Peters say we should all be Maori

September 5th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

3 News reports:

New Zealand First is suggesting all New Zealanders pretend to be to get special privileges under the law.

The party wants the Government to define who is and isn’t Maori before offering deals to iwi over water rights, after delaying the asset sales programme. 

Winston Peters says anybody could be Maori under the law.

Heh only Winston could suggest that.

For the 2nd time this week, I am partially agreeing with him.

I don’t think Maori should have special privileges under the law.

But I do think Iwi do have common law rights. I have no problem with saying that Iwi have customary rights in certain areas.

So the issue for me is not about rights for “Maori” but rights for “Iwi”. I don’t think you need to define who is or is not Maori, but rather the Crown needs to recognise Iwi, and Iwi have lists of their members.

This is why a national settlement on water rights is not desirable. Any rights belong to specific Iwi in specific locations – not to Maori generally.

Some will say Iwi have no special rights at all. I disagree. Just as property owners in a certain area may get rights of objection or compensation for developments that impinge on them, so do Iwi.

Tags: ,

88 Responses to “Peters say we should all be Maori”

  1. Redbaiter (8,929 comments) says:

    “I don’t think Maori should have special privileges under the law.”

    Isn’t that a view that would put you really offside with John Key and the National Party?

    “Some will say Iwi have no special rights at all.”

    That’s me. Its belief in this kind of stone age tribal bullshit that is killing billions of dollars worth of investment in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MH (759 comments) says:

    Indeedy,why shouldn’t I by dint of occupation, length of tenure, be considered maori,how many generations before I qualify and receive equal status as guaranteed under the treaty,including voting rights on all iwi issues down at my local marae. Mrs Harawira wouldn’t like the bloodlines diluted or disrespected so I’d have to accept hone ary status for a few years yet. The Normans gradually accepted the Anglo Saxons etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    Some will say Iwi have no special rights at all. I disagree.

    Your sole opinion, DPF.
    On the other hand, I believe thet do not have any more rights than any other New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    ” I have no problem with saying that Iwi have customary rights in certain areas.”

    Recreational fishing is a good example. It works well and anyone regardless of race can approach a Kaitiaki for a permit if they are having an event. I have never heard of a valid request being refused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    “I do think Iwi do have common law rights. I have no problem with saying that Iwi have customary rights in certain areas.”

    What are Iwi David? Historically, Maori identified with their immediate family or hapu. Customary rights are exercised through families – not iwi.

    But the problem is David is that those “customary rights” keep (to put it politely) “evolving”. I agree that Maori have customary rights to particular things such as fishing sites and burial grounds. But customary rights to the radio spectrum, or to water passing through a electricity turbine can in no way be considered “customary rights”. It is Maori blackmail – give us money or we’ll tie the whole thing up in the Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. noskire (842 comments) says:

    If we fail to stand up and stop privilege being accorded to any one particular group, the next group to start wanting separatist rules, favouritism and privilege will be alien religious groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    Are you sure you would like to pretend to be Maori?
    “The Maori unemployment rate is twice as high as non‐Maori, and one out of four Maori receive a benefit compared to one out of ten non‐Maori. Maori are three times more likely to live in an overcrowded household compared to non‐Maori. Only two out of five Maori are completing secondary education with a Level Two Certificate, compared to two out of three non‐Maori. While Maori currently represent around 13% of the general New Zealand population, we make up 51% of the prison population. In 2006, Maori accounted for 43% of all police apprehensions. Maori life expectancy is 10% lower than non‐Maori, and Maori are twice as likely to be obese. Our suicide rate is 1.6 times higher than non‐Maori, and our youth suicide rate is twice that of non‐Maori. In 2006 the Maori youth suicide rate was 31.8 per 100,000, compared with the non-Maori rate of 16.8 per 100,000. Almost half of all Maori women smoke cigarettes, which is twice as high as non‐Maori women, and we are significantly more likely to have a potentially hazardous drinking pattern.”

    Shit, we’re so fortunate. You want to join us?

    (oh, and before the labels fly too quickly at me, the line of quals after my name is Ngati Toarangatira, BSc, DipTchg, BA(hons) and I’m 7 months away from adding PhD to the list. Add National Party member too: I bet that buggers up your preconceptions!)

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

    At the heart of all this bru-ha-ha is a signficant question over where we vest the legitimacy of this state, and how that translates into our constitution. In my opinion, that legitimacy has been founded on the compact between the Crown and Maori signatories to the treaty; thus both parties must act to uphold that agreement. That’s what this is all about.

    People who reject the notion of settling grievances or claims under the treaty as ‘unfair’, need to remind themselves this country is not founded on some grandiose liberal notion of equality. It is a partnership between signatories of the treaty.

    Ultimately, if the equality issues stemming from the Treaty are to be resolved fully and finally – it will require some constitutional overhaul (Read; move to a republic). It is only then that we can fully integrate the interests of all New Zealanders into a constitutional framework.

