Do the Greens want 60 Maori seats?

April 6th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

On there is a group called Maori 60. It’s description is:

Maori should be equal partners with settlers in the NZ government. There are now 120 MPs. Maori should control 60 seats.

The most prominent member of Maori 60 is Green co-leader .

That is some heavweight support, to have a party leader join your group.

I wonder how many Green Party voters know that their co-leader does not support a democracy where all votes are roughly equal, but where 15% of the population should have 50% of the seats, and the other 85% have the other 50%. That make a vote from someone with Maori ancestry six times more powerful than a vote from someone who does not have the right relatives.

Tags: , ,

94 Responses to “Do the Greens want 60 Maori seats?”

  1. wreck1080 (3,734 comments) says:

    This would result in civil war.

    Probably some maoris would like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Tauhei Notts (1,609 comments) says:

    I am all in favour of sixty Maori seats. But the definition of Maori must be extended to anybody who at any time in their life has felt like a Maori. Then everybody can be Maori and life will go on.
    It reminds me of the bloke who pointed out that Maori have one big advantage in life over homosexuals. He reckons that is because if you are Maori you do not have to tell your parents about it.

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

    Does that mean the Springboks will not be able to tour again?

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

    When you let the young ones drink elixir from the chalice you must make sure they don’t try to gulp it all down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Nice system if your skin is the right colour!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    For the purposes of voting, the proportion of New Zealanders who are Māori is ~18% (the Māori descent population), not 15% (Māori ethnicity).

    [DPF: Is that of adult population? I know boundaries use total pop,but I regard adult pop as better indicator]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Why am I not surprised

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. A1kmm (91 comments) says:

    Belonging to a Facebook group doesn’t mean that someone supports the group summary; you can’t comment on a group, or follow the activities of the group without joining. In addition, many MPs have other people help them manage their Facebook profile. So it would be quite a leap to say that Metiria actually thinks that 50% of all seats should be Maori seats.

    Furthermore, Green Party MPs don’t set Green Party policy. The Green Party makes decisions on policy ‘outside in’ and ‘bottom up’ by design (in other political parties, people holding top positions decide on policy, and everyone else works to help them, in the Greens, the members decide on policy, and office-holders / MPs work to help to implement the decision). Metiria is only one of many Green Party members, and so even if she did support this, it is the members that set Green Party policy.

    [DPF: I welcome Metiria outlining her views. Are you a Green Party member. Do you support a 60/60 split?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,461 comments) says:

    A1kmm – lol yea cause the Greens wouldnt be all over it if JK joined a group called “man made climate change is bullshit”

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

    I like Pork Bones and Puha does that count?

    Lets rescind all racist seats and legislation and start afresh burn the treaty or leave it as historical document in Te Papa, without all the liberal, white guilt, colonist, pinko rubbish.
    One law, One country, One citizenship but many origins, we’re all colonists somewhere in our history.

    The Maori are colonists just like the rest of us, just ask the Moriori and the Moa!

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/moriori/1
    Current research also indicates that Moriori came to the Chatham Islands from New Zealand about 1500. Moriori traditions, however, hold that there were people on the island before the canoe voyagers arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Cheers, A1kmm – was about to make those points myself.

    This is the actual Green Party Policy, which Metiria, like all Green MPs, is expected to support:

    The Green Party believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue grounded in Te Tiriti, both to give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and to build a high level of awareness among all citizens of the unique role of Te Tiriti in our nation.

    Mäori seats in Parliament
    The Green Party supports guaranteed representation for Mäori in the House of Representatives. While this form of monolithic representation is not a true reflection of Te Tiriti, until Aotearoa/New Zealand moves towards such a relationship, the Green Party believes it essential that Mäori have representation in Parliament.

    3. The Green Party will support the entrenchment of the Mäori seats so that there is guaranteed Mäori representation in Parliament.

    Mäori electoral option
    The Mäori electoral option is a chance for Mäori to choose between being on the Mäori electoral roll or the General electoral roll for when they vote in the next scheduled general election. The option is currently only available every five years with no obvious relevance to the timing of the general election.

