A big win for the Maori Party

April 20th, 2010 at 6:13 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

National has bowed to Maori Party wishes and agreed to support the highly contentious United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples despite the previous Labour Government issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems. …

The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, being able to maintain their own languages, being able to protect their natural and cultural heritage and manage their own affairs.

Dr Sharples, one of the Maori Party’s co-leaders, said this morning’s announcement restored the mana and moral authority of Maori to speak in international forums on justice, rights and peace matters.

But National appears to have given its backing to the declaration on condition a proviso is attached saying that progressing Maori rights occurs within New Zealand’s “current legal and constitutional frameworks”.

Which appears to me to be a sensible proviso.

National’s concerns appear to have been dealt with by the attachment of the rider to New Zealand’s statement of support. This proviso reaffirms “the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system” and notes that those existing frameworks define “the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the declaration”.

Dr Sharples said the Labour Government’s position had called into question Labour’s commitment to Crown-Maori relations and undermined New Zealand’s credibility on human rights issues.

There will be some anguish amongst Labour’s Maori MPs that National and the Maori Party found a workable solution to this issue, which their party did not.

Personally I’m not someone wildly concerned about non binding declarations, and whether or not we say we support them or not. But if it is important to a “coalition” partner, then I’d much rather have something like this given to them as a “win”, than something which I have serious objections to.

So far, there have been five major “wins” for the Maori Party. None of them have caused me great disquiet. They are:

  1. Repeal of Foreshore & Seabed Act – have long supported this on the basis of not taking away the right to go to court of any person or group
  2. Dropping of opposition to in Parliament. I support the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish them (and in exchange have a lower party vote threshold for Maori parties) but National was never going to get the numbers to repeal the seats unilaterally anyway, and in exchange the Maori Party dropped their efforts to entrench them.  It’s a freezing of the status quo.
  3. Whanua Ora – the principle of it is something I have long supported, and is linked to the Family Start programme started in the 1990s. I have concerns over how well it will be implemented, but all in favour of devolving resources to the private sector, to help get better outcomes for disadvantaged families.
  4. UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Does not change legal rights under NZ law, but symbolically important to Maori.
  5. A Maori Flag flies on Waitangi Day alongside NZ Flag. As the day celebrates a treaty between the Government and Maori, think flying both flags is a fine idea.

Now if the Government had agreed to legislate special Maori seats on the Auckland Council, that would have gone down badly with me.  I think it would have entrenched the notion of race based seats as being a good form of Government, that should be spread to all levels of Government.

The deal with the Maori Party over the ETS was a fairly shabby one, which I don’t think one can defend on particularly principled grounds. However I note that was a horse trade over getting a law passed, not directly liked to the confidence and supply agreement. In other words would probably have occurred even if there was no National/Maori Party agreement.

The very nature of MMP and minority Government requires larger parties to agree to some things they would probably not have otherwise done. My test is how “bad” one considers those concessions to be.

While I have a fundamentally different world view to the Maori Party on many issues, I don’t regard any of the above five concessions as particularly “bad” – some in fact I would support National having done regardless of the Maori Party’s wishes.

And I compare that to the demands of NZ First under both National and Labour. Winston demanded weakening of monetary policy, making superannuation more unsustainable, huge increases in funding for his pet portfolios, appointments for his mates, protectionism etc etc – a lot of stuff that I regarded as fundamentally bad for NZ’s future.

Tags: ,

136 Responses to “A big win for the Maori Party”

  1. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    National are so ashamed of their behavoir that they have to do it in secret. Bring back Helen. At least we knew she was bad but these arseholes are getting worse by the day. One term National Govt.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3599153/NZ-does-U-turn-on-rights-charter

    [DPF: Yes so secret they have been talking about it in public for the last year. Your hysteria gets rather tiring after a while you know]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    Clearly very secret as these things usually get leaked but not with this lot. Where are the opposition? Where are the press hounds, asleep under their booze bottles, following Key around the world and not listening.

    Totally disgraceful conduct in NZ’s supposed democracy.

    What did the Maori Party give to Key in return?
    Where’s the Koha?
    Power maybe?

    This country should not be run by Lehman tactics. Just totally appalling.

    NZer’s will leave for Aussie in droves. Just like they did in the 90′s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_fandsb.php

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

    Another step down the slippery slope to the new apartheid, in which the majority is told that it is forever responsible for the health, welfare, wealth, and spiritual state of the minority. At least Helen knew when to say “no” to the demands of the race industry. Neville Key has no principles, no values, and no integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mawm (211 comments) says:

    That it was done so secretly says a lot!

    I voted for the National Party because of its policies and principles and all I have in return is a government doing the Maori party’s bidding. Never again!

    Jonkey you are a spineless socialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    I agree Viking – bring back Helen.

    All we’re going to get out of National is higher taxes and a race war.

    What a complete bunch of idiots.

    Now Tuhoe think they’ve been promised their own country FFS, these people are morons of the highest order and DPF is looking more and more like their bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wreck1080 (3,798 comments) says:

    Maori party appears to have more power than national.

    NZ needs a new political party.

    John Key has failed the nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    What is the actual problem with this? The better Maori do for themselves the better it should be for the country, surely. I don’t see how this will be negative for me.

    Is it the same people that complain about Maori not taking responsibility for themselves enough complaining when they do things for themselves?

    Seems to be more of a philosophical moaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I support the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish them (and in exchange have a lower party vote threshold for Maori parties) but National was never going to get the numbers to repeal the seats unilaterally anyway, and in exchange the Maori Party dropped their efforts to entrench them. It’s a freezing of the status quo.

    National + ACT = 63 votes
    National + ACT + United Future = 64 votes

    There are enough votes in Parliament to abolish the Maori seats, and there are certainly enough votes to send the abolition of the Māori seats to a referendum.

    Not saying they should or shouldn’t but the spin that they couldn’t have done it is clearly wrong.

    [DPF: Not all National MPs would have voted for abolishing the Maori seats unilaterally]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    No Pete what you’ve got is a group of people being separated, with the cooperation of a democratic government, by race from the rest of the population, there’s a name for it – apartheid.

    If that doesn’t worry you for the future of our country then you really haven’t thought about it enough.

    Go for a drive around the East Cape or up through Northland talk to the people and try and tell me that what’s happening by stealth is not racist and divisive.

    National appears to be forgetting that there are 3.7 million people in this country that aren’t Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. adamsmith1922 (889 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, DPF, Sharples interviewed on RNZ by Plunket appeared to have no knowledge of any proviso, despite what McCully said on RNZ a few minutes earlier.

    Does Sharples actually listen to what he is told, or do McCully and Sharples not communicate? Does Sharples just barrel on with his own interpretations?

    On ZB this morning in Hosking’s show there was talk of Tuhoe getting ‘ownership’ of the Urarewa National Park and some talk of self governance, which Finlayson attempted to hose down.

    More and more one gets the impression that large areas of the country are being handed over either to the Greens for ‘conservation’ or to Maori for their personal control.

    Even if access is g
    ‘guaranteed’ how safe would some of us feel exercising our access right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. serge (108 comments) says:

    I voted national all my kife until now, I regret voting for John Key and by default for a coalition that does not serve the interests of European New Zealanders or of New Zealand as a whole. No, I will not cast a blue vote again, ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    What Graeme Edgeler said … the Maori seats aren’t entrenched, so it’s not a numbers question. It’s more that National has a longer-term desire to broaden its potential support base beyond the ACT party.

