By Chris Trotter*
Trust. Nothing is more important to a government than the trust of the governed. With trust, there is very little that a government cannot accomplish. Without it, durable political accomplishments are much less likely. Jacinda Ardern’s government is currently teetering on the brink of forfeiting a crucial percentage of the electorate’s trust – more than enough to cost it the next election.
Trust, of course, cuts both ways. It is equally critical, in political terms, that a government trusts the people to at least the same extent as the people trust the government. Indeed, nothing erodes the voters’ trust faster than evidence their own government considers them untrustworthy.
At the heart of the political uncertainties enveloping the concept of co-governance is the Labour Government’s all-too-obvious lack of trust in the Pakeha majority. A lack of trust also displayed by the National Party. What other explanation could John Key possibly offer for sending the Māori Party’s co-leader, Pita Sharples, to New York, in conditions of virtual secrecy, to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).
Given that UNDRIP was largely authored by, and has become the crowning achievement of an indigenous New Zealander, Moana Jackson, a New Zealand government, untroubled by the public’s reaction, might have been expected to make more of the event than a diplomatic fait accompli. Likewise, with respect to the formation of a special working group tasked with identifying the cultural and constitutional changes required to give full effect to UNDRIP.
A government untroubled by the political ramifications of such an investigation would not have kept its existence hidden from its coalition partner. A government willing to trust the New Zealand electorate would not have kept the working group’s report – He Puapua – under wraps. On the contrary, it would have welcomed the lively political debate which the unedited Report’s voluntary release would undoubtedly have generated.
But, as we all know, trust was lacking. Not only was the re-elected Labour Government anxious to keep the document secret, but those Māori with a deep interest in constitutional reform – including Moana Jackson – similarly manifested a strong aversion to debating He Puapua’s recommendations openly in the public square.
Even when the full text of He Puapua was leaked to former Act MP Muriel Newman’s right-wing New Zealand Centre for Political Research, the reaction of the Labour Government was to downplay its significance and emphasise that it was not – repeat NOT – government policy. The Prime Minister went further: flatly ruling-out implementing one of the Report’s most controversial recommendations – the creation of an Upper House of Parliament, composed of an equal number of Māori and non-Māori members, and tasked with testing the legislation passed up to it by the Lower House against the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Jacinda Ardern’s reflexive rejection of the proposed Upper House was not only precipitate, it was also politically injudicious. There are many recommendations contained within the He Puapua report that are considerably more problematic than the creation of an Upper House. Indeed, if a government was anxious to demonstrate to voters the efficacy of the principle of co-governance, then a second chamber made up of 50 percent Māori and 50 percent Non-Māori, would be precisely the right place to start.
An Upper House constitutionally limited to reviewing, reporting-on, and – if necessary – returning, legislation to the House of Representatives for further consideration and/or revision, could play a powerfully educative role in preparing the population for other cultural and constitutional changes.
Critical to the Upper House fulfilling such an educative function would be the elimination, as far as practicable, of all the debilitating distractions of partisanship.
For the Māori half of the Chamber, this could be achieved by delegating the choice of representatives to an agreed-upon roll of collective Māori entities. The manner of identifying these entities’ representatives would be determined by the iwi and hapu involved. Some might opt for election, others for more traditional methods of identifying and anointing leaders.
For the Pakeha half of the Chamber, partisanship might be avoided by following the example of Seanad Éireann, the Irish Senate, members of which are appointed to represent Public Administrators, the Legal Profession, Employers, Farmers, Trade Unions, the Universities, and people prominent in the world of Arts and Letters.
Anxious to move beyond the murderous allegiances of the Irish Civil War (1922-23) the framers of the Irish Republic’s constitution strove to construct an upper house guided not by fierce party loyalties, but by a determination to meet the challenges of self-government by harnessing the wisdom of the whole nation.
Thus constituted, the proposed Upper House could play a crucial role in identifying, investigating, and debating to what extent each piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives conformed to – or deviated from – the principles of the Treaty. Have the decisions of the lower house strengthened or weakened the partnership between the Crown and tangata whenua? Are its decisions justified? Or should the legislation be sent back to the House for further deliberation?