    The Green Party will:

    4. Enable Mäori voters to change from the General to the Mäori roll, or vice versa, at any time.
    5. Ensure that there is a public information campaign to highlight the opportunity for Mäori voters to enrol on the Mäori roll prior to the general election

    This facebook group is engaging in the dialogue the Green want to see happen. Joining it means that you want to engage with it – I think I might join it myself, even though I support only the “Maori should be equal partners with settlers in the NZ government” part of its description on FB and not the “There are now 120 MPs. Maori should control 60 seats.” which I think is simplistic and undemocratic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    Graham, According to NZ Statistics population estimates Maori numbered 652,900 in 2009 but 265,200 were under 18. 387,700 is only 12 percent of the voting population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Does that mean the Springboks will not be able to tour again?

    I did laugh I have to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. JC (909 comments) says:

    “but where 15% of the population should have 50% of the seats, and the other 85% have the other 50%.”

    Why not.. they’ve got 50% + of the crime.

    Actually, to qualify that, Judge A Becroft says its the same 5% who do 80% of the crime.. and if the sociologists would get off their arses they’d find its the same 5% of the general population who come up with dopey ideas like this one of the Greens.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    Further confirmation that the Green Party are a front for Far Left neo-marxists and racist ethnic activists.

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

    I’m a “fan” of John Key on facebook, but only so I can troll the comments about mining, whales, etc. It means nothing.

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

    “The most prominent member of Maori 60 is Green co-leader Metiria Turei.”

    Who is probably a signatory to the recently announced co-operative agreeement with National. How far do you reckon the implications of Turei’s association with this racist supremacist group would extend into this alliance?

    National needs to drop any association with the Greens right now. No reputable party needs any alliance with a party that even touches on any association with racist supremacists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    [DPF: Is that of adult population? I know boundaries use total pop,but I regard adult pop as better indicator]

    That would be population of all ages. I understand that those of Māori ethnicity make up somewhere around 12% of the 18+ population.

    EDIT: And now see that Lindsay has provided the numbers.

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

    Metiria Turei is still having hangovers from her days in the Marijana Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PaulL (5,874 comments) says:

    I agree that being a member of a facebook group doesn’t mean you support it. I would expect, however, a deputy leader of a party, and even an MP, to be a little more careful. Surely if she just wanted to see what they were saying, she could get a staffer to join?

    Has anyone gone to have a look and see what comments she’s written? That would tell us what she actually thinks much more than just being a member would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    DPF, I see you are a member of the Rick Giles “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it” Facebook group.

    What does that say about you?

    [DPF: It says I enjoy taking the piss out of Rick, and 3,500 others have]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Including me, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    If this is Green Party policy, then let’s be upfront about it shall we.

    I also note that the creator of the group is American by nationality it would seem, and lists among his friends, one Jeanette Fitzsimons, one Annette King, Another chap called Chris Carter, some dude called Cunliffe?

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

    National needs to drop any association with the Greens right now. No reputable party needs any alliance with a party that even touches on any association with racist supremacists.

    That would include the Maori Party, Act , and themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    The sooner young Rick works out that he screwed up and isn’t the victim the sooner we’ll stop making downfall videos of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    I also note that the creator of the group is American by nationality it would seem

    I would have assumed NZer studying at a US university, but does anyone actually know the guy?

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

    I wonder how many Green Party voters know that their co-leader does not support a democracy where all votes are roughly equal

    What’s with the ‘roughly’? Oh that’s right. We have the Maori seats and a National Government who see no problem perpetuating this apartheid system, and infact were quite happy to extended it into the new Auckland Super City. Until a minority party of principle put their little foot down.

    What’s more of worry: the silly ideas of a 5% party or the weak and cynical thinking of a governing party who would start an irreversible split in NZ for their own short-term gain?

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

    Kia ora, A1kmm is quite right, the whole point of joining these facebook groups is to find out what other discussions are going on. Toad has posted the Green Party policy, you can take it as read that I support that policy 100%. You can also safely assume that I am very interested in all ideas about te Tiriti and democracy. Cheers, Mx

    [DPF: Wonderful politician reply. You are getting better at this! The Green policy is not incompatible with supporting there being a 50/50 split of seats between Maori and Pakeha. It is silent on this.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. david (2,539 comments) says:

    JC said “why not, they’ve got 50% of the crime”

    LOL but I prefer the system whereby you get a vote for every dollar of tax you pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Inventory2 (10,106 comments) says:

    DPF said

    The most prominent member of Maori 60 is Green co-leader Metiria Turei.

    That is some heavweight support, to have a party leader join your group.

