My member’s bill went down tonight. It was expected given National and ACT’s declared intention to block vote against it.
It was their opportunity to reassure Aucklanders the super city is not going to pave the way for privatisation, and that Rodney Hide’s wacko ideology is not going to be the super city’s guiding force. Vote for the bill and they reassure Aucklanders. Vote it down and they reinforce Aucklanders’ suspicions. Vote it down they did.
Perhaps the weirdest thing in the debate tonight was the contribution of the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. Clearly unprepared, he waffled for 10 minutes, directing oddly personal and patronising comments towards me as the bill’s sponsor, and avoided addressing the substance of the bill.
When I watched TV3 news during the House dinner break I could understand why he seemed distracted. 3News had a leaked email from a senior member of the National caucus saying:
Clearly we are at a crossroads. The ACT party has threatened to end its relationship with National if we allow Maori seats on the super city. Despite multiple arguments in support, its mind cannot be changed.
The email goes on to say:
Consequently I believe the issue is too far reaching and too important for a party presently sitting at 1 percent in the polls to decide alone.
Hide has become a liability to the Government. His two key proposals for the super city: powerless local boards, and councillors elected at large, have met with a tidal wave of public opposition. The Government has already caved on the local boards, and if they have any sense at all they will cave on the at-large councillors.
And on the third of the three issues that have offended Aucklanders’ democratic values Hide is now threatening to throw his toys out of the cot. If the Government follows the sensible idea of guaranteeing Maori representation, he will pull the pin.
Who do you think wrote the email? My guess is it was Steven Joyce. He’s the head kicker who is increasingly calling the shots. He cannot bear it that Hide on 1% is undermining Key’s smiley inclusiveness.
Thanks to Greens, Maori Party, Progressive and my Labour colleagues for supporting my bill. The Not Yours To Sell campaign will continue to defend Auckland’s democracy and our assets.
Great campaign Phil – reached lots of people and helped highlight what will be an important point of differnece between Labour and Nact in two years.
I thought the email sounded more like one of your fellow committee members who have got a sense of what Aucklanders want.
Deafening silence from Gnatsville.!
Are there other things on the news tonight? Are they all manning the punps?
..pumps!!!
Type, dammit, type.
The email was from someone on the select committee and a Maori as well. And you can stop pretending it’s serious Phil, like your bill, no one is supporting that contention. ACT is merely standing up against racism which it always has. If National proposed Maori representation and Rodney resigned as Minister I would fully support that: it’s called principle. You guys left that notion behind a long time ago.
Gooner – better to stand up for a principle than tell people what clothes they can wear, eh?
Phil – I hear the sound of the tail wagging the dog, whatever way the Maori seats issue goes. Good campaign, too.
I would love to believe that Hide’s amusing hash-up of the Campbell Live interview was the writing on the wall for the Nact coalition… despite his attempts to stick relentlessly on message (about how great it would be for Auckland to *finally* be a GREAT city!) JC actually put the hard questions to him.
I think, however, that Hide has simply been appointed sacrificial lamb for what all concerned knew would be a tough sell.
As for Hide’s dog-whistling surrounding the privatisation of Ports of Auckland, and the voting down of this bill at first reading.. it really does little to allay fears about ulterior motives…
Good work from Phil though. The ongoing presence of the Not Yours to Sell campaign will resonate when the assets start getting pawned.
“ACT is merely standing up against racism which it always has.”
Thanks! I needed a good laugh.
Keep fighting the good fight Phil.
AC – fair enough point. I can live with disallowing a few gang members from wearing their patches even though I didn’t agree with my party’s position: after all, they’re lowlifes and even though I believe lowlifes have rights it was hardly the issue of the century.
The Auckland Council is a different kettle of fish – it’s a huge issue and affirmative action is repugnant. Why doesn’t the Labour Party tell us what the Maori Party want in terms of Maori seats? I am sure the Labour Party knows the answer.
Have you even heard the Maori Party on the issue? No you haven’t. I wonder why that is.
I think our friend Gooner should look up what racism actually is before he makes comment on whether Maori seats are racist or not.
But in case he can’t be bothered, here is a definition:
rac?ism
??/?re?s?z?m/ [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Providing Maori seats to any governing body does not fit into any of these categories. Certainly Maori are not more superior than you Gooner, nor are they more superior than anyone. We are all equal.
The government is not fostering a system where Maori control governing bodies and discriminate against other races. It is only guaranteeing a voice for one of the key groups of our society.
You are showing your intolerance of other people’s races though when you make your comments about how maori seats should be banned.
Think of what words actually mean before you speak next time. OK?
Andy, thanks for your definition of racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. I suppose this fits in quite well.
What a ridiculous statement to say we are all equal which dictates your level of intelligence. If you think we’re all equal go and line up next to Usain Bolt on the running track.
And, answer my question: why are the Maori Party quiet on this issue? In fact I have just heard Tariana Turia say she is disappointed but still supports Hide. Why is that do you think?
Don’t stop the campaign Phil – keep it going! The bill was voted down, but the issue remains.