It is difficult to conceive of a more gentle or thoughtful way of demonstrating the value of co-governance as a method for devising policies and making laws which both Māori and Non-Māori can accept without reservation and/or resentment. An Upper House with strictly limited powers, but constituted in such a way that the worth of legislation driven by purely partisan considerations can be assessed by those beholden to very different principles, would fast become the respected educator of the nation.
The Prime Minister’s rejection of this key He Puapua recommendation – almost out of hand – is deeply regrettable. As a means of instilling and demonstrating trust in the capacity of Māori and Non-Māori to determine and advance their best mutual interests, an Upper House has a great deal more to recommend it than Labour’s (and the Greens’) increasingly divisive Three Waters project, which, right from the start, has communicated to all affected parties an almost total lack of trust.
That Māori have myriad reasons to withhold their trust from Pakeha is undisputed by those with even a rudimentary understanding of New Zealand history. To refuse trust as a matter of policy, however, cannot hope to bring Māori and Pakeha close enough to jointly determine a mutually rewarding future for Aotearoa-New Zealand. For that to happen, both peoples need to trust each other enough to embrace new and untried solutions.
The Prime Minister should withdraw her objection to the creation of a co-governed Upper House. Let New Zealanders witness in public the Treaty debates that, hitherto, have only taken place in private. If there is wisdom and generosity to be found in the processes of co-governance, then let their virtues be seen by Māori and Non-Māori alike.
Trust them, and New Zealanders will, almost always, make the right choice.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
111 Comments
Trust New Zealanders. Yes yes yes. But to get to that, you can't have different sorts of New Zealanders.
The French figured this out. They banned the idea of recording people as different ethnicities. No such thing in their official stats. All votes are equal, by design.
Not quite right! Close to New Zealand, France recognises New Caledonia's Kanaks as a separate people, That's in difference to France's various 'populations', such as Corsicans, Basques etc.. The UN-approved decolonisation process rests on the Kanak people's right to self-determination, which was lost with the French occupation in 1853.
The voting system in provincial elections, which are the territory's general elections, is based on acknowledging that the indigenous people are different than the settlers, whose participation is restricted and based on how long they have been in New Caledonia. The Kanaks resist proposed changes to the system, knowing full well that if everyone is classified as French, their ambitions to regain control of their homeland will most certainly be in vain.
I suspect this is one of those 'if you won't like the outcome, don't measure it' approaches. We're getting drip-feed bits of reform but should the actual discussion around it be allowed to happen without a firm controlling hand, the government may well be forced to accept that there is poor appetite amongst the general electorate.
There is simply no point in responsibly and truthfully moderating a debate about a major constitutional issue when you can just do what you want anyway and get the same outcomes without putting the effort in. We are seeing that approach play out now.
Given the extremely curious and seething outburst(s) by Mr Jackson when being interviewed by Mr Tame, I wouldn’t think this government trusts itself anymore than New Zealanders trust it. It is starkly obvious that this government is a house divided and now toppling down the slippery slope to oblivion. Has it been forgotten that PM Ardern enthused, on election night 2020, that she fully appreciated the extraordinary majority afforded her party and she understood and respected the mandate thus given by ALL NEW ZEALANDERS! Since then, in my opinion, she and her government have set about contradicting those fine words in every respect.
https://twitter.com/AgentSmith_NZ/status/1599235266312810496
Willie channeling RD Muldoon.
Jackson is a nutter. His interview on the weekend was scary stuff; a clear entitlement mentality in the sense of 'why has this media punk we've paid off questioning me?' ... and I thought National were meant to be the 'born to rule' types.
As long as he and Mahuta have any influence on Labour (and, let's face it, they seem to control the party) this Pakeha turkey won't be voting for Kirihimete, if only because they legitimately seem to hate people like me, and it's spilling over to ruin Labour's ability to do anything else productive for the country and its people.
If I were Ardern, I'd jump ship ASAP to some cushy UN-type gig while the star still shines somewhat, at least internationally.
Trust. Labour have backed themselves into a corner and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't see power again for 30 years. They have already lost the trust of the majority over sneaking in co-governance so they will be forced to abandon it after the election (if not before). The Maori faction will then split away from the party over what they will perceive as a breach of promise.