    Just what are you trying to say here DPF? Maybe you should define “heavyweight” ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. big bruv (13,314 comments) says:

    How is a system that gives roughly 15% of the people 50% of the vote democratic Metiria?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    If its OK to have 7 Maori seats and a Maori roll why is it not ok to preserve 50% of the seats based on race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Sideoiler – many of us don’t think it’s OK to have 7 seats based on race.

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

    Good point Sideoiler. It’s a matter of where history has landed us, and where we want to be in the future. Seats based on race should not be the target, IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Red Sam (122 comments) says:

    “Further confirmation that the Green Party are a front for Far Left neo-marxists and racist ethnic activists.”

    There’s nothing far left or neo-Marxist about this idea. Please read up on your communist ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    I was being sarcastic gazzmaniac but the question is still a valid one, if its ok to have 7 race based seats, why is it not ok to have 60.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. david (2,539 comments) says:

    By your argument sideoiler, there should be 50% of the Maori Seats reserved for “non-Maori”
    Now that is a thought to play with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    # Bob R (110) Says:
    April 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Further confirmation that the Green Party are a front for Far Left neo-marxists and racist ethnic activists.

    How so? It is neither a Green Party idea nor is it Green Party policy.

    Isn’t it funny how being a facebook friend suddenly becomes political?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. nigel201065 (38 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac,
    You are not alone,
    The royal commission on electoral reform that was set up I think 4 years after the first MMP election actually stated under MMP that the Maori seats should be abolished.
    And for all of you who don’t believe me it’s easy to google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    It’s also not democratic or ‘OK’ to invade someone’s land, destroy their communal lifestyle, establish a racist settler Government, draft a treaty that it never intends to do justice to and urbanise Maori so that their support systems and way of natural life are devoured and they are expected to adapt straight away to a completely different mindset and way of life. Then when Maori are because of these factors are over-represented in almost every negative statistic the right-wing then say we are not even aloud some guaranteed representation in the House of Representatives when we were promised sovereignty.

    Pure arrogance and needles hate.

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

    I was being sarcastic gazzmaniac but the question is still a valid one, if its ok to have 7 race based seats, why is it not ok to have 60.

    We actually have 120 race based seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Maori friction groups love to call up the treaty when it suits them.

    Funnily enough you don’t hear much about Article the First from them.

    My 2c…

    The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

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

    the right-wing then say we are not even aloud some guaranteed representation in the House of Representatives when we were promised sovereignty

    Were you promised sovereingty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    We actually have 120 race based seats.

    How are the list seats “race based”?

    The royal commission on electoral reform that was set up I think 4 years after the first MMP election actually stated under MMP that the Maori seats should be abolished.

    The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform was established in 1985. It recommended that if MMP were adopted there should be no Māori seats, but that Māori parties should have an exception from the 4% threshold (that it recommended) for getting list seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    “It’s also not democratic or ‘OK’ to invade someone’s land, destroy their communal lifestyle”

    Tell that to the Moriori

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    @ malcom I agree race based seats is wrong.@david Im not making an argument for 50% maori seats.What I am asking is Why is it acceptable to have race based seats at all? weather its 6 seats of 50% of the seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    “Ko te tuatahi
    Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.”

    No RRM, this is where the conflict occurs, this to me does not translate as what you copied there. And might I also mention article two which promises all land unless sold or given away. The vast majority of New Zealand was not sold but confiscated. If you try deny Tino Rangatiratanga and the raupatu of lands then yes you will never support guaranteed representation. But what was done in this country’s history is disgusting. I don’t advocate vengence or even full Maori soverienty (that point has passed). But i do certainly advocate representation of tangata whenua in the legislative and governance processes, especially while the distinct impacts of colonisation are still very much alive in Maori statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Why is it acceptable to have race based seats at all?

    Why is it unacceptable?

    edit: not saying it is or isn’t, just interested in your particular reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    “It’s also not democratic or ‘OK’ to invade someone’s land, destroy their communal lifestyle”

    “Tell that to the Moriori”

    I do not support what certain Iwi did to the Moriori and never will. Not all Maori attacked the Moriori nickb.
    And there were many Iwi in Aotearoa before the ‘great’ migration of canoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    It’s also not democratic or ‘OK’ to invade someone’s land, destroy their communal lifestyle, establish a racist settler Government…

