Isn’t this how it should be?

August 26th, 2009 at 8:48 am by David Farrar

The NZ Herald states:

The new Auckland Super City Council will now have only if ratepayers force a referendum approving them or a future council is sympathetic enough to create them of its own accord.

The story makes this sound like some desperate lowlife way to get Maori seats, but isn’t this actually the way it should be.

They are saying the will only get Maori seats if Auckland voters or the itself want them. So the decision will be made in Auckland, not Wellington.

Tags: ,

26 Responses to “Isn’t this how it should be?”

  1. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,787 comments) says:

    Why has it taken so long for common sense to prevail?

    Once the shouting from the fundamentalists of the left and the right dies away, PM Key comes sailing into the sunlight, serenely demonstrating his capacity for pragmatic good judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,262 comments) says:

    The new Auckland Super City Council will now have Maori seats only if ratepayers force a referendum approving them

    And how would they do that?

    Seriously, I’m interested in the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Maybe we should have a CIR on whether or not CIR’s should be binding. Tui billboard rushing into view……what a waste.

    Mike Hosking was asking Annette King about what was the point having referenda at all if no one did anything about the result. I nearly had an accident with my weetbix when Annette King pointed out that he was wrong, and in fact the Govenrment had responded to the referendum on MMP by introducing that stunning political system which gave us Sue Bradford in the first place. I think the irony was lost on her that the MMP referendum had a slightly smaller turnout yet the law was introduced with only 70% approval. That’s way too sad for a Tui billboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (9,356 comments) says:

    oh ffs! like the first left wing controlled council isnt going to bring in maori seats!

    serious question – is there a case to have Maori seats (parliment) thrown out because of discrimination? or have the introduction of maori seats to a council made illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    That a referendum on such a parlous issue is even under consideration is just another mark of how low NZ has sunk in terms of a civilized society.

    (and its nor “serenity” and “pragmatism” from Key, Adolf, it is pure lack of guts.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,787 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, do I take it you mean that if the PM had ‘guts he would have legislated for Maori seats? Do you want start that one off again with the brain engaged?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    No adolf, I mean that if JK had had the guts, the issue of Maori seats would never have been permitted to get traction and Rod Hide would not have had to coerce the Nats into refusing to support the issue.

    Pita Sharples boasted not long ago that he “had John Key’s ear”.

    Why??

    What is special about Pita Sharples, a loser who only got into parliament on race based voting????

    That he is even in cabinet is a disgrace, and he is only there because Key asked him to be.

    Bring back Brash.

    Lets have done with this patronisizing racist crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Jack5 (4,568 comments) says:

    Would NZ stand for white-only seats for an Auckland council? Of course not.

    Reserved seats for Maori only would be bro-partheid.

    Concerns about fair representation of all Auckland sections of the populace can be addressed by looking at various voting systems such as FPP, MMP, etc etc. All have strengths and weaknesses. If people won’t exercise their right the only way may be to make voting compulsory, and I don’t see how you could do that in a city.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cerium (22,739 comments) says:

    The solution seems simple to me (but may be hard to achieve) – if Maori want better representation they need to motivate more Maori to want better representation, and to vote – on a common roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Tim Ellis (253 comments) says:

    It seems strange to me that the Labour Party want the super city to have to hold a referendum on whether to sell an asset (but not to purchase them), but don’t want the super city to hold a referendum on whether to have Maori seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    So, let me get this straight.

    Maori want seats on the council, but can’t have them. Now they want a referendum to get Maori seats on the council. Works for me, but I don’t know how they will manage to get the required support for this, given that they had to bus in most of the marchers for the pro-maori seats march in the first place, and they will not be able to vote on the proposal in an Auckland referendum anyway. Will there be a special voting booth in McDonalds for Parekura?

    What’s next? Will they tell all Maori to go out and vote for Maori candidates because they are Maori, and not on what the issues are? Would you see any Pakeha candidates going out to say “vote for me, I’m white!”?

    No matter what colour you are, racism is racism, and, as always, I will vote on the issues, not on ethnicity!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Camryn (550 comments) says:

    Graeme – I’m pretty sure DPF mentioned how in an earlier post but I don’t know which one. Have a scan, maybe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Graeme Edgeler (3,262 comments) says:

    Camryn – I’m aware how it’s normally done – 5% of people eligible to vote at the preceding election of the territorial authority sign a petition requiring a referendum to be held – which is then held and is binding.

    However, in the case of the Auckland (Super) Council, this isn’t possible. There hasn’t been a preceding election – there are no people capable of signing the petition. The article from which DPF quotes, also states:

    Under the Local Electoral Act, a poll could be held on the issue if five per cent of ratepayers sign a petition or a council could decide to create the seats.

    A public poll could be held with the first council election in October 2010.