    People like MH, should remind themselves that arguments based in concepts of ‘dint of occupation’ or ‘tenure’ are moot, this country was not founded in conquest but annexation.

    Frankly, once the settlement process has been ‘wrapped-up’, I would not be surprised to see wide-spread support for a constitutional overhaul; even from Maori. So long as the reparations of grievances have been negotiated, then I cannot see why Maori would not be interested in reviewing our constitutional framework. But, as the status-quo is, while Maori still continue to be adversely affected by breaches of the treaty, it would be foolish to open up negotiations which may see the mechanisms of redress for those breaches done away with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Lloyd, just one question:

    Why?

    Why is the Maori unemployment rate twice as high as non‐Maori?
    Why are so many Maori on the benefit?
    Why are Maori three times more likely to live in an overcrowded household compared to non‐Maori?
    Why is Maori life expectancy 10% lower than non‐Maori?
    Why are Maori twice as likely to be obese?

    I’m sure some people will blame it all on colonialisation, and for some areas, to some degree they may have a point. But you know as well as I do that it’s just not that simple.

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

    With regard to the division of Maori & Iwi;

    Maori as a collective share some common interests and cultural values; but the term ‘Maori’ is a construction – it doesn’t fairly represent the immense diversity within Maoridom (Iwi to Iwi). Therefore, while I respect that bodies like the NZMC seek to achieve outcomes that benefit all Maori; we need to remember the appropriate representatives of various Maori citizens is in their electorate MPs and their Iwi organisations (who they’re actually related to), rather than some statutory body set up by central government.

    It’s ironic that the current government recognises this, while some Maori do not; further why on earth are we still enacting legislation which gives value to the NZMC – when clearly it is at odds with iwi AND the crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    To take just one example: “Maori are three times more likely to live in an overcrowded household compared to non‐Maori.”

    I believe that one of the reasons that contributes to this statistic is that Maori place far more importance on the extended family unit, the whanau. And consequently it is far more usual for a Maori household to consist of extended family members, as opposed to the traditional European “Dad, Mum, and 2.5 kids”.

    I expect that Indian households may well tend to suffer from over-crowding also.

    That’s not a direct result of colonialisation; that’s a result of the culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Graham – but so often we hear “Maori are three times more likely to live in an overcrowded household compared to non‐Maori” as the left jab precursor to the right hook of “therefore we should spend invest more in finding ways to end this unfair inequality…”

    If it’s a genuine cultural preference for a certain way of life then is it a “problem” that needs to be fixed by the gubermint?

    ..Thoughts?

    (Not that this has much to do with ToW claims issues!)

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

    Lloyd ….. No – Im not surprised at your ethnicity or your opinions.

    I could tell that as soon as I connected your name (Lloyd) and your achievements.

    But if youd called yourself Hone or Manu etc then I would have been surprised.

    There are many maori who want nothing to do with traditional maori culture – because they know that there is something about old maori culture that seems to freeze them into a time long gone past.
    Overcrowded housing is simply an expression of extended family and the belief that they should all live together and be reliant on each other. If cousy arrives and wants to stay – then they let him stay. Anyone with any sense would say “OK for tonite or maybe two nights – but after that go find yourself your own accomodation.
    Many maori dont like western type education – and thus there is no surprise that many more are uneducated and unemployed than the rest of the population.
    And if you know anything about early education (pre 5 year olds) youll know why maori are uneducated – they just wont take advantage of the 20 free hours – even if the preschool SENDS A BLOODY VAN TO PICK UP THE KIDS – the parents still cant get the kids organised.

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

    A communal living set up is not necesarily a negative thing – in fact, I’m sure there’s evidence to support more employment of such a method for raising children.

    The issue, which stems from colonisation, is the disenfranchisement of Maori from their lands and resources (raupatu or otherwise), and the economic flow-on effects.

    The example would be something like;
    If Maori had not been substantially cheated out of their resources, they may have well been able to continue living in larger family units, in bigger and more accommodating houses.

    Of course, with time, the issues which were unaddressed have exasperated the negative effects. It will take a substantial amount of time before these issues can be resolved (even after settlement, Iwi need to work hard to establish an administration which can manage and distribute tribal resources in a fair, and sustainable fashion).

    I can’t purport to speak on behalf of Maori, but I would suggest that – without ignoring the responsbility of a social democratic central govenrment to all its citizens – most Maori would prefer to improve their situations through their own methods.