    New Zealand was the first colony in the British Empire to give natives the vote, and gave them the vote before half of the white population. The NZ government for the last several decades has consistently bent over backwards to try and appease the radical part of the Maori population (it is still my opinion that much if not most of the Maori population have the same attitude as the “settlers” and just want the radicals to bugger off) and yet they still want more. I know very few Maoris who would want to go back to the pre European ways.

    tautokai, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to think it is rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    If the alternative is Labour/Greens then NZ is stuffed as a nation. There is too much worrying about what the ethnics think in NZ and this leads to bad government and faster decline to 3rd world status, just like NZ was before Europeans civilised it.
    I say, f&$k what the bros think, you have had enuf resources/money, time to get in behind NZ and think of what you can do to make NZ a better place to live in, not think as a primitive tribe. And start at home first and get ethnic crime levels down and stop making P.
    Seats in Parliament – 90.
    Maori seats – 0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    I do not “want to go back to the pre European ways”. I want justice, I want systems put in place that recognise the genetic and social aspects of the Maori people. For example, they had never been used to living as a nuclear family unit but were forced into that lifestyle in a matter of years. I am a communitarian, not just in regard to Maori but to all man. We were designed to help each other, not live in a greed based capitalist society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Prior to MMP, although everyone said the Maori seats were a “gimme” to Labour, if you give it a bit of thought it’s actually National who benefited most from them. Had the Maori population been voting in the general seats, many of the marginal seats (eg Taupo) would have been won by Labour not National, and certainly the 1981 election would have been won by Labour (50 odd votes in Taupo for a parliamentary majority of 1) if not the 1978 election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    @ Graeme Edgeler For the same reason it would be unacceptable to deny some one the right to vote based on their race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    lazybum if you want to get “ethnic crime levels down and stop making P” then don’t continue to oppress the ethnic minorities or the people of the land! I care immensly about getting in behind New Zealand. And one of the key ways of doing that is supporting it’s most vulnerable.

    And thats basic human nature FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***# Bob R (110) Says:
    April 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Further confirmation that the Green Party are a front for Far Left neo-marxists and racist ethnic activists.

    How so? It is neither a Green Party idea nor is it Green Party policy.

    Isn’t it funny how being a facebook friend suddenly becomes political?***

    eszett,

    I thought from the intro that she had joined the group as opposed to simply being friends with the founder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    tautokai –
    Nobody is forcing anyone to live as a nuclear family. If you want to live in a house with your extended family, go right ahead.
    Your last sentence betrays what your real motivation is – you are really a socialist and are using the race card to reach that end. The simple fact is, Maoris were just as capitalist, would trade with their neighbours, and go to war to protect their patch. There was never a socialist/communist Maori past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    No I am not a socialist, “I am a communitarian”, like I said and what that means to me in modern day terms is strong local government who provide basic services to protect it’s community such as Health, Social Development etc.. This can streamline services and perhaps even create ‘service hubs’ in local communities. Whanau Ora may have some merit but I don’t believe it goes far enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (13,314 comments) says:

    “I want justice, I want systems put in place that recognise the genetic and social aspects of the Maori people. For example, they had never been used to living as a nuclear family unit but were forced into that lifestyle in a matter of years. I am a communitarian, not just in regard to Maori but to all man. We were designed to help each other, not live in a greed based capitalist society.”

    What utter crap!

    Forget about an end to treaty settlements, forget about an end to the continuing list of dead Maori kids, as long as we have idiots who insist that everything that is wrong with Maori is the result of the white man then nothing will change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    @Sideoiler: For the same reason it would be unacceptable to deny some one the right to vote based on their race.

    I’m pretty sure it has to be a different reason than that … the basic principle of representative democracy is that everyone gets an equal say in who forms the representative body that governs that society.

    It is thus wrong to deny that right to people because of their race or sex or because they live in Taupo or because their names end in an “R”. Because if you do, you won’t be a representative democracy, because some people won’t be represented, or at least won’t have had a say in who represents them.