    The Interim Board could decide to hold a referendum, but the ratepayers – even if every single one of them signed the petition – cannot.

    If someone is going to argue that allowing Aucklanders to decide whether to have separate Maori seats is sufficient to meet the calls for them, it would be nice if they’d appreciate that the law passed to create the super city doesn’t actually allow it. I would have appreciated the opportunity of pointing out this flaw in the legislation, but it was passed through all stages under urgency, and not even a cursory select committee hearing was held.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Jeff83 (770 comments) says:

    “Should New Zealand as part of a good democratic society based on equality have maori representation on the auckland council?”

    Seriously though makes sense, am a fan of having the Maori seats at a national level but Auckland it made me uneasy, there are many ethnic groups here, a big melting pot and all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lilman (883 comments) says:

    Racim,racism,racism,dress it up anyway its still the same.
    No group or individuals should get presidence over others based on race.
    Bullshit ,Bullshit,Bullshit,dress it up anyway you want its still the same.
    You got a vote ,do what I have to and exercise it, or are you better than me because your Maori?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. backster (2,073 comments) says:

    Under the Local Electoral Act, a poll could be held on the issue if five per cent of ratepayers sign a petition or a council could decide to create the seats.

    I have no objection to adopting the Aparthied system by referendum, but strongly object to a Council (like Kapiti tried to) deciding unilaterally to impose Aparthied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    I’m somehow reminded of the Judean Peoples Front.

    “What have the maori ever done for us?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    If National and Act opposed the seats on a “one person, one vote” rationale, they should apply the same reasoning to their caucuses and allow their MPs to vote according to their own views.

    Wrong on so many levels its not funny. Claire Travett takes so many in justified leaps in logic she could compete in the hurdles.

    Were I John Armstrong, I’d refuse to co-write an article with someone this moronic (Armstrong’s latest offering on NZ Herald is co-authored by Travett).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    damn, edit timer just messed me up. Naturally I mean “unjustified” not “in justified” in above post

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MikeG (391 comments) says:

    “So the decision will be made in Auckland, not Wellington.”

    Indeed.
    So how about it for the rest of the questions around how Auckland should be governed? The NACTS will only allow democracy when it suits them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Article 3 of the treaty reads:

    In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

    it means – we are all equal

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

    Barry, about bloody time. FFS, separate representation on the basis of race is contrary to The Treaty, and those that agitate and intimidate on its behalf are hypocritical scumbags. Congratulations to Rodney Hide for declaring it a total anathema, and bullshit, bullshit to TVNZ and the NZ Herald in particular for supporting this racist crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    barry dear boy, when did we become equal ?
    When my old dad was turned down for a rehab farm after WW2 when he was a wounded veteran and tanned ?

    When pakeha were allowed freehold title to parts of the foreshore but not Maori ?
    When did this rush of equality happen ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Jeff83 (770 comments) says:

    Barry – first article

    The word ‘sovereignty’ had no direct translation in Maori. Chiefs had authority over their own areas, but there was no central ruler over the country. The translators of the English text used the Maori word ‘kawanatanga’, a transliteration of the word ‘governance’, which was in current use. Maori knew this word from the Bible and from the ‘kawana’ or governor of New South Wales. Maori believe that they kept their authority to manage their own affairs and ceded a right of governance to the Queen in return for the promise of protection.

    It is widely accepted that the use of the words ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (in Article 2) contributed to later differences of view between the Crown and Maori over how much authority the chiefs would retain and how much the governor would have. There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lilman (883 comments) says:

    Grumpy,get over it, my ancestors were starving, not even allowed to fish in streams eat of the land as they were evicted an left for dead during a famine, as late as 1970 uanble to buy land in their own country,unable to own a gun ,unable to get any representation at any level of government.
    They were exported by a govern ment that would be now called ethnic cleansing, but whats the bloody point of moaning, get your shit together,stop crying you make me feel as though if the future is your leadership then we are all buggered.
    How much of the foreshore, or any shore, or bit of land do I own,nothing pal, my choice , no one to blame ,no one to cry too.
    Your father went to war, brave man, I wonder what he would think if all the courage he expelled over there led to his children being bitter,twisted and angry.
    Do what I and thousands of other NEW ZEALANDERS do every day, make a future for our families, not expect a future because life aint fair.
    What a joke ,hard working men and women would roll over in their grave knowing that all thier endeavor has produce fine specimins like”grumpyoldhori”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Anthony (766 comments) says:

    Quite right lilman, nearly every ethnic group can point to prior hardships and discrimination. Maori certainly have no monopoly on that. My main ancestry is Scottish but luckily all that ‘hate the English’ rubbish and vice versa which still goes on with some in Scotland and England to this day was left behind when they emigrated to NZ.

    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.