I would suggest they are splitting away already. The are street wise, if you would pardon the euphemism. Once they perceive their future is bound to a sinking ship in Labour they will grab the life boats first up. Look for a new party and a concerted effort for the Maori seats, with list attached, a compilation of the top dogs. This potential might well be of quite some concern to The Maori Party itself.
Bang on. My own opinion is two fold: MP's are hesitant that they will get re-elected into parliament in the current climate and be able to keep a job down, so in a sense of self preservation as they see and hear those around them, family, friends etc and read the room so to speak, they are starting to think for themselves. They are seeing that they have blindly followed the Prime Ministers agenda, being told that going against it would be a 'career limiting move' (very common term used in govt currently for those managerial or higher) however with the media scrutiny building, and more and more underhanded deeds being done, said MP's are seeing the light in that it doesn't matter if they don't get re-elected now, they still have to live with themselves having seen wat has been done in parlaiment and idly sat by instead of following their own individual conscience and listening to those that elected them.
Which of these things would be the easiest to reverse
a) The removal of the clause in the South Korean fta (then extended to include others, because it had to be) that prevents future governments from simply banning overseas purchases of houses here
b) Nationalizing anything that's been privatized, even against public wishes (power co's etc)
c) Gaining 60% support for a law change
60% is not even a super majority, that is 75%
Trust is important, and as CT expresses repeatedly in this article it is the politicians who repeatedly demonstrate that they themselves are the least trustworthy group of New Zealanders. Indeed much of their actions appear to move towards minimising or out right removing any accountability to the public.
As to He Pua Pua; if the politicians genuinely wanted to ensure Maori got a decent outcome, then they need to stop making policy that favours money and big corporations, and start acting in the interests of ordinary Kiwis. I would largely suggest that racist policies are a thing of the past today, but many were implemented by the colonial Governments, and today because current policies tend to favour wealth and big money, then the effects, because of the legacies of those earlier policies, are racist, disproportionately impacting the lower socio-economic groups.
By limiting transparency the Government is demonstrating that they have lost sight of who they are supposed to be working for.
Just what NZ needs, more government.......
Once again, with Labour, we find out whats been discussed "He Puapua" via leaks to ACT. Lets have an open and honest debate. Publish the report in full in the Herald. This is way more important than drug reform.
It's a massive change, let's put He Puapua to a referendum.
"let's put He Puapua to a referendum."
Does anyone think this referendum could possibly pass? The trust is not even close to being there to implement anything like this, it would be a coup. (There is not even enough trust to pass a referendum for Maori Wards on councils)
Co-governance is the end of any real democracy and accountably. Why are people (mainly the National Party) so cowardly to hide behind the electorate to oppose this?
Following a couple of decades of successive Govts both National and Labour secretly undermining NZs democratic fundamentals NZ is now staring into the racist abyss exemplified by countries such as Malaysia.
The ONLY issue in next years election is whether we want to live in a democracy that represents what all our NZ ancestors (European, Maori, Asian & other ethnicities) defended & died to keep alive in the long ago dark hours. All the other economic & social issues are noise, these too shall pass.
We need to vote this Govt out while we've still got enough of a democracy left to do it with.
He Puapua is literally just legislating continuous bureaucratic parasite jobs to ensure government departments and local government are "complying with the treaty". Read the actual document outlining the implications of it. It is an eternal wound which requires designated political officers to ensure the treaty is complied with by the Crown.
When the hell do these completely unelected, undemocratic and largely incompetent iwi get off with demanding endless gibs for themselves and having no responsibility to any of the rest of the country? It is an endless parasitic class which is empowered by ethnocentric voting patterns and the political needs of the ruling coalitions.
The issue here is what we just take this ritual humiliation, instead of demanding our own ethnic groups are given explicit representation as well. When was the last time the government did anything explicit for white people, or even for any of the eastern asian ethnic groups in New Zealand?
Actually, you'll find that government departments try to engage with iwi in good faith on all sorts of matters and discover the iwi are disinterested in engaging on that topic or so overstretched engaging with another topic that they prioritise certain issues over others.