    Under our present MMP system, even with “race based” electorate seats, this concern does not arise. The number of party votes that a party gets determines their strength in the House of Representatives, and everyone – regardless or their race, sex etc., but not age – gets precisely 1 party vote, worth exactly as much as everyone else’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. PaulL (5,874 comments) says:

    The reason why 6 seats are sort of all right, and 50 wouldn’t be, is that the 6 seats are set in such a way that each represents roughly the same number of Maori voters as the other seats represent of non-Maori roll voters. So still one person, one vote, all votes roughly equal. 50 seats wouldn’t meet that standard, unless 50% of the voting age population were Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nigel (511 comments) says:

    Wow must be a slow news day, seriously people if being a member of a facebook group means anything, it’s a sad world we live in. Now if there are comments or participation in that group by Metiria which indicated she supported a 60/60 split then I say open up the talkback lines & let rip, but so far I see no evidence of that.
    Translation a beatup & interesting timing so soon after a John Armstrong article ( http://bit.ly/b3RbZN ) suggesting that the National/Maori coalition agreement might be under pressure, not trying to break that agreement up/add pressure to the rift now are we DPF ???.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    “Forget about an end to treaty settlements, forget about an end to the continuing list of dead Maori kids, as long as we have idiots who insist that everything that is wrong with Maori is the result of the white man then nothing will change.”

    Sure, I am the first to say that Maori should take some responsibility for these sick occurrences which make me want to vomit.. Thats why a communitarian approach is a good one, it puts the onus on the people involved with wider community assistance. This is ideal for these sort of circumstances. And if you read back I never blame it on the white man in fact most of this terminology comes from people like yourself. I blame colonialism and our institutionalised racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Inventory2 (10,106 comments) says:

    DPF seems to have hit a raw nerve here; all these Green sympathisers coming out of the woodwork to defend their co-leader …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    Even if Meteria did support that, which she has already stated she hasn’t, it would mean little. It is not Green Party policy and probably never will be and if it becomes Party Policy I would resign my membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***Wow must be a slow news day, seriously people if being a member of a facebook group means anything, it’s a sad world we live in. ***

    So what do you think being a member of a facebook group indicates? If an ACT party member joined a National Front facebook group would that be of interest?

    You can say ‘oh it’s just a facebook group’ but it can still reveal a persons interests and beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    The fact is by joining this group, the co-leader of the green party has put herself in a position where she should publically clarify her position on this train of thought. The notion that half our parliamentary representation should be set aside solely on the basis of racial heritage is an extreme view. That Turei has chosen to seemingly align herself with a public group that espouses this view speaks to a severe lack of judgement.

    If she actually beleives that 60 seats should be set aside solely for Maori, then showing support for this will move the green party further away from the mainstream. If she does not believe this, then having her name associated with this group will have the same effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    tautokai –
    you forget that some of us might not want to be involved with your “communitarian approach,” yet we’re still going to be the ones who pay for it.
    Many Maori tribes still do have a community based around a marae – a friend of mine from school is involved with Tuwharetoa. There are also people involved with churches (yes, even white people), people involved with sports clubs, schools, you name it. The infrastructure you are talking about already exists, yet you want the government to fund a duplication? It is up to people to go out and join those groups, not for the government to create more, or worse still force people to attend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    eszett,

    I thought from the intro that she had joined the group as opposed to simply being friends with the founder.

    Sorry, my bad, yes she did join the group. But as pointed out earlier, joining a group does not mean supporting their view. It i merely engaging in the discussion (If I understand it correctly, I have to admit, I am not very much on facebook, I find it rather irritating)

    What I meant is that one has to be careful about the meaning of “joining a group” and being “friends” on facebook. The meaning of these phrases is quite different to real life equivalents of joining a group and befriending someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    tautokai.baxter, so if Turei does not support the group, then it is politically naive at best, and political stupidity of the highest order at worst, to put her name to this group, especially given her position as Party Co-Leader.

    The question has to be asked, “What was she thinking?” Do the Green Party actually want a leader who made this judgement call?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Why is it acceptable to have race based seats at all?

    I it truly race based, though? I thought anyone can join the Maori roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. JC (909 comments) says:

    > Why is it acceptable to have race based seats at all?

    >>Why is it unacceptable?

    Good question. Back in the day the electoral requirement was a person had to be at least half Maori to be registered to vote in a Maori electorate. Initially a half caste who lived in town didn’t qualify and was enrolled on the General electorate. Then in (AIRC) 1926, 1951, 1956, 1978, 1986 and 1991 the requirements got diluted to be meaningless in terms of someone with Maori ancestry voting on the Maori roll.

    Way back any affront to democracy could be rationalised as only applying to people who were more Maori than Pakeha, lived on or near tribal lands and were fully engaged with Hapu and Iwi.
    Today its a different story because the original rationalisation has long been lost. The Maori seats are now more about class than ethnicity.