Hide has now confirmed that he threatened to resign as Minister.
Btw, thanks for all the encouragement re the campaign.
Interesting reading for sure: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591877
And good on him for firstly, sticking to his principles, and secondly telling the truth. Two things the Labour Party find very unfamiliar.
“a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement”
This statement has nothing to do with the fact of the matter. Maori are traditionally underrepresented in the political arena and because they are key stakeholders in NZ society they should have a say. Maori seats are an example of action to make sure that Maori have a say in what happens to our country.
Evidently your example of Usain Bolt shows your low level of intellect. Contextualise the comment (although we know that it is traditional for the right to decontexualise statements when they have a lack of their own argument). I meant under the law and in politics we should all be equal. And if we aren’t, we must do something about it. We must consider Realpolitik (not a term used much in NZ): The fact is that maori are underrepresented and as they have claim to much of NZ land etc., because they were here before the rest of us, they must have a say in what goes on in today’s country. Maybe in a more egalitarian society, we wouldn’t need to provide special seats, because ethnicities would be represented equally – however we all know that this is not true at all.
“Context is everything”.
“The Maori Party has been lobbying to overturn the Government’s decision” – from the herald article.
There we go. Here is the Maori party’s position.
Rodney, please do resign. Pretty please.
Seems like it was Tau Henare who sent the email.
Gee, lobbying the National Party. That is immense.
This statement has everything to do with apartheid, racist seats. You have a belief that inherent differences among Maori and others (particularly Pakeha) determines Maori achievement by having guaranteed seats on the Auckland Council. That operated in South Africa in case you hadn’t noticed.
Maori are traditionally underrepresented in the political arena and because they are key stakeholders in NZ society they should have a say. Maori seats are an example of action to make sure that Maori have a say in what happens to our country.
They have a say just like you and I do. I detest your apartheid views.
And if we’re not egalitarian enough why stop at Maori? How about Samoans, Tongans, Nuie, etc. Struth, we could have a Council of 100 with all races represented.
That sounds like an excellent plan to have some sort of council of ethnicities directly related to the population make up of NZ. Whilst they may not have legislative power, they can make judgements on laws that have to do with race. Another committee that makes sure that no racial group is disadvantaged.
The reason Maori are singled out is because of treaty obligations and because they are the original people of New Zealand (as far as we know, they were still migrants, yes, yes).
It is not apartheid because there is no discrimination going on. Apartheid put in place law that deliberately disadvantaged the indigenous people of SA. NZ is the opposite of that. There are very few laws that actually prevent Maori from doing anything – frequently it is the opposite. Enabling Maori. As we have established, this is not racism. It has nothing to do with achievement. It is about making sure that important groups have a say. Just like any consultation process where all stakeholders are interviewed. When a corporation or public service interviews select groupings of their customers/service users, is this apartheid? Is it not the same with govt?
I think we just have a difference of ideology. I think that Maori should be given seats because they are important community stakeholders. You think that that is racist because it gives people fairer representation.
Maori seats go some way to making sure that NZ is a more egalitarian society in real terms – on the street, if you will – and making sure that Maori interests are represented in society and law making.
LOL. Just had a look on wikipedia about apartheid: “…was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government” Haha, National (I’m only kidding).
Racism is about ethnicity and power, not just ethnicity alone. If Maori had power do you really think they would be worse off in so many areas like health, imprisonment, etc? What are you worried they will do with a couple of seats on a Council?
Ethnicity is a red herring anyway. We have a Treaty that guarantees Maori extra consideration – in exchange for allowing our Pakeha ancestors to live here with them. In Auckland, iwi also donated much of the land that we all live on. Whose mana is diminished if we welsh on our side of the deal?
Maori seats are not racist. Why must they be there? Because of the following:
“Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.”
That is, the Maori who signed this treaty were “guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures.” (nzhistory.net.nz)
This agreement is in place. And as long as it is in place, the ancestors of the Maori who signed it should be guaranteed a say in the government of the land. Maori seats are not about race. They are about ancestry and respecting this agreement between two peoples, which is the founding document of our country.
Funny thing is, I wonder how many people who are against the Maori seats actually support other forms of hereditary/ancestral standing, such as that of our monarch. But of course for them it doesn’t apply to Maori.
correction “ancestors of the Maori who signed it” should be “descendants of the Maori who signed it”
Kia ora,
“Hide has now confirmed that he threatened to resign as Minister.
And good on him for firstly, sticking to his principles, and secondly telling the truth. Two things the Labour Party find very unfamiliar.”
Hide told the truth?, well actually he just affirmed what could not be negated. I wont give him ups for that.
“I think that Maori should be given seats because they are important community stakeholders. You think that that is racist because it gives people fairer representation.”
Important community stakeholders? A better way to look at it is, by thinking other than the State…who else should be looked at? Maori. Treaty obligations as you say Andy B. Other communities are not covered by the Treaty, if anything other communities, ehtnicities or cultures HAVE to be represented by the State. “Fairer representation”…where is the line here between not fair, fair and too fair?