    Also, as for DPF’s “I support the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish them (and in exchange have a lower party vote threshold for Maori parties)” … perhaps you’d care to give us a working definition of a “Maori party” for the purposes of deciding who gets the benefit of such a lower threshold (as well as tell us who will apply that definition to individual cases)? Bet you can’t!

    [DPF: I'd hire some law professor to write a definition for me. And the Electoral Commission would make the determination based on the definition.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    perhaps you’d care to give us a working definition of a “Maori party” for the purposes of deciding who gets the benefit of such a lower threshold (as well as tell us who will apply that definition to individual cases)? Bet you can’t!

    AG – don’t know if DPF can, but I’ve got one.

    A Māori party is a party that the first person on their list would qualify for the Māori electoral roll under the current definition, as well as least three of the top four.

    (i.e. the party can have one non-Māori in the top four places on their list, but not first).

    I’m not saying the rule is good, but it works, is objective and achieves what you’d intend such a rule to do: ensures a greater chance of Maori being represented in Parliament than might otherwise be the case. In particular, it would mean that any party benefiting from the rule would have at least 50% Māori MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    4.UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Does not change legal rights under NZ law, but symbolically important to Maori.

    I’ve not read this declaration, but my understanding is that most similar UN documents direct that signatory nations will not legislate contrary to the declaration. That is ceding sovereignty in my books.

    Like many here, I too am disgusted with National. NZ is being further divided in their shameful pursuit of continued power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    What Graeme Edgeler said … the Maori seats aren’t entrenched, so it’s not a numbers question. It’s more that National has a longer-term desire to broaden its potential support base beyond the ACT party.

    Some aspects of the Māori seats actually are entrenched. The membership of the body that draws Māori electorate boundaries, for example, is entrenched, so we’d have to keep appointing people to it if we ever abolished the Māori seats by simple Parliamentary majority.

    Thus my mentioning of a referendum. A majority in Parliament is enough to set that up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I’ve not read this declaration, but my understanding is that most similar UN documents direct that signatory nations will not legislate contrary to the declaration. That is ceding sovereignty in my books.

    It’s non-binding.

    It’s not like the Convention Against Torture, for example, which does actively outlaw torture (and requires countries signing up to it to do the same).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    John Key is a lying, stealing, traiterous, low class J*#

    [DPF: Do you hate all Jews, or just the law class ones?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    “Those bloody Maori should get off their arses and do something for themselves! Ah, unless that means they use our pakeha political and legal systems to appear to gain any actual advantages like any other lobby group.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Just the lying, stealing, traiterous, low class ones.

    I didn’t vote National to get rid of Helen KKKlarKKK.

    I voted National to get rid of her POLICIES.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    What the hell is happening to our country.

    There really is now no political party I would vote for in NZ.

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

    Key’s political capital is eroding slowly but surely. I’m sure his “accountants” have factored this in, we’ll see. Being seen to act in a manner purely to retain a position of power wears thin after a while. Behaving like Helen Clark is going to down like a cup of cold sick to most people including National supporters.

    My personal disgust and concern is not just at the gutless, underhand way this was done but at yet another ceding of our sovereignty to the most corrupt, ineffective bunch of bureaunazis on the planet, the UN. You can try to water this down as much as you like DPF, it is a disgraceful act.

    Oh my paranoia just kicked in – was Tuhoe getting ‘ownership’ of the Urarewa National Park a red herring so we get all outraged but then relax when we find out the indigenous people crap is “only” a minor concession in comparison, similar to the idea of opening up Great Barrier to mining? Tut tut, I really need to see my counsellor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    [DPF: I'd hire some law professor to write a definition for me. And the Electoral Commission would make the determination based on the definition.]

    No sane academic (oxymoron, I know) would want to touch that particular bomb! As for the Electoral Commission making the determination, look how well that worked with the EFA … don’t you think people would be just as quick to run to the courts to challenge whatever the Commission decides (ie just like you did)?

    Graeme,

    Representation Commission issue is easy – just have a a section that says “notwithstanding anything in s.268(1), the Maori Seats and all related parts of the Electoral Act are repealed.”

    As for your test for a “Maori Party”, doesn’t it mean we’ll abolish the Maori seats only to replace them with even more racially defined electoral rules? Note that at the moment ANYONE can stand for election in these seats – they are there to elect who Maori want, not necessarily Maori!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Thin edge of a very large and destructive wedge. Anyone who can’t see that is either a bit naive, hasn’t been listening the Maori Party, or is a National Party apologist.

    But National appears to have given its backing to the declaration on condition a proviso is attached saying that progressing Maori rights occurs within New Zealand’s “current legal and constitutional frameworks”.

    Rubbish. That’s just the sugar coating. If this document has no effect here in NZ then why are the Maori Party so keen on it?

    The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, being able to maintain their own languages, being able to protect their natural and cultural heritage and manage their own affairs.

    So, about a vague and confused as the Treaty of Watangi then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    “Today’s announcement restores our mana and our moral authority to speak in international fora on issues of justice, rights and peace,” Sharples says.

    Signing a piece of paper at the UN? Really? How about turning around the problems of criminality, child-abuse and general low achievement?

    Sorry Pita, nice chap that you are, when I read that sentence I couldn’t help but think of the scene in Once Were Warriors where Jake the Muss get himself a flash rental car and restores his mana and moral authority; for the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Can Maori be identified as “indigenous” and migrants/colonisers (as per their Great Migration folklore) at the same time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Graeme – Representation Commission issue is easy – just have a a section that says “notwithstanding anything in s.268(1), the Maori Seats and all related parts of the Electoral Act are repealed.”

    And that bit gets stripped out with the rest when it doesn’t get the required majority in the Committee of the Whole House. But you’re pretty much right – it is easy. You do it by referendum – which is how a change of this nature to the electoral system should be done anyway.

    As for your test for a “Maori Party”, doesn’t it mean we’ll abolish the Maori seats only to replace them with even more racially defined electoral rules? Note that at the moment ANYONE can stand for election in these seats – they are there to elect who Maori want, not necessarily Maori!

    Yes. DPF (and the Royal Commission on the Electoral System) are proposing to do exactly that. I’m telling them how that should be achieved in the event that we choose to go that path. I’m not saying we should go down that path (indeed, I think we should abolish the threshold completely, so the problem wouldn’t arise), but if we’re going to do what DPF says, then that is how we should do it. Largely because it would actually work.

    The Royal Commission didn’t come up with a mechanism, and the alternatives – either a minimum Maori membership of the party, or a minimum proportion of Maori membership, or appropriate guiding principles/party constitution are unworkable or meaningless.

    You are right that anyone on any electoral roll – Maori or not – can stand in the Maori seats, but no non-Maori has succeeded in being elected in a Maori seat the last 150 years, and it’s not going to happen in the next 50 either. Anyone can stand in a Maori seat, but that doesn’t mean that ensuring there are Maori MPs isn’t a major reason why the Maori seats exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. leftgreen (1 comment) says:

    I just love these posts that bring out the true racism in many National voters and Kiwiblog readers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    “A big win for Maori”, didn’t finish it David, A big win for Maori a huge loss for democracy in this country. What a spineless bunch are these National socialists. Shonkey and his inner circle of arse lickers are gutless wonders. Why the big secret? because the Nats are cowards and quite prepared to give away our sovereignty to the one world fruitloops at the UN. Shame on you National you deserve nothing but contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    Pita sat there sobbing his heart out when he could not convince one of his people to fess up to the murder of two of their babies but he can sob Key into this. Clearly his criminal brothers have a stronger resistance to his approach then Key.
    When Pita turns up with the culprit then I’ll have some regard for his efforts. Until then he is just another opportunist taking advantage of the weak.