    We can argue about the merits of that development.. for me I have a vague sense of offense with it, but also see how it has split Labour into two parties of workers and elitists.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    They do appear to be positioning themselves as a “join if you agree” kind of group.

    Tagline under their logo:
    “Join to change the constitutional arrangement and give Maori equal status, equal rights.”

    And the following as its “Description”:
    “Maori should be equal partners with settlers in the NZ government. There are now 120 MPs. Maori should control 60 seats.”

    If they are anything like other Facebook political groups, they will soon be pointing to their numbers as evidence of the veracity of whatever the group creator is saying.

    I look forward to their explanation of how giving a Maori citizen 5.7x the voting power of any other citizen represents “equal rights”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    @Graeme … “the basic principle of representative democracy is that everyone gets an equal say in who forms the representative body that governs that society”.
    I would say that the key word in that sentence is equal. The fact that we have seats set aside for a racial group tends to tell me that things are not equal.
    If the democracy were to be truly representative then we would need to have an Asian Party, Asian electoral roll and Asian seats in proportion to the number of Asians in the population, or for any other racial minority come to that.

    “gets 1party vote, worth exactly as much as everyone else’s”. Then by this reasoning alone there is clearly no need to have seats set aside for any minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nigel (511 comments) says:

    Bob R, it’s a valid point & the differences between National Front & 60/60 are getting semantic & as per the 60/60 membership I think being a member of either group would invite serious questioning of ones intentions.
    But I don’t see evidence Meteria supports publicly or privately that groups objectives, now it is fair that such evidence is looked for & if found she deserves to have her political career finished as the objectives of 60/60 as stated by DPF are not compatable to a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. tautokai.baxter (199 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac, you make a good point that not everyone would support this kind of approach, as is with everything, but what I implore to you is that we can NOT continue with the status quo as it is obviously harming our society. I am engaging in debate around the issues which is what needs to happen. I did not mean groups like you mention, all though this is part of it and very crucial. I am talking about giving local government more constitutional power because they are more accountable to individuals, families, groups etc.. Local government would be given the responsibility of certain services eg health, youth services, rehabilitation, preventative crime etc.. and certain guidelines would be put in place by central government but what is done about those responsibilities and how they are dealt with would be up to that local body.

    This kind of approach has greater opportunity to prevent negative statistics in society, which is surely what we are all aiming for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. dave (985 comments) says:

    I would have assumed NZer studying at a US university, but does anyone actually know the guy?

    I don’t know him but I know that he is on the staff at Otago University

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    Looking at his facebook background, he appears to have spent most of his life in the US and is now resident in NZ. No allusion as to his place of birth though, but in his background he does state that he was once a short order cook in Illinois.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Jack5 (4,595 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler posted at 10.09:

    …For the purposes of voting, the proportion of New Zealanders who are Māori is ~18% (the Māori descent population)…

    The separatist arguments overlook the high rate of intermarriage in NZ. Edgeler’s 18% proportion obviously is largely made up of those of mixed Maori-white descent. You could also argue on this that 80% of NZers are of white descent (that is Kiwis excluding Asians and Pacific Islanders who have yet to intermarry with whites and Maori). The proportion of both part-Maori and part-white people will both rise until virtually every Kiwi is of both white and Maori descent and many will be also of Maori-white-Asian-Pacific Islander descent.

    What is rising generation upon generation is the proportion of NZ with some Maori genes. The fact that most have considerably more white genes than Maori ones is irrelevant.

    Thankfully, an NZ “bropartheid” race-based voting system must ultimately fail. Our races are not prevented from marrying each other and having children, as they were under apartheid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    To put this in context, note that Metiria is also a member of the “Petition to revoke the independence of the United States of America” FB group!

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

    @ GraemeE, PaulL et al.. Surely part of the significance of the Salmond, Bazley, Shand report on the supercity/Auckland Governance (and the willingness of Sharples, Walker et al. to die in a ditch for its conclusions) is its abandonment of the scaling-to-population idea that allows the reserved maori seats in Parliament to satisfy prima facie democratic equality (i.e., notwithstanding their racial character and even though their broader political effects may be advantageous for some and disadvantageous for others). From p. 487:
    “The Commission does not believe, therefore, that the number of Māori seats on the regional entity should be linked to fluctuations in the number of Māori as a proportion of the total population over time. In fact, having specific, safeguarded seats for Māori may become even more important if the percentage of Māori as a proportion of total population declined over time.”
    DPF and others have discussed how their exact proposal leads to over-representation for Maori under likely circumstances (e.g., of only 50% of maori on maori roll), but equally, thanks to its delinking from pop., Salmond, et al.’s proposal leads to massive under-representation should the Maori pop and Maori roll in Auckland really take off.
    But if the point of the Salmond, et al.’s proposal – i.e., why Sharpes, Turei, Walker et al. like it – is just to embed the delinking, democracy-schemocracy point in some legislation somewhere then all of that’s acceptable ‘as an important first step’. A delinked from pop. 3/23 seats doesn’t differ in essence from a delinked 13/23 or 60/120.

