along the lines “Maori believe …. and generally set out the belief systems of the Pacific Religion which was widely held prior to European contact and the widespread adoption of Christianity. One of my Maori neighbours is a Mormon and most of the Maori around the neighbourhood are Ratana Christian and deeply resent the claim (in a set of regulations) that they are not.
    The word racism is tossed about in NZ but could there be anything more racist than presuming that all members of one ethnic group hold the same religious beliefs?
    Imagine if your district plan had a chapter saying “Europeans believe in Genesis, and the Garden of Eden ….”, or that Arabs are Muslims or that Chinese are Taoists, or that Irish are Catholics.
    But if the presumption of a common religion to Maori takes even greater hold then we can expect the Musim population (who can be of any ethnicitiy) will make a claim for Muslim beliefs to be entrenched in law using the Maori precedent.

    I shall be posting a lengthy analysis of this issue on my web site to promote further discussion of this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Lawrence Hakiwai (117 comments) says:

    This debate brings out the worst in everyone. From those locked into the grievance industry to the rednecks who see us all as child murderers.

    NO ONE deserves better or worse treatment on the basis of race. Sorry Kingi that also means the new Auckland super-city.

    It’s 2009, if we Maori aren’t ready to play by the sames rules as everyone else now – when will we be?

    I hope John Key’s “door still not closed to Maori council seats” is just his usual trying-too-hard-to-be-everyone’s-friend trick and the Government keeps its nerve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kingi (142 comments) says:

    Lawrence your inability to comprehend the historical basis upon which we support Maori seats is unfortunate. You simply can not take a brush and apply it to all without taking into account individual context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. starboard (2,563 comments) says:

    NO ONE deserves better or worse treatment on the basis of race. Sorry Kingi that also means the new Auckland super-city.

    It’s 2009, if we Maori aren’t ready to play by the sames rules as everyone else now – when will we be?

    Wish every Maori thought this way..well said sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    >>I wonder if you were saying the same when Helen Clark was named Greatest living New Zealander.

    I accept that roughly 20% of people would choose that option. I think they are completely insane but I accept it

    Kingi, can you please explain how of the arcane documents and rulings (a nineteenth century treaty, the opinions of bunch of Labour Party stooges and in the spirit of the local government act???) you are quoting surpasses the most fundamental democratic right to equal representation?

    I could get a bunch of my mates together to make a more convincing case that I should be made Holy Roman Emperor citing the Congress of Vienna (1815) and in the spirit of european integration than for Maori seats on the Auckland Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Stuart Mackey (336 comments) says:

    # Lawrence Hakiwai (38) Vote: Add rating5 Subtract rating 1 Says:
    June 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    This debate brings out the worst in everyone. From those locked into the grievance industry to the rednecks who see us all as child murderers.

    NO ONE deserves better or worse treatment on the basis of race. Sorry Kingi that also means the new Auckland super-city.

    It’s 2009, if we Maori aren’t ready to play by the sames rules as everyone else now – when will we be?

    I hope John Key’s “door still not closed to Maori council seats” is just his usual trying-too-hard-to-be-everyone’s-friend trick and the Government keeps its nerve.
    ***************************************

    To echo Starboard: Well said Sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Stuart Mackey (336 comments) says:

    # Kingi (75) 0 6 Says:
    June 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Lawrence your inability to comprehend the historical basis upon which we support Maori seats is unfortunate.
    ****************************************

    Right, so you are saying that because Lawrence does not automatically agree with you, that he is somehow backward?

    ***********************
    You simply can not take a brush and apply it to all without taking into account individual context.
    **************************

    You should take that advice yourself given that not all Maori will agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lawrence Hakiwai (117 comments) says:

    Well Kingi, I guess my “inability to comprehend the historical basis upon which we support Maori seats” is right up there with your inability to comprehend that favouring one race over another is racist and wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Zarchoff (97 comments) says:

    Poor old Maroi! They can’t cut it without the government “giving” them “guaranteed” seats. They go on about being equal but then they want special treatment like some little kid who needs special rules in order to play with the big boys. Instead of getting out and organising themselves, finding some credible candidates and getting ready to campaign alongside the rest of us; they want to hide behind the Treaty, get given seats, and then not have to bother with the democratic process.

    If Maori seats are granted, to voted for by people on the Maori roll, does this mean that Maori voters (on the maori roll) won’t be able to vote for the other, “non maori seat”, candidates – like in general elections? That sounds fair to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Kingi
    It would appear your ‘MANY MANY MANY ‘ is just poor old Sonic (which is a bit like taking a rubber pocket knife to a gunfight)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. dave (821 comments) says:

    @kingi* ( again…)
    can you point out where in legislation it even implies that Maori need to be at the decision -making table in Local Government to the extent that to not provide special Maori seats is a gross injustice and completely unacceptable? Because that appears to be your position.Is that part of your ” historical basis”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Steve (4,538 comments) says:

    Why are Maori special?
    Why do they need special seats in Government or Councils?
    They could get elected just as the rest do, but they are special and want.
    Want what? Racist selected seats?
    Get off your arse and do some electioneering.
    Get a backbone, not a wishbone.

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

    Kingi, I’m not sure you have read a previous post from me concerning Treaty interpretations.
    As I stated previously, you and I and anyone else is entitled to their own interpretations for what they are worth.
    I think I can safely assume you were not at the signing 169 years ago.
    I think I can also safely assume that the Waitangi Tribunal members plus the Royal Commission members were not at the signing.
    So you and all of us here plus these two groups are just giving interpretations on a document that was signed 169 years ago.
    And it’s fair to say that all above have agendas for the various interpretations.

    BUT it is set out in black and white (or blue if that was the ink colour) on the Original 1840 Treaty Document that the Maoris agreed that the British govern the country.

    Without going off on tangents, what part of “the Maoris agreed that the British govern the country” don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. lilman (974 comments) says:

    Kingi-you tosser ,dont cry royal commisson to me you softcock.
    If you want it what do you have to say that the same comissioners said that the Maori seats should be abolished under mmp.

    You cant have it both ways, whats it going to be.

    Harden up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. lilman (974 comments) says:

    hey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. sonic (1,995 comments) says:

    “the British govern the country”

    Not the Kiwis? Or are we assuming some racial inheritance here.

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

    “the British govern the country”

    “the Maoris agreed that the British govern the country”

    Dear me sonic, what part of this don’t you understand either?
    Could it be that back then in 1840 the um, British were, um, from Britain?

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