The solution is less engagement or iwi upping their capacity to engage. Some groups request government funding so they can afford to engage. Where is that money supposed to come from? Should it come from government? We should have the conversation.
The government and the media have been infiltrated by Maori supremacists.
They truly believe that one group of citizens should have special rights and privileges above others, under the law, based on their race.
It's as simple as that.
These people are racists and they are doing their best to bring about an apartheid system just like in South Africa or Israel.
https://thecritic.co.uk/what-did-you-do-in-the-great-culture-war-daddy/
Are we in a culture war?
Bumiputra! New Zealand style! The world appears to largely ignore this racist selective policy implanted nigh on 50 years ago in Malaysia. The more I look at it, it seems to me this government has the exact same model in mind and are expecting the world not to notice either.
To my mind a Māori upper house is a more appropriate composition, as opposed to the 50/50 Māori/non-Māori proposal in He Puapua. Hapu and iwi would choose their representatives in any way they like - some choices may well be non-Māori - it would be over to hapu and iwi to choose. In many cases, non-Māori New Zealanders have significant, useful knowledge to contribute in terms of constitutional and treaty-related knowledge (e.g., Dame Anne Salmond; Sir Geoffrey Palmer; Mai Chen; Chris Finlayson, etc.).
With the implementation of an upper house, the Māori seats in the lower house would go - one electoral roll for all New Zealanders. And all references to "the principles" of the ToW would also go from legislation - such legislation only referring to the Treaty itself - not the principles as they are a manufactured interpretation from the courts. It is time we just started interpreting the treaty based on its two texts (Māori and English).
The work of the upper house would be constitutionally limited to examining legislation for breaches of ToW – similar to the role the A-G current has in relation to NZBORA. Ability to veto/send back to the House of Representatives one time for recommended amendment, but no powers of veto after that. Also, perhaps certain legislation (e.g., Crimes Act; Care of Children Act) and/or certain parts of the Executive Branch (e.g., Corrections, Oranga Tamariki) to be governed by the upper house with opposite veto powers given to the House of Representatives. .
To my mind, the only way forward to resolve the many social disparities arising from multi-generational poverty is to give the most negatively affected citizens greater power and control over their own destiny - and if matauranga Māori offers solutions, then we should embrace them with open arms. What has been tried so far isn't working, and that is not disputed by anyone. We do need a "circuit breaker" and an upper house could well be it.
Poverty is not solely an issue for Maori or gender, no matter how much politicians & academics like to wilfully misuse statistics to conflate aggregate outcomes with inputs while ignoring individual efforts and personal lifestyle choices.
I worked all my life in a range of NZ SMEs & multinationals with Maori, Pasifika & other ethnicities of both genders, from the factory floor to the boardroom. Depending on the roles & performance we were all paid equivalent rates.
I've also been poor in my life, twice (so far): not easy to recover & progress but it can be done. Never received any Govt support in my life till NZ Super.
I never said poverty was solely an issue for Māori. When Te Puea Marae opened its doors to the homeless, they didn't discriminate based on race. The ethic of manaakitanga is shown to all.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/304325/auckland-marae-opens-doors-t…
It's quite disappointing to my mind how tikanga Māori is so poorly understood - early settlers would never have survived were it not for the generosity and cooperation of the people already here.
I applaud your courage Kate in putting forward your view based on knowledge of the world through an open and honourable mind. On these boards there is very little acknowledgement of why Maori are where we are and how our ongoing impoverishment and the circumstances under which that impoverishment occurred. Our ancestors who signed the treaty never foresaw the situation where their land would be confiscated (robbery by statute/parliament) plunging their people into poverty from a place of relative wealth.
I reject emphatically any idea that I should have greater representation because of my ethnic origins. Or less for that matter.
As for ToW it's completely useless now. We are not the Maori of 1840 or the settler of 1860s. The idea of two groups is farcical. We are five million groups of one, and the just way is equality.