    Salmond et al, say they recommend as they do to ‘give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also come into play, but to a lesser extent.’ But they never provide *any* reasoning why 3/23 is the appropriate weight for Treaty tribute (and hence that just that amount of consequent downgrading of equity etc. is acceptable). They could just as easily have recommended 13/26, again just announcing consistency with Treaty principles and intention to give effect, etc. as before. No working shown or needed!

    Indeed, in the 13/26 case they’d at least have been able to argue that any Treaty tribute proportion less than half would be arbitrary. In this way, there’s a direct route from Salmond, Bazley, et al.’s
    (i) delinking/anti-democracy
    and
    (ii) no working shown for quantification of effects
    points to Maori60 on facebook. If you’ve heard point (i) and (ii)’s siren song clearly then it’s entirely natural to flirt with the idea that they’re just an overture to some radically anti-democratic main event.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. david (2,539 comments) says:

    tautokai.baxter earlier in this thread accidentally(I think) put his/her finger on one of the fundamental roadblocks to obtaining any sort of rational conclusion to the whole treaty thing. That was when s/he tried to obtain a translation from Maori to English of part of the treaty.
    Now I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of the treaty is limited but it seems to me that document which was written by an Englishman must have been written in English and was then translated into the native language which was an oral language with a limited history of being written down and which was subject to many dialects around the country with even common words having varying shades of meaning ia going to be subject to much dispute over exact menaings or words to the extent that trying to translate it back into English will give you variations from the original.

    This becomes fertile ground for a debate that can never be settled and will forever be the touchstone for the disaffected to stir division and in some cases hatred and loathing. I would liken it to the divisions between Protestant and Catholic Ireland where few if any can actually justify the hatred, they just believe it with every fibre of their beings.

    So we really need to get the treaty out on the table and pick it to bits publicly in an attempt to settle down some of the more extreme views (people like Margaret Mutu need not be part of the process) and get some sort of common understanding on just what was promised and what wasn’t. Some will need to eventually accept that what they thought they signed up to wasn’t actually what they did and others will concede that it has paid off for them in ways far better than they could ever have imagined in theior wildest dreams. And then we could look at the Pakeha side.

    Eventually the shouting would die down and some sort of way forward found. Perhaps everyone would be pissed off that they didn’t get what they wanted and it would be uneasy but those who have real or imagined grievance would be able to have their scream into the wind.

    But until we can eliminate the process of everyone fishing out a real or contrived difference in the document, we are on a hiding to nowhere.

    This beautiful country is too important to some of us to be held back by these petty and vindictive disputes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    “Maffs is hard”…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    @ GraemeE, PaulL et al.. Surely part of the significance of the Salmond, Bazley, Shand report on the supercity/Auckland Governance (and the willingness of Sharples, Walker et al. to die in a ditch for its conclusions) is its abandonment of the scaling-to-population idea that allows the reserved maori seats in Parliament to satisfy prima facie democratic equality

    That was one of many many problems with the Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. People in the CBD won’t want to be represented on the Super Council, will they?

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

    BTW, the Bay of Plenty Local Authority Maori districts and representatives *are* roughly population-linked/-scaled (see s. 6 of the 2001 Act).
    Incredibly, Salmond, Bazley et al. (again at p. 487) quote Judge Trapski saluting this democratizing feature of the BoP initiative:

    ‘Adoption of the Proposal [for specific Māori seats] would deliver to Maori the same voting rights as others. Their electoral rights would be no greater than those afforded to any other voter in the Region and I can see no way in which the Proposal would enable Maori to “outvote” the other members of the Regional Council as a block. The Proposal would in my view not disadvantage anyone.’

    in support of (or in answer to potential objections to) their very different proposal, which lacks this democratizing property (figleaf though it may be in some respects).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac, you make a good point that not everyone would support this kind of approach, as is with everything, but what I implore to you is that we can NOT continue with the status quo as it is obviously harming our society.