    Where was/is the debate over the screwing over of our constitution that we supposedly have built over 150 years and based on the British/ French/Viking heritage. Its negotiated away for favours.

    Its a case really of the the young lady saying to the rapist “fuck me gently so I just won’t notice”

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

    Serge
    Agree, it is really frustrating watching the demise of something you have supported for a long time.
    I was really hoping that National would not be a one term goverment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i see you righties still think you were getting a far-right ideologue with key..eh..?

    you still don’t get it..eh..?

    key chose the national party as the best vehicle for his personal ambitions…end of story..

    ..had he..as a futures-trading-millionaire..tried to use labour..

    ..he would have been hard-pressed to win a delegates-role-at-agm…let alone the leadership/prime ministership..

    ..had it been different..he could just as easily gone to labour..

    ..that’s ‘cos those ‘personal ambitions’ are/were what it was all about..eh..?..can you all see that..?

    key wants to be there for the long haul..

    ..and cementing his relationship with the maori party ..and burning off you gibbering far-righties..

    .. is a small price for him to pay..eh..?

    prepare to be singed..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. jinpy (237 comments) says:

    Viking2, we don’t have a constitution do we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    side show bob – how does this give away our sovereignty? What were we able to do as a country previously that we will not be able to do as a country now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    I agree with Bevan. I do not know for whom I would vote in the next election. We had to get rid of Helen, that was a no-brainer, but Jonky and National are becoming similar every day. This seems harmless enough, but give ‘em and inch and they take a mile.

    Going by what i have been reading lately, Maori were not the first ones here, as someone else pointed out.
    Maori have always spoken of a fair-skinned people who preceded them called “Patu-paiarehe” or Turehu.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What the fuck are you talking about Philu, whats far right ideologue or any ideologue go to do with the cowardly actions of the National party. Be it far right or far left this was shoved down peoples necks without so much a murmur. One really can’t judge this declaration as it’s a big SECRET. If there is any ideologue here it’s totalitarianism

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    One really can’t judge this declaration as it’s a big SECRET.

    How is this declaration a secret? It was written over 20 years ago and adopted by the UN General Assembly last year in an open session.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    my argument is that key is a centreist..with longterm leadership ambitions..who knows the maori party are a key to fufilling that ambition..

    ..whereas you screaming/racist far-right gibberers..are naught but a noisy irrelevancy/fringe/minority..eh..?

    ..its that simple..bloody-hands-bob..

    ..you just don’t matter..in keys’ grand scheme of things..eh..?

    tough..!..i know..!..esp. when u had such high hopes..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    There is one glaring issue with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Having read the document, I cannot see any part that defines what an Indigenous Person is.

    If we were to take the dictionary definition;

    in·dig·e·nous
       /ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/ Show Spelled[in-dij-uh-nuhs] Show IPA
    –adjective
    1.
    originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
    2.
    innate; inherent; natural (usually fol. by to): feelings indigenous to human beings.

    This leave the door open to wide debate. http://www.maaori.com states that the ancestors of Modern Maori arrived in what is now known as New Zealand some 1000 years ago. They have been here longer, but by the dictionary definition, they are not native, having originated from Asia.

    Are they really indiginous? Does the UN declaration apply?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Prime example of the spinless John Key honouring his nickname Neville.
    The PM will sell the country to the Maori Party just to stay in power. Shame on the disgraceful National Party and its supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Graeme, where have you been hiding for the last thirty years? . Bit by bit step be step our sovereignty has been signed over to the scumbags in the UN. Of course this is not binding ( Shonkeys words ) but it’s just another stick certain Maori groups will use to promote an apartheid system. Two questions Graeme. If all these declarations signed at the UN mean nothing then why sign them and why do it in secret. You will wake up one day Graeme and all your rules and laws will be of no relevance as your freedoms have been signed over to the one world scumbags.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Key’s affable image could be misleading. There will no doubt be a few missteps along the way, especially by some of the troops, but he could be turning out to be a master of positive, pragmatic politics.

    I don’t care if he doesn’t always please those who think politics should do everything exactly as they want it, our democracy doesn’t cater for private virtual dictatorships.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    I should be angry about this but the reality is that I just do not give a fuck.

    It is nothing more than I expect from this fucking gutless bunch of socialist scum who masquerade as the National Party.

    Earlier somebody said that this stupid little nation risks becoming one where a huge number of the people adopt a selfish “me and mine” attitude, well, after today you can add me and mine to that list.

    The thing that really gets me is that I never got this worked up under a Labour government, I expect them to waste my fucking money, I expect them to do dirty little deals that benefit their own people and for their own selfish political goals, I expect Labour to be corrupt and break every promise they made prior to the election, I expect Labour to have a hidden agenda when it comes to social policy and I expect them to screw me over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Yeah that’s Philu us righty’s have lost the plot. Thank God for you progressives, the world is now such a wonderful place. Just fell off chair, laughing that much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. calendar girl (1,202 comments) says:

    jinpy: “Viking2, we don’t have a constitution do we?”

    Yes we do, in my view. Graeme will be able to explain more eloquently. However, my own summary is that NZ’s constitution is not a single document but a series of laws, judgments and recognised conventions that collectively constitute our particular rule of law.

    Personally I long for the day when NZ finally drafts and adopts (in entrenched form) a formal written constitution. While such a document will not be a complete panacea for the constitutional shortcomings from which we suffer frequently in our present circumstances, it will go some way towards:
    - limiting unbridled executive power;
    - slowing down the passing of legislation that is enacted with indecent haste; and
    - defining core constitutional principles that cannot be changed other than by a super-majority of Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    So now we learn that not only was the co-leader of the apartheid party flown to the UN in “secret” but he took along a delegation as well.

    More troughing from the apartheid party and its racist supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    all the while NZ’ers stand around twiddling their thumbs looking at the sky” la de da da da “…oh nice day isnt it…whilst getting screwed in the arse by the scum up in Wellington….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    calender girl; absolutely correct.
    Have thought this way since Bob Jones caused a previous National Party to get dumped.
    They haven’t changed in the slightest.
    Didn’t think they had and they have proven me correct.
    Check out NZCPD where a petition has been started to force this bunch of National Pollies to consult with the country’s constituents, all of them not just a couple of old brown ones.

    Totally disgraceful behavoir from the born to rule NZ National Maori party.
    Maori control Parliament and it will get worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    I agree entirely with DPF. These concessions are largely symbolic. They are largely a matter of showing respect. I have no deep problems with them and I struggle to understand the ravings of those who think they are the end of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    It’s just the end of the word today, something else will take it’s place tomorrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    well..bloody-hands-bob..

    it was yr war-mongering/rightwing/reanan/thatcher/douglas-’revolution’..

    that has brought us to this sorry state..eh..?

    or are you so far in denial you think bush did a great job/left the economy not a tottering mess..?

    all down to ‘the progressives’..?..ya reckon..?