Managing disparities by ethnic groupings raises this problem: Pakeha, or Asian ethnic groups for example may have average outcomes that are higher than that for Maori, but as with all averages that masks over big variations within that group. The very wealthy Pakeha or Asians at the top pull the average up, but within both Pakeha and Asian ethnic groups there are, in absolute numbers some very poor, unhealthy people. Targeting social inequality based on ethnic group deprives another ethnic group of assistance. So by trying to solve one injustice, it raises another. The only way is to target help to those of lower socio-economic means. If the majority of those that are helped are Maori, well and good, but the basis of help would be less socially unjust than basing on race.
Our current welfare system wouldn't change - that ideal that you have of helping all disadvantaged would remain. What I believe would change with an upper house would be the nature of that help. The treaty guaranteed all NZers the same rights as Her Majesty's subjects. An upper house, if tasked with determining legislation does not breach the treaty - they would ensure our laws do not discriminate based on race, age, gender, religion, etc. etc.
And that's exactly what you are looking for!
Feel free to Google the research. There's several papers on the subject.
Please explain why you believe it's stupid? It's the same thing. A group of people defined by immutable characteristics have, on average, below par outcomes, therefore they must be oppressed.
If we are aiming for equity (equality of outcome) then we should probably be paying reparations or making amends for these shortcomings no?
Fun fact. Fat women are also paid less than their non-fat counterparts, but at least they have the choice to lose weight.
See my other response to you above.
Aggregate ethnic & gender "gap" outcomes mostly reflect individuals efforts and life choices, not racist or misogynistic prejudices (not saying that this doesn't happen however extremely rare & unlikely in my experience).
Correlation is not causation.
Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equal outcomes (equity). Nor should it.
Life choices. No one has a choice what environment they are born in to. Why would we not all applaud any initiative that breaks the cycle of poverty, drugs and violence that pervades our society? Is it your perspective that only those who have made the right choices deserve to be happy and healthy. But right by whose definition?
Debate on these policies is anathema to Labour, that would mean mean exposure for what they are - power and subjugation. You stuck it to us, now its our turn. Hence its being done by stealth through the media, universities, 3/5/6 Waters etc. Co-Governance isn't an amiable sharing of power, it is dominance - look at the Ureweras.
Thanks Chris for thoughtful article - an issue nicely identified and a solution proposed.
Not sure I agree with your solution but people being able to debate and discuss merits or otherwise is useful especially as the current process is proving confrontational and divisive
However I doubt that the current labour party has the skill set to manage a consultative process given they have already destroyed the trust required
A well written assessment Chris. Especially of how an upper house might work. Thanks. I think I one of the reasons for the reluctance is the outpourings of very ugly racial slurs that such a debate will bring into play in the public. But as you say education should be one of the under pinning motives for the debate entering the public domain. As painful as that will be. With a thousand reasons why such a system should not happen. I like your reasoning as to the value a 50/50, non-politically affiliated body would bring to all legislative matters debated. Not just TOW centric. The education of the masses, both Maori and non-Maori needs to start somewhere in order for us to navigate the next decade or so to build a better governance structure that we one we currently have.
The eduction I was referring to is with regard to our shared history including the role of the treaty and reading He Puapua in that context. It would be great to have an informed debate coming with a background of knowledge on these matters. The vast majority of the NZ Public are not in possession of this knowledge.
The "vast majority of the NZ Public" know that there are no Partnership, Principles or co government mentioned in the Treaty of Waitangi, despite the last few decades of historical revisionism by self serving agitators, academics & politicians attempting to justify their racist policies.
Although you seem to be referring to the vast majority, as if you know what their opinion is - better to just let the treaty speak for itself;
https://teara.govt.nz/en/document/4216/the-three-articles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi
You will see that I was responding ironically to whakahokia mai's claim that "the vast majority of the NZ Public" are ignorant of our shared history, as if he knew what their opinion is. Sorry if I didn't make the nuance clear.
& the Crown could not enter into a partnership with it's subjects.
When the treaty was signed Maori were not British subjects. They signed the treaty with an independent group of people who shared a culture and language and common ancestry. I was being too flippant with regard to the ‘majority’. A more accurate description would be ‘in my experience’. Whereas I could say that no-one has had any knowledge. Rather than ‘most’ Fair point to raise that.