    Give claimant-Iwi a fair settlement, and let Iwi determine how they wish to improve their peoples’ livelihoods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. MH (759 comments) says:

    Lloyd,I’d just be a better class of Maori and the stats would be greatly improved to the positive side. Then it wouldn’t be race or colour coding,or preferential treatment,or separate health funding,the money would go to an individual based on need and maybe the money saved on advertising for race profiling would trickle through. But we’d still bugger it up, even if we nationalise rail, power ,telecoms…….because of tribal conflicts. The Scots are the worst,after the Irish of course.What does it take to give up smoking FGS ?Or getting pregnant at 16 ? A Qualification PHffle Vanity,vanity vanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Paulus (2,628 comments) says:

    How can I be an elite class Maori so I can get my hands on the loot and perks ?
    Bugger those who get nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    RRM at 12:56 pm –

    So let’s say that a genuine cultural preference for living in a large extended family is quite valid. If we as a nation recognise this particular cultural preference and acknowledge it, we then start asking, “How do we address it?” Maybe we need to ensure there is a minimum supply of 5-bedroom houses for rent; maybe the various city councils need to stop salivating over 2-bedroom apartment developments and instead start encouraging developers to build large houses. Maybe Maori can develop “mini-Marae” in cities where the problem is most prevalent, and develop a communal way of living that works in the 21st century. Maybe Maori already have the answer and we just need to ask them, who knows?

    I just picked one example at random. All I’m saying is that people – Maori and non-Maori – need to think about the causes and effects, rather than just saying “Poor Maori, look how screwed up they are, and it’s all whitey’s fault” – or “Bloody Maori, why don’t they sort out their own problems with the squillions of dollars we good kind generous Pakeha have given them?”

    Both attitudes are overly-simplistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. smttc (752 comments) says:

    More bullshit from the St Mary’s Bay dwarf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. smttc (752 comments) says:

    Lloyd, Maori are all those things and more because they make shit choices in life and despite all the money that governments have thrown at them in Treaty settlements, there is fuck all trickle down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. rg (214 comments) says:

    I think Peter’s point is who are IWI allowed to have on their lists. How much Maori do they have to have? Racial privilege is Racism and is entrenched in law and supported by National. That is why I vote ACT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Lyold is implying that when you pretend to be maori you have to also be “failed by the criminal justice system” (ie start shop lifting) and all that. I don’t think we need to go the whole hog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Re: Who can be ‘Maori’?

    From memory, until around 1980 (not sure of the exact date), a ‘Maori’ was defined as anyone who had (and could prove) that at least one 16th of their bloodline was from a Maori ancestor. This recognised that the Maori blood-line was becoming progressively more diluted as a result of intermarriage but still allowed the individual to claim ‘privileges’ associated with having a Maori ancestor. The fraction was recognised under NZ law. Unfortunately, around the late 80’s a (Labour?) government changed the criteria, amending it to permit ANYONE who thought that they may have even a single drop of Maori blood to claim they were actual, factual ‘Maori’ and as a result be eligible to legally claim whatever privileges and rights they were ‘entitled’ to. Needless to say, the floodgates opened and has led, in part, to the current situation where anyone can claim they are ‘Maori’ if they believe that they may have had an ancestor ‘way back’. Proof of such an ancestor is not required, and it could be said, that for some individuals, ‘being Maori is a state of mind’ (one opposition MP comes to mind immediately – no prizes for guessing which one). It’s an interesting situation, which will only become more complicated with the passage of time.

    BTW a thought which leads on from what I’ve written: Various prominent individuals have made comments in public about the need to preserve te reo etc. as part of the efforts to stop (or at least slow down) the decline of ‘Maoridom’. As there are actually (and verifiably) no pure-blooded Maori in existence any more (and ‘Maori’ are therefore extinct as a distinct racial group), exactly WHAT are such movements trying to preserve? Some sort of mythical culture that is actually largely Anglicised? I have no answer to this, but it does seem a very unusual situation. As I said, a thought . . .

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

    Heres a “why” question for you graham; Why do maori generally not fit into those categories when they are living overseas and away from their iwi?
    Why is probably because they are no longer having the oppressed victim mentality thrown down their throats!

    We raise our kids to tell them the world doesn’t owe you anything in the hope this will make them productive and responsible citizens, yet we have a government sponsored industry telling an entire race the world owes them something in the hope they’ll turn out better.
    Sometimes the solution may well be the problem

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

    Here’s what bothers me about the treaty.

    The document fails to account for all the NEW ZEALANDERS that were born since the treaty was signed. I am not an invading European, I am a native to this country. I am every bit as native as the chiefs who signed the treaty so don’t try and tell me I somehow have less rights than other NZers.

    I am simply a New Zealander. I happen to have Maori and European ancestors, which is of no real relevance because it isn’t who I am.

    And I’m sick of these fucking cunts arguing over my country.

    Can everyone not agree that iwi are permitted to carry on fishing for eels and washing their kumara in the nations waterways? Isn’t that what customary access is? Of course I expect the same rights as a NZer to be able to customarily fish my local stream. But how does this concept somehow escalate to “shares+ in power companies”? Iwi are taking the piss and it has to stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    Patrick wrote: “Why do maori generally not fit into those categories when they are living overseas and away from their iwi?
    Why is probably because they are no longer having the oppressed victim mentality thrown down their throats!”