    (heh..!..idjit..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Wonder how long until Tama Iti proclaims the Peoples Republic of Tuhoe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    still fairly gay/anal-oriented in yr comments/insults..there..star-bored..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Graeme, where have you been hiding for the last thirty years? . Bit by bit step be step our sovereignty has been signed over to the scumbags in the UN. Of course this is not binding ( Shonkeys words ) but it’s just another stick certain Maori groups will use to promote an apartheid system. Two questions Graeme. If all these declarations signed at the UN mean nothing then why sign them and why do it in secret. You will wake up one day Graeme and all your rules and laws will be of no relevance as your freedoms have been signed over to the one world scumbags.

    I haven’t been alive for the last 30 years.

    I’m not disputing that many of the international agreements we’ve signed in some way limit our sovereignty. I’m denying that this one does. The Convention Against Torture, which we have signed, ratified and which is binding on New Zealand does stop of from torturing people.

    1. UN Treaties do mean something (e.g. the Convention Against Torture).
    2. UN Declarations, adopted by General Assembly Resolution are not treaties.
    3. We didn’t sign this declaration in secret.
    4. We haven’t signed this declaration at all. No-one has and no-one will. It’s not possible to sign it, and it’s not possible to ratify it. Because it’s non-binding and of no effect.
    5. It wasn’t in secret. This declaration has been public for over 20 years. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in open session. The speech by Pita Sharples was also in open session.
    5. What are you talking about?

    I accept that some people will be concerned about New Zealand sovereignty in the conduct of New Zealand’s international affairs. For some people this will be in international human rights treaties. For others it will be international trade treaties. But none of those concerns apply to the speech by Pita Sharples.

    What happened after we adopted the Convention Against Torture? We couldn’t torture any more.
    What happened after we agreed to Closer Economic Ralations with Australia? We had to give all Australian Citizens the rights of permanent residents in this country.
    What happened after Pita Sharples gave a public speech to the UN in New York? Nothing.

    What part of “this has absolutely no effect, and we wouldn’t have given this speech if it did” is hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jinpy (237 comments) says:

    Rights for indigenous peoples — whatever next!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    GE: “What part of “this has absolutely no effect, and we wouldn’t have given this speech if it did” is hard to understand?”

    The bit that means having to stop frothing at the mouth about how the black helicopters are on the way to make Maori our new overlords.

    But back to an earlier thread … wouldn’t the “if 3 out of 4 top candidates are Maori, you’re a Maori party thus face no party vote threshold for election” have some pretty interesting unintended consequences in terms of internal party dynamics? Imagine, for example, NZ First’s list selection in 2008 … swap Doug Woolerton with Pita Parone, and hey presto you’ve got a “Maori Party” that doesn’t need 5% to get elected!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    …I know it arouses you whore…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    What happened after we adopted the Convention Against Torture? We couldn’t torture any more.

    Which is fair enough… unless the Convention can be unilaterally ‘re-scoped’, ‘adjusted’ or ‘re-aligned’ by the UN’s weasel-word wallah’s such that imprisonment without, say, internet access will henceforth to be considered torture. Does any wording change require full re-ratification? Serious question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    [DPF: Yes so secret they have been talking about it in public for the last year. Your hysteria gets rather tiring after a while you know]

    Well those were not my words but were in the press report. Its clear that secrecy was involved in Sharples trip and in the agreement between the Nats and Maori Party. How else can you explain that no one , that;s right not anyone even the press knew about Sharples trotting off to the UN to have his little say and sign up.
    Oh you may have known but the rest of us citizens didn’t. That’s secrecy in my book.

    If you don’t like my hysteria then there are a lot of us out there that don’t like what’s been done supposedly on our behalf. Given its your blog and you make it available for us to blog on then I’m allowed presumably to express my views in the same way others are.
    Forth right I am, clear about responsibilities I am, very clear about right and wrong I am, but that’s the Viking in me.
    Compromise and appeasement are not a natural trait.

    [DPF: The agreement to support the UN declaration is no secret, as it has been canvassed often in the media, and it was clearly just a matter of time.

    Sharples flying over there to announce it was not known, and came as a surprise to me. But this is secrecy around how it is announced, rather than secrecy over the substance. I have no idea why they felt a need to keep quite over Sharples flying over there except the obvious one that they wanted it as a surprise to make the announcement more significant.

    I mildly disapprove of the secrecy over Sharples as I think NZ media should know in advance of such trips, and have the opportunity to go along. But again it is not the same as having secrecy over the substance]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    The bit that means having to stop frothing at the mouth about how the black helicopters are on the way to make Maori our new overlords

    AG – the sophisticated, modern way to have sovereignty ceded is not by using black helicopters. It’s delicately hi-jacking one reasonable value at a time, so that the frogs enjoy the increasing warmth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RRM (9,636 comments) says:

    [mawm]: “I voted for the National Party because of its policies and principles and all I have in return is a government doing the Maori party’s bidding. Never again! Jonkey you are a spineless socialist.”

    [big bruv]: “It is nothing more than I expect from this fucking gutless bunch of socialist scum who masquerade as the National Party.”

    [Viking2]: “Totally disgraceful conduct in NZ’s supposed democracy.”

    [Chicken Little]: “I agree Viking – bring back Helen.”

    [serge]: “I voted national all my kife until now, I regret voting for John Key and by default for a coalition that does not serve the interests of European New Zealanders or of New Zealand as a whole. No, I will not cast a blue vote again, ever.”

    [side show bob]: “You will wake up one day Graeme and all your rules and laws will be of no relevance as your freedoms have been signed over to the one world scumbags.”

    :-D :-D :-D :-D

    ROFLMAO at some of these comments. It’s the end of the right as we know it!

    Those of you feeling betrayed, or despairing that there’s no integrity any more and no-one in whom you can have faith… you can now rejoice, for I have found an honourable alternative that you might like to consider: Seppuku.

    Here’s the how-to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    KK: “so that the frogs enjoy the increasing warmth.”

    Just as long as you don’t suggest any increase in temperature is the result of human activity … if in fact the temperature is increasing, ’cause it snowed in the USA last winter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    But back to an earlier thread … wouldn’t the “if 3 out of 4 top candidates are Maori, you’re a Maori party thus face no party vote threshold for election” have some pretty interesting unintended consequences in terms of internal party dynamics? Imagine, for example, NZ First’s list selection in 2008 … swap Doug Woolerton with Pita Parone, and hey presto you’ve got a “Maori Party” that doesn’t need 5% to get elected!

    Yes. And this would ensure Maori are represented in Parliament, which is the aim (whether one agrees with the aim or not).

    Can you come up with a better definition? A Party needs at least 500 members to be a party, requiring at least 500 Maori members to be a Maori party would probably see National and Labour qualify. Requiring at least 50% of the party membership to be Maori could see a political party being forced to turn away members based on their ethnicity, or a party might lose or gain the status with fluctuations. It would also require a much closer analysis of applications than is presently the case – the Electoral Commission checks there are at least 500 members – it doesn’t go through the entire membership, and it would be a massive undertaking to do this every three years.

    If you define Maori Party as a party which has policies aimed at ensuring Maori self-determination or something like that, you open the possibility that parties will just put that in the constitutions without meaning, or you give a massive amount of subjective power to a body like the Electoral Commission which could fundamentally alter the results of elections.

    If you view Maori representation in Parliament as a good thing, and something that needs legislative encouragement to be fully realised (and I’m not saying you should or do) then this is the way to do it. If it means that those Maori MPs are NZ First MPs, then well, that’s what the people want.