I base my opinion on history acquired knowledge and lived experience. I wonder about the efficacy of the opinions of these self-declared ‘smart informed folk’. Even that they would even declare themselves as such publicly. A very high opinion of themselves indeed!
You are welcome to re-familiarise yourself with the warning at the top of this comment stream.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/118647/no-significant-drop-average-…
It is true that my name has similarities to a fictional character played by a fictional character played by Mark Wahlburg in this Hollywood produced period film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogie_Nights
What is your point?
Perhaps I should start commenting as <jacinda will never speak his name> instead? That's the kind of actual crime that old mate here is glorifying.
Labour will carry on with their co-governance agenda. Their arrogance & their Maori caucus will permit nothing else. It could get very ugly next year. If I were Labour I would cancel the election.
National can't seem to say a word against this via Key's sending Mr Sharples to the UN during his time in power. They have (with hindsight) screwed themselves, hence Luxon's loud silence on the matter.
The scene is well & truly set for one Winston Peters in 2023. Like him or not, he will have his say.
Next year will define this nation for the rest of the century. We have to have this conversation & it has to be made public. As CT says, no one trusts the politicians any more & we all know that part is true.
This has been brewing for 50 years. Some would say 170 years.
I suggest globally appointed third party negotiators.
And it needs to be televised to the world. Live.
The theft of land from Maori starting in the 1860’s was a deliberate strategy by the Government of the time to wrest control of the best agricultural lands in Taranaki and Waikato from the rightful owners who refused to sell any more of their land. The tribal owners preferring to develop their land as they saw fit as guaranteed in the treaty and by British citizenship. Parliament passed an act of parliament allowing them to confiscate land from any ‘rebellious’ tribes as defined by Parliament then set about creating the circumstances whereby those tribes could be defined as ‘rebels’ with the easily imagined results. This is one of the main reasons behind our lack of trust in the Government and it’s institutions. Any reasonable modern person placed in the position of my ancestors and their descendants would feel the same sense of loss and grievance, If our land and resources had remained in our hands we would be in a much better position financially and materially today. We would be by far the wealthiest group in New Zealand. Along with the associated influence on the body politic.
"Any reasonable modern person placed in the position of my ancestors and their descendants would feel the same sense of loss and grievance If our land and resources had remained in our hands we would be in a much better position financially and materially today."
My ancestors on both sides of the family came to NZ 160 years ago from both the Highland Clearances & the Irish Famine. They knew they had to ignore their "sense of loss & grievance" & rebuild their lives & raise their families through smart/hard work & thrift. As I mentioned above I've been poor more than once in my life & am probably now considered in the 1%. Without ripping anyone off or receiving any Govt help.
Yes, rebellion was used as an excuse for confiscation & expulsion indiscriminately & subjectively by Govt, the same happened in Scotland & Ireland; that was always the way of those times. However, you will acknowledge that recent NZ govt's have acknowledged this & provided a route for redress.
I suggest Sir Apirana Ngata put the ToW & subsequent acts by all parties in the most commonsense frame a century ago:
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
"The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.
The objections should be made in the light of the suffering of some of the tribes by reason of the confiscation of their lands. The wrongs were done by others while lands belonging to others were confiscated. Consequently many tribes suffered through having no lands. Some tribes were too severely punished. It was from these objections that earnest supplications were made to Ministers or by way of petitions to Parliament. While the Government could not defend itself under the provisions of the Treaty, Governments have used the Treaty as a shield against these supplications and claims...
...the Treaty of Waitangi created Parliament to make laws. The Treaty has given us the Maori Land Court with all its activities. The Treaty confirmed Government purchases of lands which is still being done and it also confirmed past confiscations. The Treaty sanctioned the levying of rates and taxes on Maori lands, it made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful."