    Interesting you write that. A good mate of mine is Maori but has lived in Australia for the past 30 years since he was a baby. He has become a successful professional and happily married family man. Last year moved back to NZ so his kids could be more connected to their ‘Maori’ background. Now, he and his family are emigrating back to Aus. He told me on Monday that in Australia he is judged by his own achievements. In New Zealand he is a victim. He said that in Aus he feels free, but in NZ there is this cultural baggage of failure and resentment he has to deal with. In the end he couldn’t bear it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. flipper (4,068 comments) says:

    @!Patrick Starr.
    Good point. Just listen to any Pacific island (fijian, Samoan, Tongan) rugby player in Australia and compare their speech with similar players in NZ. The desire to embrace and rermain part of the Mangere-speak mob restrains them and will continue to do so – until they break free.

    2……. On anither matter of equality,while supporting todays announcement on the suspension of social welfare payments when a recipient may be the subject of an arrest warrant, one has to conclude that a double standard is being applied.

    Why?

    Because the same standard is NOT applied by the Executive/Caucus on Maori water ownership/rights claimants filching millions of taxpayer dollars to advance specious claims, thereby causing increased Government borrowing. God help us if Maori had been impacted by the CHCH earthquakes as was the rest of the community.

    Have never agreed with Peters on anything since he cost us millions over the “wine box”. But he has has just proved that Don Brash is not dead and buried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    Ah but Lloyd………You own the water and the wind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    flipper

    Listen to the intellectual property lawyer Leo Watson on Tamahere’s Think Tank last Sunday. He was talking widda bro accent. White as snow,but there must be an angle in it for him.

    I’ve noticed the slow but definite advance of brotalk from Auckland further south every year as our youth dumb down,eh?

    That show was interesting as Maori claim ownership of their culture. How does that work,if whitey claims ownership of his?

    For a people who seem to believe that ownership is a shared or common thing there’s a shit load of exclusivity going on.

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

    I’ve been wondering if some centre-right voters in safe electorates could nominate themselves on the Maori roll next time the option comes up and would then have some influence with their electorate vote. Most South Island, Wellington and Auckland voters are in electorates where their electorate vote has little influence, but voting for the Maori Party candidate would influence the election results for what I understand to be the three most marginal Maori electorates (Te Tai Tonga which switched from MP to Labour, Pita Sharples’ Tāmaki Makaurau which could be close and Te Tai Tokerau where the chance to oust Hone Harawira shouldn’t be missed).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    We raise our kids to tell them the world doesn’t owe you anything in the hope this will make them productive and responsible citizens, yet we have a government sponsored industry telling an entire race the world owes them something in the hope they’ll turn out better.
    Sometimes the solution may well be the problem

    Got it in one Patrick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    kowtow

    but there must be an angle in it for him

    Cunners certainly thought that was a winner last election as in [bro' font]: “… they’re gonna take your money away .. eh!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    davincimode, please give me your always enlightened and pondered opinion on Key’s backdown.
    Will you be so kind to elabotrate on this National Party’s victory? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    I’m guessing John Ansell will be getting an upswing in donations for his Colour Blind campaign :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. markm (114 comments) says:

    Only problem with Peters idea is we all end up having our economic security being looked after by an uneducated , unelected Maori elite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tedbear (145 comments) says:

    Many Maori pretend to be Maori also. Like dressing up in plastic flax skirts when they think the occasion fits.
    If these same Maori wanted to be Maori all the time, I would expect them to be so proud of their race that would want to wear real flax skirts 24/7.
    And why would they ever consider living a white man’s type insulated abode?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ross12 (1,428 comments) says:

    I was talking to a couple of what has been referred to as the Maori “elite” after the Tainui settlement was announced, in the 90’s. I said it was good that it was all settled but I picked up a slightly strange expression on their faces , so I added that this was a full and final settlement for Tainui. They both said , without thinking much, “no we cannot answer for future generations”. That was the line then I would suggest it is the line now for some/many of those “elite”.

    BTW When the Fisheries Commision divided up the fishing quota among Iwi there was a very strict process the groups had to go through proving who they were and who was entitled to benefit. ie. the “Iwi exercise “as mentioned by David has been, successfully before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Manolo

    Gloating doesn’t become you :) and anyway, I think it’s premature here.

    I assume you mean the float?

    I think he is allowing the process to unfold because this water issue (including aquifers) has been on the agenda for some time now. For example, the Ngati Kahungnunu claim, or indeed even the wind claim, won’t have come as a huge surprise to him.