    Thinking about this more, I’d add a further step: the Party would advise the Electoral Commission it wished to be considered a Maori Party – they wouldn’t have to prove anything, but it would be announced, and the party could face media and public scrutiny for its decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    GE: “Can you come up with a better definition?”

    No – my whole point is that I don’t think there IS a useful definition available here that doesn’t encourage gaming of the system and that won’t lead to real problems in application. So it’s much better to stick with what we have – a voluntary roll that allows those wishing to vote as Maori to collectively decide who they want to represent them as Maori. It’s not just having brown faces in Parliament, but having faces in Parliament that Maori collectively have chosen to be there.

    It’s then up to those who think the status quo is a bad thing (DPF and the Royal Commission) to come up with the better workable alternative, not for me to invent one for them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    What happened after we adopted the Convention Against Torture? We couldn’t torture any more.

    Which is fair enough… unless the Convention can be unilaterally ‘re-scoped’, ‘adjusted’ or ‘re-aligned’ by the UN’s weasel-word wallah’s such that imprisonment without, say, internet access will henceforth to be considered torture. Does any wording change require full re-ratification? Serious question.

    Re-wording of a convention requires the agreement of a country to be bound by the change.

    But I would note that there is some scope for re-interpretation by Treaty Bodies, so I can see some concern for you (but that concern doesn’t apply to this declaration). For example, the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child states:

    Article 19

    1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

    2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

    The (UN) Committee on the Rights of the Child has used this article to say that countries should ban smacking. That seems a stretch, to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Just sounds like another way of identifying a party. Don’t they all do it?

    Green Party
    NZ Party – for pensioners
    Act Party – for unrestricted business, restrict things you don’t like
    Labour Party – for the workers and mothers
    National Party – for farmers, and ??
    Progressive Party – the age of the member keeps progressing anyway
    United Future Party – just checked out his “Mission” – for anything general that sounds good enough to attract a second vote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..# starboard (880) Says:
    April 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    …I know it arouses you whore…”

    so..you do it just for me..?

    don’t bother..eh..?

    here’s a thought..!

    why don’ you try to opine..not using ‘scum’s’..or anal-penetration’ .. as yr metaphors..?

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    “Sharples flying over there to announce it was not known, and came as a surprise to me. But this is secrecy around how it is announced, rather than secrecy over the substance.”

    Be careful DPF: you’re now fully believing your own spin. I advise you to open your eyes and keep your feet firmly on the ground, because gymnastics of this kind could be dangerous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    yes..!..why didn’t key fore-shadow this..?..at yr agm..?..eh..?

    i am sure the natty-punters wd have been well-pleased..eh..?

    ..had he..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 12:52 pm,

    ROFLMAO at some of these comments. It’s the end of the right as we know it!

    I think that’s the problem, RRM, many of us realise that National, and certainly their leader, is only a whisker right of the previous Klark led Labour government. This is just more left wing socialism and pandering to minority interest groups at the expense of the majority if right thinking New Zealanders, and anything even vaguely approaching democracy.

    And I agree with others; this is just more ceding of our sovereignty to the One Worlders heading the corrupt UN.
    Between the converting of vast tracts of land to National Parks and/or heritage regions, and much of the rest being essentially handed to our so called indigenous people, the average New Zealander will end up with no rights in their own country. Basically the Greens/environmentalists and Maori will ‘own’ New Zealand, and how these tracts of lands are to be managed will be founded upon ‘non-binding’ UN declarations. Of course, as others have said, transforming these into ‘binding’ declarations will be a simple process. And let’s be clear; this is exactly what many of us recognise as being the short to medium term outcome.

    Say goodbye national sovereignty, hello global governance!
    [Do you want a verse for that?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Thanks Graeme

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    Just listened to Key on the radio news confirming their decision to keep it all secret.
    Now DPF before you growl me again my argument is similar to yours. There was no need to do this and it represents a breach of TRUST between the inclusive PM and the electorate.
    A breach that says I, the PM didn’t want to tell you because you may well not agree. And that’s most likely right.
    A breach that follows others that would be considered a breach of faith.
    We are not all dummies nor are we stupid and we don’t always agree with stuff but that’s not an excuse to treat us in this way.
    After all the biggest proponents of much discussion are the Maori but, it seems, not with the wider electorate. If their case was good and right and properly articulated with the electorate rather than by some back office deal, then, the electorate wouldn’t have an excuse to be upset in the way this was done.
    Like money being paid out of govt., transparency is a great thing and you are, I think, an ardent supporter of that concept.
    Why would agreements of this kind be any different to money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    “Say goodbye national sovereignty, hello global governance!”

    The only thing worse than that would be a single “right” belief system with an all encompassing omni-ruler, wouldn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Bob R (1,356 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to see indigenous groups in Europe – it seems the UN applies a stricter definition. There seems to be an assumption that only non-whites can be indigenous?

    “Since most of Europe in historical times was never colonized by non-European powers with lasting effect (arguably except for Hungary, Turkish Thrace, Tatarstan, Kalmykia and islands such as Malta or Cyprus[24]), the vast majority of Europeans can be considered “indigenous”. However several widely accepted formulations, which define the term “Indigenous peoples” in stricter terms, have been put forward by internationally recognized organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. Indigenous peoples in this article is used in such a narrower sense.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_people#Europe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Rights for indigenous peoples — whatever next!

    Maori are not indigenous to NZ – their ancestors came here by boat, just like the rest of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Thanks Graeme

    You’re welcome.

    I should add that in respect of most International Treaties and Conventions, the Government can denounce them (or withdraw from them) upon changing its mind, though this is drastic and rather rare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    what else is key ‘not telling’ you..?..eh..?

    you’d have to wonder/worry..eh..?

    him being ‘neville’..and all..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    what’s that low thumping sound..?

    it’s the sound of the racist wing of the national party..imploding..

    ..(after) weeping/feeling drenched in betrayal..

    ‘neville’..indeed..!..”

    (i mean..imagine how upset you would be if it was in any way ‘binding’..?

    ..eh..?.

    .then you’d have something to bleat about..?..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Philu shouldn’t you be out working, oh that’s right progressives don’t do work well , they’re far to intellectual for such trival matters. Bush might not have been God’s gift to presidents but he is a shinning star compared to the Kenyan. That clown and his cabal of progressive twits make spending money a higher art form. The only thing progressives will bring to the world is enslavement and totalitarian government.

    I agree with RRM’s last line but sadly for RRM I have no plans to top myself. I would say that for a growing proportion of New Zealanders we now feel we have no party that represents our views. Sadly most Kiwi’s are either to lazy or to brainwashed to know they are swimming in a simmering progressive pot. But I’m sure they can go to the UN when it all turns shit, like the mindless drones progressives are they will need someone to tell them how to live their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. backster (2,122 comments) says:

    Slightlyrightly/3coil…….You are right Maori are no more indigenous than the swag of Chinese that arrived last week. Graeme may correct me but I understand either the Lange or Kirk Governments legislated to make them indigenous and then changed the definition of Maori to allow anyone with a Maori ancestor to be declared a Maori, thus NZ has about an eigth or more of its population who are indigenous whereas this declaration I think was meant to protect American Red Indians Aussie Abos and the like who comprise a tiny percentage of the population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    it’s all ‘symbolism’..darlings..!

    ..key can pump this symbolic stuff out all day long..no worries..!

    ..and the maori party seem pleased/appeased..

    ..so..?