That reference to Ngata’s assessment should be read in the light of a Maori man in parliament at the time speaking to a pakeha audience holding all the power. His view is one opinion and did not and does not reflect the view of the majority and would be challenged by that majority if spoken today. I don’t know enough about the causes of and victims of the confiscations in Scotland and Ireland to comment and so I won’t. Those are tragedies and need to be dealt with the descendants of those victims. The situation in this country is that we Maori had rights and privileges as British subjects and Treaty signatories guaranteed by the crown. There is a clear breach of trust in our situation and the thrust of the current proposals are an attempt to rebuild that trust with the Government of today. There has certainly been no trust for the past 160 odd years. The form of power sharing is one os the areas of debate. As we are clearly not happy with the previous and present set up’s.
In 1840, population estimates were 70,000 Māori - 2,000 Europeans. Within 18 years of signing the treaty, Europeans outnumbered Māori. And what does such a massive increase in population need?
Land.
NZ has 66,240,000 acres of land. In 1975, when Dame Whina Cooper started on the Land March (135 years since the signing of the treaty), Māori land equated to roughly 3,000,000 of them.
Dodgy area of stats Kate. In my close immediate family two thirds of the various properties are held by Maori. In a few years all of it.
But none of those holdings are identified in stat as Maori. Indeed there is no mechanism to produce that stat.
And given our modern demographics it would say nothing useful to do so.
All stats that don't support your narrative are dodgy - new word in the urban dictionary for that, Trumpism.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/305987/maori-home-ownership-falling-behind
We disagree on much Kate but does not advance your view to revert to a catagory such as 'Trumpism'. Just name calling. Also it does not make any sense. Don't go down that track
But being generous I can say the stat you did source is very indicative. And you are good at sourcing those. So thank you.
I am on record as saying, and I hold to it, that New Zealand's house price fiasco is our greatest social disaster. There will be repercussions for generations. Perhaps we can agree on that.
Yep, we agree on that one. My petition as a means to untangle the mess that is the accommodation supplement was just presented to Parliament today;
Smart and dim, rich and poor, healthy and unhealthy, favourable genes, unfavourable genes - equity of starting point in life is a chimera. Equality of opportunity is not but it cannot be improved by angels on a pin discussions about decisions made 150+ years ago. You either believe in our current system of democracy based on 1 vote per citizen and a society which supports equal opportunity irrespective of genetics or you do not. If you do not then at least come clean and say so and allow the discussion to be about whether people self identifying as one ethnic group should have rights over the majority - many of whom could but choose not to so identify.
It saddens me that there are deeply racist undertones within the average kiwi that only take the merest scratching to unearth.
The average Joe seems to think that reverse apartheid is going on and the majority is about to be oppressed by a minority.
If only those pesky Maori people had kept quite, 'cause everything was hunky dory in years gone past.
Why did they need to bring up all the injustices of the past and irritate the consciousness of the average person. Damn Norm Kirk for creating the waitangi tribunal and allowing them to finally have a voice against the oppressive majority.
I wonder if anyone here has read any of the findings of the Waitangi tribunal. Probably not, as the split between white and brown is 50/50 on the tribunal. So they are part of the not so secret Maori takeover of New Zealand.
The treaty may not mention partnership, but it states that Maori may have unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. What if their treasures are something all kiwis use, such as water? The only way to give action to this is through some shared role in the guardianship.
As much as the average kiwi may not like this, it has to be the way forward. We've come a long since 1974 and not yet far at all.
It must really rankle with Maori and all other colonized first people's that they seem to have little say in what and how things happen to THEIR lands, and their own marginalization.
They've come so close and now it's looking like next year's election, especially if ACT are anywhere near the controls, they could end up further away than they've been for some while to their goals..
I am sick to death of those who choose to accept that voting out the rights of Māori IN THE ONLY COUNTRY THEY HAVE is an okay thing. It isn't. Much was taken from them, almost everything. Kicking the redress can down the road for 180 years is NO excuse, you can't do that and then say it's been too long.
"It saddens me that there are deeply racist undertones within the average kiwi that only take the merest scratching to unearth."
I agree. It's even more disappointing & disturbing when deeply racist undertones are unearthed in current political leaders eg Willie Jackson, Rawiri Waititi & Kelvin Davis
But Luxton and party doest instil much trust either - remember what they did to the country, forcing NZ First to go labour to oust them.
Perhaps we will have an Act/National/NZFirst bunch next time round.
But Labour and its woke laws but be dispatched at all costs.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.