    One of his cornerstone positions at the outset was meaningful engagement with Maori and despite what you think about him, I think that he is reflecting a commitment to that in deferring. He has already gone on record as saying this water business is ridiculous. He knows what we all know; that (as someone pointed out above) there is no meaningful basis for a pan Maori deal on this stuff; it’s Iwi/Hapu based. That inevitably means a Maori gob-fest about carving up the spoils (assuming there were ever to be some). He also knows it’s just plain stupid and that in reality, all its doing is sparking an enormous public anti-Maori backlash and that the person who finally tells them to fuck off, assuming they stick to their guns with this stupidity, will be President for life. At fuck off time, he will be able to say that he tried, that he kept his commitment in trying but in the end he could not allow the economic future of this country to be hijacked by this stupidity. Moreover, he will know that the economic backlash to this rubbish will put more Maori out of work and on benefits and that those people won’t get to see any of the cash that wound up putting them out of work.

    The interesting thing here at the moment is that if Shearer said Liebour would tell them to just fuck off and put the treaty in the rubbish bin, his polling would go to about 75%. Politically, this is a disaster to the Maori Party because it reduces the chances of them being required to govern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    davinci, your admirable paean to Key’s abilities leaves me speechless. I retreat hastily and promise never to sully Neville’s hallowed name again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Good boy. I tell ya, this whole business is a vote winner. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. grumpy (261 comments) says:

    My grandkids are Maori, ergo I am too…………………………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    If you like those sausages on a stick, fried in batter, you qualify as Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    dvm,manolo

    “At fuck off time…” I’m not gonna hold my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    I’m going to ask Louisa Wall to submit a Private Members Bill to declare all people born in New Zealand to be Maori. It is our Human Right just as men can be women and women can be men

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Good ole’ Winston – he is the master at making headline grabbing statements.
    Love him or hate him, you got to admit that politics is a lot more interesting with him back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I think you Neolibs have forgotten one important aspect of Tikanga – Maori are Tangata Whenua and therefore have a special relationship with Aotearoa/New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    And you would have a tame taniwha that can verify all that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    taniwha (sic) are a myhtical animal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    Refresh my memory.. Who was living here before the Maori as there is evidence of this. Sort of kicks the Tangata Whenua to touch.. But then I am just a whitey whose ancestors first arrived in 1848. It would be interesting to see how NZ would have turned out if no one came here after the Maori arrived. No BMWs or cell phones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    RF – Aotearoa would have been a natural wonderland. Full of birds, wild animals and sea life. People living in harmony with the land and environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    We sure as hell would not be having this communication via the Internet if that was so. As for harmony .. Depends on how many of your enemy you left after the feasting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    RF – I think you will find many Maori have cell phones. It’s not just a Pakeha thing.

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

    If we ever get a government who will tell these mixed blooded “take the piss” artists to go and get fucked then I might just come back to NZ and start paying tax in NZ again. Until that happens I will live and pay my tax elsewhere. Telling the career beneficiaries and spread slags to fuck off would be another great move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    hamhead,wild animals?Like moa……..

    harmony? Why live in Pa?Slaves weren’t only kept by the Muslims either.

    But then you know all that and are just taking the piss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “People living in harmony with the land and environment.”

    You do realise that Maori want to start Whaling in New Zealand waters again??
    (Only Tangata Whenua whalers of course, as they have a ‘spiritual connection’ with the animals they are about to slaughter that we ‘Pakeha’ will never understand..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    It’s rather sad seeing the current rich Maori fat cats cruising around without a thought for the under privileged of their race. I have seen several photographs of Maori both male and female sitting outside their flax huts in bare feet wearing European clothing complete with top hats and smoking pipes. Although taken in the mid 1800s how much have they progressed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    Yes I know that many Maori have cell phones. I have seen vehicles with broken windows to support this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    RF- This “Dirty Stinking Pakeha” (as the Mana Party calls me) chortled quietly to himself following that last comment..

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

    How do you know when a Maori has had sex, you hear about it on Crime Watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    I seriously do not know what is worse… Hamnida painting all Maori as treasures, all the majority painting all Maori criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    My money is on the latter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Well RF, then that is all they will ever be to you. “insert thumps up emote”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    I dont think that the majority is genuinely of the belief that all moari are criminals
    Exept (dont ya just love the but)you are seeing a heartfelt backlash against the excesses of the treaty industry
    you work at the coal face as well dusky maiden so you are as aware as any one of the depravity displayed by some families in nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Griff, I’d like to agree with you regarding the majority comment, but (and there it is)… Yeah nah…

    I get the treaty backlash… I’m still waiting for that trickle down effect. No doubt I may die of thirst waiting for it. Just debate the issue, not the race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Unfortunately its not that simple as the race is the issue. I am really pissed off about hearing about the poor Maori that has to be recompensed for the actions of white men over 160 years ago. It is nothing but snouts in the trough and It’s never ending. Thiis is dragging our beautiful country down. For christs sake get over it and live together rather than scheme where the next wind fall is coming from.