    ..where’s the surprise..?

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..swimming in a simmering progressive pot.,:

    mmm!!!!..

    “..Bush might not have been God’s gift to presidents.”

    ya could say that..eh..?.

    “..I would say that for a growing proportion of New Zealanders we now feel we have no party that represents our views..”

    how about the macgillicuddy party..?

    ..i understand they are fairly elastic as far as loony-policies are concerned..?

    ..a ‘homeless’ bloody-hands-bob..eh..?

    dosen’t bear thinking about..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    side show bob at 1:53 pm

    I would say that for a growing proportion of New Zealanders we now feel we have no party that represents our views.

    I don’t see anything wrong with that. They can’t satisfy all of the people all of the time.
    Some of the people will never be satisfied.

    Even those who have their own parties don’t get it all their own way, they have to go with caucus decisions and what can pass through parliament etc. Life in any sort of society involves compromise, and accepting that no one gets everything their own way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. dave (986 comments) says:

    A Māori party is a party that the first person on their list would qualify for the Māori electoral roll under the current definition, as well as least three of the top four

    Well not according to the 1986 royal commission, Graeme, it viewed a Māori party as one primarily representing Maori interests. Furthermore the commission viewed Maori who were “members of the Maori community” as the people to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Well not according to the 1986 royal commission, Graeme, it viewed a Māori party as one primarily representing Maori interests. Furthermore the commission viewed Maori who were “members of the Maori community” as the people to do so.

    I’m aware of the the statement of the Royal Commission on this matter. Now perhaps you (or DPF) can explain to me how such a definition is remotely workable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 1:35 pm,

    “Say goodbye national sovereignty, hello global governance!”

    The only thing worse than that would be a single “right” belief system with an all encompassing omni-ruler, wouldn’t it.

    Even you, Pete, may recognise the benefits were you to live under this kind of Reign – of course, you have to make it through the seven year pre-cursor first – but good luck with that.

    And if you really entrust your future to the ideologues heading the corrupt UN, then you are more of a fool than I thought you were. Once again; good luck – you’ll need it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. dave (986 comments) says:

    Having read the document, I cannot see any part that defines what an Indigenous Person is.

    It doesn’t. But the declaration does describe indigenous peoples (in part). Namely peoples in dependant countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country at the time of colonisation, and who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Kris, I didn’t say anything about me entrusting my future to the UN or to anyone. I was just pointing out your ambiguities. At least the UN is a much more modern option staffed by real people. It is not without faults, but neither is the ancient power structure you are a fan of.

    Funny thing is, the UN is more often criticised for it’s lack of potency due to it’s structure governed by veto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. lastmanstanding (1,240 comments) says:

    Little by little over the past 40 years the United Nations as a group as sought to break down the freedoms of citizens in those countries that claim to be democracies.

    Their agenda like the one who know occupies seat 3 at the head table is to shifted the balance of power from the individual citizen to the STATE whilst ensuring the responsibility for paying the costs remaims with the individual.

    Wrapped up in a smoke and mirrors process called the electoral system the elite conspire to divest the taxpaying citizens of their rights and transfer these to groups that support the elite.

    Freedom fighters like myself react by making ourselves as small a target as possible for the STATE and like Sam Morgan devise ways and means of eliminating or minimising any contribution to their self serving schemes whilst still paying our way by taking individual responsibility for as much as we can.

    Alas JK like his predessors has been overwhelmed by the World Government that is the United Nations.

    JK would have been taken aside and told in no uncertain terms the penalties for NOT agreeing the the WG aka UN demands.

    Hence Peter S at the WG aka UN.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Jack5 (4,818 comments) says:

    What a surprise that Bro. Key backs bropartheid.

    To have succeeded as a top international currency trader Bro. Key needed an extremely strong taste for risk. Perhaps he even has a dependency on the thrill of high stakes risk.

    Now he’s risking the future of all of us on long-shot political gambles, such as the 2 per cent Maori Party keeping him in power. The danger this may alienate 80 per cent of the population from National gives high-stakes John some of the adrenalin he must crave in dull life after currency speculation.

    Thank goodness Bro. Key hasn’t got his finger on a nuclear trigger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    act/hide are really pissed..calling this ‘a breach of their agreement’ with key/national..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Phool

    Expecting the government to implode are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    It’s hard to know if Hide is genuinely “shocked and appalled” or if he is trying to tap into a bit of a feeling in part of the electorate – if so, at least he beat Peters to it.

    PM ‘naive in the extreme’ over UN declaration – Hide

    The Government attached a statement to the declaration making it clear that New Zealand was committed to the common objectives of the declaration and the Treaty of Waitangi and that existing legal and constitutional frameworks that underpinned New Zealand’s legal system would define the bounds of engagement with the declaration.

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

    If they want apartheid then give it to them.

    Let’s have no Maori areas, no Maoris buses, and so on.

    Push them into the East Cape and let them live as they want eating their puha and doing the haka in grass skirts.

    Surround the area with high fences and call it say, District Ten.

    I am sure that would please the majority of other races in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    RB: “I am sure that would please the majority of other races in the country.”

    And I’m sure you’re a bit of a dick. Amazing what people can believe, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    I havn’t read all the threads.. but when all the smoke clears .. we will all be patting ourselves on the back.. on how well we treat our Indigenous Peoples.. like being nuclear free.. Kiwi’s just like to be liked and be seen to be doing the right thing..
    Again we will be the World leaders of being the good sorts.. one more reason Kiwi’s can be proud.. Blar Blar Blar..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    bee..we are one of four countries who had not signed up for this..

    ..hardly ‘world leaders’..eh..?

    ..more the fag-end of the whole process really..eh..?

    ..but don’t let that spoil the fantasy you are spinning..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    Yes, it seems “harmless” and “doesn’t mean anything”, but just wait a few years and see. NZ has to stop bending over for anything the UN says.
    Are Maori foolish enough to rejoice over this (akin to beads and trinkets) if it didn’t mean anything? I don’t think so. It means something whether Jonky says so or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (6,135 comments) says:

    I think that the signing of this and also use signing up for the Emissions Trading Scheme (which almost no other country is going to have and which won’t be enforced anyway) shows that NZ still has “little brother” syndrome. We’re a small country with an inferiority complex (or at least our leaders have) and so we feel the need to put our hand up and be “leaders” in these new initiatives no matter what they are or how stupid or illogical. Oohh look! We’re first! We’re leading the world! Little old New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    Fletch @ 6.28pm “Oohh look! We’re first! We’re leading the world! Little old New Zealand.”

    Um. Der. We’re actually almost the last. But you continue in your little redneck fantasy won’t you….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Eat my words Phil u… and take a note from Fletch.. little man..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Stuart Mackey (337 comments) says:

    leftgreen(1) Says:
    April 20th, 2010 at 10:05 am
    I just love these posts that bring out the true racism in many National voters and Kiwiblog readers!
    ****************************************

    I was not aware that a desire for every person to be treated the same, without reference to race, religion, colour or creed, was racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    o secret it was, so secret it even breached a no surprises clause in the Act/Nat greement.
    Another breach of TRUST.

    Hide: Indigenous declaration breaches deal
    By TRACY WATKINS
    Last updated 15:02 20/04/2010

    AT THE UN: Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples has flown secretly to New York for a speech to the United Nations signing New Zealand up to a declaration on indigenous rights.
    hide
    RODNEY HIDE: ‘Shocked and appalled’.