    So you’d rather force everyone to check in with the government from time to time.

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

    @ GraemeE. Indeed, maybe everyone’s agreed now that that Royal Commission report is a completely dead letter for excellent reasons (including the one I’ve drawn attention to here). But that’s not the impression one gets from R. Walker in the Listener this week, or B. Hucker in the Herald today, or from left-ish authors more generally. Anyhow, we’ll see.

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

    Can anyone say Mugabe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Scott Hamilton (286 comments) says:

    I realise this is a somewhat peripheral point, but MikeNZ misunderstands the Moriori oral tradition described in the Te Ara article he links to at http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/moriori/1

    Moriori oral tradition claims that their home of Rekohu (the Chathams) was settled by two waves of people – one allegedly came from Aotearoa and the other supposedly came directly from East Polynesia. Testing of kiore bones has confirmed that a group of settlers left the northern part of the South Island about the fourteenth century for the Chathams, but evidence for settlement from Eastern Polynesia is so far very far from conclusive. The settlers who came from Aotearoa were not an ancient Melanesian people displaced by Maori aggression, as some nineteenth century ethnographers believed, but a group of early Maori (it might be better to call them proto-Maori) who developed their own culture in isolation on Rekohu for hundreds of years. The old theory of Moriori as Melanesian was based not on Moriori oral tradition but on a bogus story told to Victorian ethnographers by a North Island Maori chief. The Melanesian theory was demolished in the 1920s by HD Skinner, who travelled to Rekohu and found sekeletal, linguistic, and cultural evidence of the Polynesian nature of the Moriori, but it has persisted in the popular imagination. Michael King’s 1989 book Moriori: a people rediscovered gives more information on all this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. PaulL (5,874 comments) says:

    Interesting Scott. Which leads to the question as to whether it was OK for any of the Maori tribes to kill each other so indiscriminately as they did. That is to say, was it OK to wipe them out just because they were Polynesian and not Melanesian?

    Logical answer of course is no, but also that it is silly to judge people in the past by the standards of today. At the time that was their culture. But that slippery slope leads us where when we apply it to the pakeha/Maori interactions? By the standards of the day the Maori were treated pretty well – in Australia they were busy herding aborigines off of cliffs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    GONE BY LUNCHTIME.

    Can’t find the group at DPF’s link, which worked yesterday.
    Can’t find my involvement in my news feed or anywhere else on FB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. CJD (334 comments) says:

    This is of course not a new idea…they tried it in the land of my bith and euphemistically called it Separate Development-”separate but equal”. Translated into Afrikaans this became APARTHEID. Come to think of it they tried single race rugby teams and race-based political parties as well. Did’nt really go down all that well if I remember correctly…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Sideoiler (73 comments) says:

    Youre right CJD apartheid is apartheid doesn’t matter if some one labels it affirmative action or positive discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. CJD (334 comments) says:

    We seem to be shaddow boxing on an issue that we will all need to face eventually-will we move forward as one nation or will we eventually formalise that which is already implied. I see a race-based Maori Party, sitting in front of a flag of independence. I see Maori leaders speaking of “our people.” Am I one of your people Turiana and Pita?? Is it right that my taxes pay your salaries while you sit in a New Zealand Parliament advocating for a select racial group of “our people?” And while we are at it-who are “our people?” We get the stock standard line of cultural difference that keep people in poverty and crime etc? That is bull because across the ditch there a plenty of Maori who are doing incredibly well for themselves in a totally alien cultural environment. You insult “your people” by implying that they require special conditions to survive in the big bad world when the truth is they don’t at all. Ultimately it suites the Maori Party leadership to ferment talk of inequality because that creates for them a unique constituncy of voters who will continue to support their existence. Finally might I suggest that you encourage various fat cats that sit on boards that control Treaty grants to distribute the money to those who need it the most, instead of leading a life of luxury at the expense of “your people.”
    Let’s move forward on this thing-let us have honest dialogue about the aspirations of a separate country within a country…let’s do it quickly and get back to the real issues such re-invigorating the ecomony to the benefit of all “our people.” I long for a day when the race card id withdrawn from the deck entirely and people can associate and form political groupings based upon the real needs of New Zealand.

    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.