    Pp

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    RF… it is that simple. Do you really believe that all Maori are crims? I’m not going to refute statistics but is that how you really think? As a child I was removed from the care or lack of, from my Maori family. Let me assure you the where I ended up was nooooo better and in fact worse. My experience should have taught me never to trust pakeha. Thank goodness I have a brain. I know many good people of different races, and I know a ton of shitheads of the same.

    I tell you this though, if I ever hear anyone call my kids, or moko… lowlifes, crims, savages or similar, all 5 foot fuck all of me is likely to smack them in the face. As I imagine most of us would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    When in hecks name are you nat idiots going to turf these leaders and stop breaking promises. Remember when your platform was getting rid of Maori seats? But between the 90s gnats and these ones you’ve given far more away to Maori than labour ever did. Remember tax cuts what a sick joke. Now your leaders are planning a racist appartied constitution. Get rid of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Hamnida (646) Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    RF – Aotearoa would have been a natural wonderland. Full of birds, wild animals and sea life. People living in harmony with the land and environment.
    …………..
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101213151417.htm

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2010) — New research indicates that the speed of early forest clearance following human colonisation of the South Island of New Zealand was much faster and more intense than previously thought.
    Charcoal recovered from lake-bed sediment cores show that just a few large fires within 200 years of initial colonization destroyed much of the South Island’s lowland forest. Grasslands and shrubland replaced the burnt forest and smaller fires prevented forests from returning.
    The findings — by an international team led by Dave McWethy and Cathy Whitlock from Montana State University- have just been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States and will be explored further under new grants from the National Science Foundation Geography and Spatial Science (GSS) and Partnerships in International Research and Education (PIRE) programs.
    Previous studies by co-authors Matt McGlone and Janet Wilmshurst at Landcare Research in New Zealand showed that closed forests covered 85-90% of New Zealand prior to the arrival of Polynesians (Māori ) 700-800 years ago, but by the time Europeans settled in the mid 19th century, grass and shrubs had replaced over 40% of the South Island’s forests. Despite this information, questions over the timing, rapidity, and cause of the extensive forest clearance have remained.
    The international team of scientists reconstructed the environmental history of 16 small lakes in the South Island, New Zealand. They used pollen records to reconstruct past vegetation, charcoal fragments to document fires, and algae and midge remains to quantify changes in lake chemistry and soil erosion.
    The cores showed several high-severity fire events occurred within two centuries of known Māori arrival in the 13th Century.
    “The impacts of burning were more pronounced in drier eastern forests where fires were severe enough to clear vast tracts of forest and cause significant erosion of soils and nutrients. Because the initial Māori populations were small, we can only conclude that forests were highly vulnerable to burning,” McWethy said.
    Wilmshurst said archaeological evidence suggests that successful cultivation of introduced food crops, such as kumara and taro, was only possible in warmer northern coastal areas and the starch-rich rhizomes of bracken fern, which replaced the burnt forests, provided an essential part of Māori diets in colder regions.
    “In their efforts to increase the productivity of lowland forests for food, Māori encouraged a more heterogeneous and economically useful fern-shrubland at the same time as making travel easier to search for food and stone resources for making tools,” Wilmshurst said.
    Newly derived records of past climate enabled the team to disprove the hypothesis that unusual climate conditions encouraged fire at around the time of Māori settlement.
    “Our evidence suggests that human activity was the main cause of the fires, and that these fires were not related to any unusually dry or warm conditions at the time,” McGlone said.
    Before human arrival in New Zealand, fire was naturally rare in most forests, with lightning-started fires occurring perhaps only once every 1-2 thousand years.
    “What is remarkable is that small mostly subsistence-based groups of people were able to burn large tracts of forests throughout the relatively large South Island (151,215 km2) in only a few decades,” McWethy said.
    Whitlock said “Changes in the fossils and chemistry of the lake sediments showed that soil erosion followed initial forest clearance. In some regions, this degradation was exacerbated by intensive clearance in the 19th Century by European pastoralists who developed the land for grazing sheep and farming.”
    This study shows the extent to which a small number of settlers can transform a vast and topographically complex landscape through land-use change alone, and highlights how exceptionally vulnerable New Zealand forests were to fire in the past. The authors suggest that understanding the history of people and fire in New Zealand will help researchers and managers develop informed forest fire management and conservation strategies.