    The Government has come under attack from key support party ACT for signing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

    Leader Rodney Hide said he was shocked and appalled at the Government signing up to the declaration.

    In a shock speech to Parliament Mr Hide said signing the declaration was a breach of ACT’s “no surprises” agreement with the Government and afforded Maori rights and privileges not enjoyed by other New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    In a shock speech to Parliament Mr Hide said signing the declaration was a breach of ACT’s “no surprises” agreement with the Government and afforded Maori rights and privileges not enjoyed by other New Zealanders.

    Go you good thing Hide…your the man to watch next election..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Pita Sharples has flown secretly to New York

    I thought all MPs travel was to be transparent..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    breach of ACT’s “no surprises” agreement ..

    It’s obvious National thinks the Maori Party are the better option.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. deadrightkev (327 comments) says:

    You tried to hide the shame by the title you used in this blog DPF. What a disgrace you are.

    Key should be fucked with a big stick and flogged with Helen Klarks vibrator for his sucking up the UN. In almost a year he has gone from Hero to negative zero.

    As for some wanker above suggesting Rodney Hyde is the saviour, fuck me, what level of insanity have we reached in this country when we think of him as anything but an arse wipe? A few months ago he was shagging his trophy girlfriend at our expense in every corner of the globe.

    I say Winston is the answer. Long live Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Eat my words Phil u..”

    um..!..which words..?..and for why..?

    ..just ‘cos you say so..?

    ..don’t think so..eh..?

    and..’little man’..?..really..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Let’s see how “shocked and appalled” Baubles Hide really is when he sits down to consider his options.

    “now, lets see, stand on principal and tell National to stick their coalition, give up the ministerial limo, ministerial house, ministerial salary and perks, or,…………..make a lot of noise but do nothing and keep my nose in the trough”

    Given Baubles Hide’s recent form what do you reckon he will do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Come to think of it, if Rodney did pull out of the coalition then there could be a silver cloud on the horizon.

    The Greens are polling less than 5% at the moment, should ACT withdraw its support and Key decided to have an early election then we may well be able to rid ourselves of Locke, Delahunty, Norman and co……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. deadrightkev (327 comments) says:

    big bruv

    Wishful thinking mate, those Green tossers have smoke and mirrors coming out there arses so they will get 5% of losers and no hopers to vote for them. We need a charismatic leader to start a new political party, a David Lange without the fat and drinking problem.

    I know, what about Vince off the Beaurepaires adverts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Kev

    Let’s see if we can fire up Bob Jones again, I know he would be bored with the place within three months but there sure would be some fun to be had in the mean time.

    Can you imagine question time in the house, it would be pure comedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. deadrightkev (327 comments) says:

    Brilliant, and the red wine would be flowing in Bellamys, what a joy fest. good old bob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Oh my,

    I thought this was the ‘change’ New Zealand voted for in 2008? Were we not warned that the change could potentially be worse?

    Get over it New Zealand, you decided to end Helen Clark’s zero-tolerance of the Maori-only gravy train in favour of a different approach and this is it – a buy back of the Maori only gravy train. Only this one costs a lot more than Cullen’s train set.

    Destination? from rags to riches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    philu 7:20 pm

    Your right plil u.. your alway’s right.. because you believe your right phil u..all the time phil u.. but phil u you don’t have the consensus of the rest of us.. really.. take my word for it.

    deadrightkev 7:37 pm

    Vince off the Beaurepaires ads… we already have grey power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Caleb (477 comments) says:

    its funny that Key, being wealthy outside government, is still putting politics ahead of the country. the only reason the left are hating Key and doing poorly in the polls is that Key is doing a better job at it than they did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/04/mike-butler-nats-tell-key-what-you.html

    http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_fandsb.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    The only reason the left are hating Key and doing poorly in the polls is that Key is doing a better job than they did in bed with Maori.. Labour are just no good in bed with anyone… why do you think old Jim likes to sleep with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Fletch (984) Says:
    April 20th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Yes, it seems “harmless” and “doesn’t mean anything”, but just wait a few years and see. NZ has to stop bending over for anything the UN says.

    Absolutely Fletch, if it means nothing why are we signing it?
    because it does mean something as we will find out later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    vote your party vote to ACT.
    Give John Key a spanking :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Mike

    It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for Baubles Hide, the man is a sell out and a fucking disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    so bruv – serious question: who would you vote for today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    KK

    I asked myself that question today, there is not a single party that represents the centre right or even the right.

    There are good people in the Nat’s and ACT but their leaders are either gutless wimps or troughing fools suffering from a mid life crisis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    vote your party vote to ACT.
    Give John Key a spanking

    With a wet bus ticket.

    National is right… right in the middle with the Moari Party… no room in the bed for three… left or right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Viking2 (11,250 comments) says:

    Time to get over that Bruv.
    Unless of course you want to vote for Winston or Phil or Wussell or Turiana.
    Lots of good choices there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    V2

    Key is almost guaranteeing Winston a place in the next parliament at the moment.

    Voting for Winnie is not an option nor am I going to vote for the watermelons and I am not the right skin colour to vote for the apartheid party.

    It cannot be ACT as Hide has destroyed any credibility he once had and I am never going to vote for Neville, so I guess it is a case of not voting at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    @Viking2 – I agree. My vote for National has been abused firstly over taxes, ETS, Foreshore et al, and secondly because Key knows I’ll run into the arms of Act, a coalition partner. Abuse- that’s what it is. The biggest problem Act has is (no, not Hides’ baubles) is that they’ve been slimed by our pinko MSM as far right extremists, which is laughable given they are further to the left than Labour was in the 80′s. I really do despair.

    @bruv – sorry mate, can see your dilemma but can’t respect the “won’t vote” position. if you have to vote for the least bad then do that. Not voting kinda invalidates passing comment/judgment on where the country is at IMO. The prospect of that lying old soak Peters having any say in the governance of our country is truely frightening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    The Greens would never get my vote, I’m not a Bro so the Maori party is not an option, trougher Hide has put me right off Act, voting NZF is more appealing by the day but Winnie’s corrupt bullshit can never be forgiven, Dunne should be sent to the works, this current National lot, naah. I think for the first time I will vote Labour. Helen and Mickey are gone courtesy of JK. In medicine we have a saying “first do no harm”. Goff is so useless and the country is so fucked, I can’t see any harm in voting Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. jackp (668 comments) says:

    I think the timing is ripe for Act to disassociate itself with National and kill the coalition. Act is going down in popularity when it should be going up picking up National supporters. John Key thinks a vote for act is a vote for National. It might help National but it is hurting Act. A vote for National is a vote for Maori and who cares about Act is about all the coalition is leading to. Since National and Act are two worlds apart right now, Rodney should resign as minister and start getting its “act” together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Heh,heh, right wing types spouting, we believe in property rights for all, unless they are tanned that is.
    So right wingers, should stolen property be handed back ? as long as we hori hand back the small amount of dosh we got as compensation that is ?

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

    Ah the Maori problem, it is not going away quickly.

    I arrived in New Zealand in the early seventies (the Golden years) and my Dad chose to retire in a small coastal town.

    Actually, the primary school was tiny and oddly there were very few Maoris there, mostly they were girls, in the minority but tough as nails, very open and well respected (Let’s face it most Maori females are cool).

    I can’t recall any pure bred Maori male at all that lived in the district. There were some half casts (Dutch father) and they were again tough and huge and quite respected in the area.