    To see what would be the effects of low-level moa exploitation by a small initial colonizing group of people, Holdaway and Jacomb employed a population model using large bird characteristics and known moa data (small clutch size), an estimated 158,000 moa population, low to medium human population growth rates, and minimal rates of habitat removal in two areas of the two main islands. To err on the side of caution, they set the model’s parameters for consumption only of birds more than one year old and did not factor in consumption of eggs, though shell fragments found at archaeological sites indicate that was considerable. With an initial human population of 100 and no habitat loss, the moas were exterminated within 160 years; with 200 people and habitat loss, extinction was in only 50 years.
    When does moa hunting end? Which model–rapid or orthodox–matches the archaeological data most closely? Evidence in the form of radiocarbon dates and faunal remains from Monck’s Cave, Shag River Mouth, Wairu Bar, and Papatowi on the South Island and Houhora and Tairua on the North Island indicate moa depletion by the late fourteenth century. Given human colonization of the islands in the late thirteenth century, this century-long span for the extinction suggests the rapid model is more in keeping with the data than the orthodox one, with its 600-year span.

    The elimination of the moa by Polynesians was the fastest recorded megafaunal extinction, matched only by the predictions of the ‘Blitzkrieg’ model for North American late Pleistocene extinctions.” The blitzkrieg model, proposed by Mosimann and Martin (1975), is “a special case of faunal overkill that maximizes speed and intensity of human impact and minimizes time of overlap between the first human invader and the disappearance of native fauna” (Martin 1984: 396).
    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/moa/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “I tell you this though, if I ever hear anyone call my kids, or moko… lowlifes, crims, savages or similar, all 5 foot fuck all of me is likely to smack them in the face. As I imagine most of us would.”

    And rightly so Northland Wahine- Yet as a New Zealander of European descent I am regularly subjected to the likes of Hone calling my children “Dirty Stinking Pakehas” and Tariana calling me a “Visitor to this country” (Despite the fact I was born here and had ancestors who died for this country fighting brutal World Wars..)
    I find this horrendously offensive yet if I was to stand up to these people as you have suggested and “smack them in the face” I would most likely be jailed as some form of abhorrent white supremacist…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Question: Why (are Maori over-represented)?
    Answer: Self-identification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    re People living in harmony with the land and environment.:

    Maori exploited as much as they could given the limits of the technology available to them. They burned much of the forests in the drier regions but the rain forests survived. Even after WW1 soldiers who were given land in the Mangapurua and Kaiwhakauka valleys found they could not break the forest. It wasn’t until aerial top dressing was developed, plus new grass seeds and perendale sheep that the hill country was broken.
    http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/historic/by-region/manawatu-whanganui/bridge-to-nowhere/history/

    *Previous studies by co-authors Matt McGlone and Janet Wilmshurst at Landcare Research in New Zealand showed that closed forests covered 85-90% of New Zealand prior to the arrival of Polynesians (Māori . by the time Europeans settled in the mid 19th century, grass and shrubs had replaced over 40% of the South Island’s forests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Longknives… fair point. And sadly, when prominent maori as you mention, MPs for goodness sake spout such racist crap, I can understand the outrage.

    Does that mean it’s ok to address Maori kids with the same venom? I find what i read in here often horrendously offensive, but seriously? I refuse to sink to the same level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    Longknives

    The mindset is that all whites living here are visitors and until that is dealt with, this country will never progress. Like you I had relations killed in WW1 (4) and my father badly injured in WW2.

    I have no time for separatists who believe that they are the chosen ones. I used to enforce the law in this country and unfortunately locked up more non whites than whites. This was because they were the ones committing the crime.. Not the colour of their skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    They must teach misinformation somewhere in our educational institutions, for people like Hamnida .
    Possibly this:

    NZQA registered unit standard

    Whakaritea te kaupapa kaitiakitanga/Prepare and plan a kaitiakitanga project

    Definitions
    Kaitiakitanga – refers to Māori environmental management systems evolved to protect and enhance the mauri of taonga and ensure the sustainable use and management of natural and physical resources.
    Ethics refer to respect and safety issues in research and may include but are not limited to tikanga, kawa, consultation with iwi, institutional ethics, intellectual property rights, and the application of cultural sensitivity when using Māori material.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    NW

    I’m still waiting for that trickle down effect

    I’m assuming that you’re referring to brown money; not the wider economic miracle. In which case, WTF happens to the cash (the income from settlements)? Where does it go, does it ever trickle down and get to the people that need it and what is the basis of the divvy up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    David’s original post sums up nationals policy. He has no problem with wealthy iwi elite getting special privileges but does have a problem with Maori having them. National bends over for their rich mates as they aremalways accused of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Professor Margaret Mutu. Maori Ambassador (with a mother born in Scotland).
    http://www.goingbananas.org.nz/…/Going_Bananas_August_07_Maori_Roots_
    Māori Role in Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Defined by tikanga (our laws)
    derive from a world view that we inherited from our ancestors
    rooted as much in the spiritual aspects of this world as the physical.
    based on underlying values which include
    Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all derived from the gods
    Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force
    Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
    Kaitiakitanga – inherited responsibilities to take care of all our natural resources including our lands, waters, seas and other taonga
    Rangatiratanga – chieftainship including sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.