    But an Auckland family had a summer bach there and about twenty or so Maori males of varying ages would turn up each summer and basically dominate a causeway bridge to the extent that it became too intimidating to walk across the bridge.

    They would often challenge boys to fights and my brother being an arrogant mouthie POM got a little beating but when he screamed stop the younger Maori boy did stop beating when he passed his guard UFC style.

    As I said the half caste Dutch boys were tough and one of them knew martial arts and he basically dealt to all of the city Maoris who challenged him. That was something to see and quite a coup for us locals.

    Then at twelve I entered a high school that was about forty percent Maori.

    They used to call themselves, The Nigs and I played scrag with them on the concrete basket ball courts. It was noticeable that they resented us whites and had pen marked tatoos but their was a mutual respect there especially when it came to rugby of course. There were a few great fights between a white guy and a Maori guy but they were always fair and one to one.

    I made friends with a few of the more academic Maori guys, I suppose the happier ones, the non-resentful ones. They were awesome guys, handsome, tough, and humorous.

    We all know these types and I have made friends with them in many countries.

    So in that regard, yes perhaps a lot of it was down to family upbringing and education and let’s face it money.

    Things seemed to go quiet during the Lange years and it was only when I was about to graduate from law school that I was called a racist by some dick-head Maori elder waving a big stick at us and causing almost an uproar and causing a Malaysian Chinese student to storm out of the class in protest but still he was saying, “Sorry, sorry!” to the disgusting old elder as he left the class. That was a sign right there.

    The Maori kid in our law class then stood up and said the Maori guy was right and that all Maori get treated worse off in white man’s courts.

    No one actually pulled him up on that as we had no court experience.

    But ten years later, I attending courts such as Hamilton and Huntly I would have definitely told him he was wrong in no uncertain terms.

    A few surf trips at East Cape being chased away by gang members, being prevented by that old guy at Raglan (what a hateful old man he was) from walking to Indicators, being told to fuck off for no reason by a big Maori surfer one day for just being white, well it did make me think, “Bloody Maoris!”

    Then I lived next to some in Hamilton. A fat kid of about eighteen on the dole and who would blast his music all night long, kind of annoying when you have court the next morning. The other side we got our lawn mower stolen twice. The second time we had chained it to a metal pole but somehow they still made off with it and sold it but the police later caught them. One day I left my touch shoes outside as I had stepped in dog shit and they stole them too.

    Many years later I left NZ and traveled and on my many returns were quite disturbed to hear some of my mates saying “Fucking Maoris!” now and being quite racist.

    When I pronounced my hometown with the W sound as an F some girl said what is that? Meaning why pronounce it that way!

    Looking from afar, things have totally got out of control for New Zealand.

    And in my view it has mainly been because of the radical extreme Maoris, like the ugly old guy waving his stick at us in that law class when we were all young and naive.

    How to fix it?

    No idea.

    I read a book by King who said their was a race here before the Maoris. He claimed they were called the Morioris and were generally peaceful but were exterminated, eaten and enslaved by the Maoris who came here from somewhere near Hawaii.

    That seems a pretty legitimate claim, I talked to an old guy who said during the second world war they found a mass grave of Moriori bones near Taronui Bay near Kerikeri.

    Now it seems everyone says they were Maoris.

    Odd.

    The average and educated Maori perhaps needs to say to the extreme minority leaders enough is enough or really they run the risk of being a hated, easily identified minority.

    As far as the politicians, well, they have a four year term to think of, they have little care about the welfare of New Zealand long term.

    That is where Chinese politics is far better at least as long as the dictatorship remains a fair one.

    They think long term for the benefit of China.

    For example you can’t own land here.

    And foreigners have limited purchasing rights of leasehold properties.

    When you think of it that is pretty smart as China will always be Chinese.

    But New Zealand is changing, it CAN be bought and sold.

    Increased numbers of Asians will be the Maoris downfall in the end.

    A financial apartheid is one thing but a mental apartheid is far more dangerous for them.

    To be identified as a fucking Maori as they walk down the road. That is the future they face.

    This is the road they are going down.

    Sorry for the long rant, but let’s face it we need to rant on this subject as pretty much it is fucking up what was once a great and harmonious and happy country.

    I wish someone had a solution but they just don’t.

    Things are spiraling out of control for New Zealand and it is true as someone posted above that Kiwis are apathetic.

    But I can tell you right now this is not a big win for the Maori.

    Any race that decides to live in the past, no matter which country will never catch up.

    And when the faces of politicians start to take on an even more international image, well, some races such as the Asians just aren’t as apathetic and guilt ridden as the old traditional Kiwi pakeha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    guilt ridden as the old traditional Kiwi pakeha

    I aint guilt ridden…got nothin to be guilty about…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Starboard, I don’t think us Pakehas are guilt ridden at all. There is a huge difference between seeing justice done for the sake of justice and seeing justice done out some emotional claptrap reason. We should all just stay cool and rational, recognise that the world has come a long way since the days of European colonialism – although there are a couple of countries yet to get fully up to speed yet – and indigenous peoples are gathering a head of steam. The climate change debacle and new injustices will spur this process on. We live in interesting times.

    Robert Black, the accepted wisdom now, as espoused by an eminent historian Michael King, (see his book – Moriori, A People Rediscovered) is that Moriori were a Maori sub-tribe who settled in the Chathams very early in the maori settlement process, and evolved in total isolation until the Maori invasion (for which they hired a European ship).

    So the story there were people here before Maori is just an urban myth. There is yet another myth that the Celts were here first, and lived happily until Jesus Christ wandered their way and sent them all off to Heaven, but research has yet to confirm this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Robert Black 2:25 am,

    Thanks for your very interesting “long rant” – and I agree with you sentiments.

    NZ has certainly changed from the 70s, and with these sort of recent developments I can only see things getting worse for all New Zealanders. And I include Maori; this will add further fuel to fire the attitude that Maori are ‘victims’, and are owed pretty much whatever they feel they have been deprived of by the ‘unjust’ white man’s system. Watch out for the chip on the shoulder of Maoridom to grow in the form of further pushes for: – Maori sovereignty; a Maori justice system; Maori prisons; Maori welfare (already under discussion); Seabed and foreshore development rights for Maori; Maori education; et al.

    Where will it all end?
    (And I’m almost ashamed to admit I have some Maori heritage).
    Let’s be clear; this is racism pure and simple. And New Zealanders need to stand against this NOW and stop it dead in its tracks.
    The more I hear about this, the more my blood boils!
    John Key, are you listening?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Jack5 (4,818 comments) says:

    Re Lucy Hansen’s post at 8.14, in which he uses the phrase:

    …eminent historian Michael King…

    I’m not sure whether Moriori were a subtribe of the Maori or another Polynesian people, but King was just another regional historian in vogue for a time as Keith Sinclair was before him. Others will follow. Eminent? That depends on your politics, Lucy.

    Genetic researchers can now trace ancient movements of peoples, and might find Chatham Islanders an interesting study, provided enough Moriori genes survived the awful massacre of these peaceful folk by Maori, of course. That would be far more solid research than King’s conjectures on Moriori origins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Jack5 (4,818 comments) says:

    The tiny Maori Party’s great victory through Bro. Key does show the power of very small political groups.

    Oh for a party that pushes for NZ becoming part of Australia, and for another that pushes South Island interests, and puts on the agenda the possibility of the South Island as an Australian state.

    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.