    6. Our tikanga determines that :
    We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)
    We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests and ensure they are well-treated and respected.

    And if they decide to stay then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.
    We also need a good understanding of our guest’s tikanga so that we know how to look after them properly.
    Pākehā settlement and introduced legal system has not and can not change these fundamental values and principles but it has made it very difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.

    14. 1990s-2000s Governments reduced and started removing Māori funding across all sectors – “mainstreaming” Māori programmes and returning to assimilationist policies. Limited responsibility (but full blame) for Maori problems was devolved to Māori organisations but with minimal or no resourcing.
    Government played Māori off against our non-Pākehā guests, issuing propaganda that Māori are just one of many ethnic minorities, we should be treated the same as other ethnic minorities and should assimilate into the Pākehā majority. Asserted that New Zealand is now multicultural, not bicultural, with Pākehā the dominant and determining culture (white supremacy).
    Māori fought back litigating endlessly, protesting on streets and throughout the country, referring matters to the United Nations and working there to develop the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    15. Government retaliated by fostering racist animosity against Māori, using assimilated Māori against their own relations. Carries on to this day. NZ Race Relations Commissioner aware but unable to remedy.
    2004 – Māori anger boiled over with confiscation of foreshore and seabed – that legislation denies Māori access to the law which applies to all other New Zealanders (protection of property rights).
    2005 – Māori Party elected to 4 seats in House. For the first time, Māori have independent, informed voice in House. Had some effect in pressuring government to stop its racism against Māori.
    Government currently supporting legislation to remove principles of Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation and opposing adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Iwi pocketed over $100k of my Maori grandmother in law’s settlement despite her name on the title, not the iwi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    davinci…I wish I knew… My own iwi treaty claims have yet to be settled and we seeking confiscated land rather than money. The only ones who seem to be making any money so far are lawyers, whom strangely enough, aren’t normally maori. Go figure.

    What I have observed along with many new zealanders, is those who have had their pay outs, are having trouble holding onto them, with the odd exceptions. Maybe payouts should be handled like huge lotto winnings. Stick the stuff in the bank to earn interest until it can be decided best on how to spend or invest into projects that best benefit ALL the recipents.

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

    Smart post-settlement Iwi are investing in business, property, infrastructure etc – just like any other private sector business does. Growing an asset base to provide for their people. People carry on about this ‘Maori Elite’ sapping up all the money, but the truth is issue annual reports to their stakeholders etc,

    They’re not dissimilar to NGOs really, and they seem to be able to facilitate and deliver services better than Central Governments does (although I doubt Iwi would accept full responsibility for doing so; because iwi members are still citizens after all). Makes sense that National ought to partner up with them, doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The iwi who have had settlements are enormously wealthy. That’s one reason the government won’t go up against them. The have automatic access to the pm. It’s the nz poverty cycle. The trickle up effect. Read elizabeth rata andhttp://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/elizabeth-rata and see Muriel Newmans site http://www.nzcpr.com/.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Strategic assets is right. What other nut bar government would give away it’s naval base? Settlements always come with a lot of money and guaranteed government leases to the tune of billions p.a. These role over generation to generation. This will soon include millions or more for taxpayer funded access to beaches.

    Do they pay taxes? Doubt it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    I can not understand the separation between the leaders and the rest of moaridom The fisheries is the classic case when the settlement was first made there was talk of an industry that would help young moari into successful careers as fisherman there would be a renascence of the connection between the people and the sea.Instead the moari owned fisheries are leased out to foreign vessels and the chance of a careerer in the fisheries has decreased The amount of money spent on settlements has disappeared from sight and only seems to benefit a small group of managers and leaders who all seem to be the same old faces.The leadership do not stand up and take control of moaridoms problems instead they seem to only blame the rest of us. When duff stood up and said look at us we need to change I thought moaridom would finally own there problems but his voice was soon overtaken by more its the whiteys fault and the greed of the treaty process

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yes because poor self identified Maori are the Iwi’s power base – they use them shamelessly to get more govt money for themselves.

    Also Maori got a large allocation of the fish farming quota but, wait for it, they get compensated if they don’t take up the quota.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. jcuk (688 comments) says:

    I have lived in NZ and worked here for longer than most Maori so why shouldn’t I be treated as a Kiwi with equal rights as a Maori :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Manolo (13,783 comments) says:

    The wise Murri claim the same about Neville: http://washingtonexaminer.com/rahm-emanuel-in-june-when-president-obama-arrives-the-rain-stops/article/2507012#.UEeKNJb9x8F

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

    We need a “redefinition of Maori” Bill, can’t have one group in society having rights to something that other groups do not. that violates equality, Where is Louisa Wall when she is needed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Fuck Maori…its all about Tangata Whenua innit and Tangata o te Moana nui a Kiwa ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Racial.

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