“Standing up for racism” This is interesting, and I can only respond, then if the State, or us as a people stand to abide by the Treaty of Waitangi, are we indeed ’standing up for racism’? or are we merely affording the indigenous people a voice, a participation, a way to integrate? Are we not giving Maori partial ownership and responsibility for social integration? Do people really think that by affording Maori seats to this ’supercity’ the dominance of the State will be compromised? retarded? overthrown? We can go on about what is fair and what is not fair, and to be fair to those who think giving Maori a legitimate voice on this new proposed supercity is somewhat overtly generous, unqualifed or unecessary, what really is there to lose? There is much to gain I think, but thats me, what is there to lose? What is there to fear?
“What a ridiculous statement to say we are all equal which dictates your level of intelligence. If you think we’re all equal go and line up next to Usain Bolt on the running track.” This is funny. I am sure Andy B, was reffering to ‘equal’ as an individual, as a person, a person who has a voice.
It is interesting to see those that do not advocate the Maori seats dont tend to put forward the Treaty of waitangi in their argument…for good reason. Founding document? More like political tool, to be utilised and manipulated by those whose argument it may better. It does not always lean in Maori favour, but I have to say it makes a pretty convincing argument in this matter.
Gooner – if its fair representation you want and not being racist.
The crude population count for Census night, March 7, shows that Auckland’s population rose by 12.4 per cent in the past five years to 1,318,700 or 32 per cent of the national population of 4,116,900. (Google)
20 seats on council
1,318,700 by 20 seats = 65,935 people represented by each councilor.
137,000 Maoris in Auckland (TV One News)
137,000 by 2 seats = 68,500 per seat
Seems to me they’re still under represented
Gooner says “Have you even heard the Maori Party on the issue? No you haven’t. I wonder why that is.” Are you mental? It’s really not that difficult to find out what the Maori Party’s position is. Try google the words “Maori Party Auckland Super City”. Done.
“The Maori Party says the decision to exclude dedicated Maori seats from the Auckland super-city council is not a certainty, and it will continue to campaign for guaranteed representation.”
To be fair, Mr Twyford, I think your campaign was a poorly-directed stunt, and your private member’s bill was a waste of parliament’s time.
The new Auckland council will face a public backlash if it does anything that severely upsets the public’s sensitivities. If they sell assets the public wants to keep, or purchase assets that the public doesn’t want, then they will face severe political consequences.
That is politics.
I realise that the Labour Party is struggling for political relevance at the moment, but I respectfully suggest that your legislative game playing was pointless and achieved little. It seems to me that Ms Kaye’s efforts in protecting the identity of Waiheke and Barrier by having separate local boards has gone down very well by contrast. That’s an example of a good local MP standing up for her constituents.
With a bit more experience you might become a more effective MP, Mr Twyford, but it seems to me that you are well behind the 8-ball in mounting a serious challenge to Ms Kaye, which is what your campaign was really about in my view.
AkldNut, how many Koreans in Auckland? How many Chinese? How many Pacific Islanders. They can all have seats too.
If Maori are to succeed they should do so on merit not on apartheid.
Don’t give up the fight Phil!
Wouldn’t it be great if Rotten Hide did resign?
Thank you for your excellent speech for your member’s bill and campaign Phil. As I watched the proceedings last night I could not believe the shambles that is R. Hide. I can well see why he is a liability.
A question for you Phil:
Whats worse? Community/State Assets in private hands or Community/State Assets owned by the government but run as if they’re in private hands? Because under Labour all we got was the latter.
This is the same Labour Party the presided over the State Owned power companies as performed daylight robbery on the community. Where is Labour’s commitment to genuinely run State Assets for the people? I’d much rather see that than a bill that is largely a PR stunt.
Gooner, your stalwart defense of Hide is breathtaking. Like Hide doesn’t know what’s in the committee report? Like he doesn’t need to climb into Winston’s shoes to grab the red neck vote to shake off the ‘mister 1 percent’ label? As always, Hide is all about Hide. The real question is will the Maori members of the National Party caucus stay staunch, or fold? It only takes 5 Tories to vote for Maori seats, and they will happen. Then it’s bye bye, Mr Hide.
Jennifer, you are looking at this the wring way like most others.
Key knew months and months ago what ACT’s position was. It is not new. It is not dog-whistling. It is a principled stand against apartheid. Brash, National and Henare stood for the same thing in 2005; they are the turncoats.
Tau Henare forwarded his email to TV3. It is National seeking publicity, not ACT nor Hide. I see Grant Robertson is suggesting Hide leaked it. How could he? It was sent by Henare to the National Party caucus. Hide wasn’t a recipient unless you believe a friendly Nat gave it to Hide to leak. And the point of that would be to destabilise National and give ACT publicity – that’s irrational and illogical.
Jennifer, it’s your stalwart defence of apartheid that is breathtaking.
Gooney how many Koreans in Auckland? How many Chinese? How many Pacific Islanders. They can all have seats too.
Hey sounds good to me, there are some clever Asians, Islanders and Maori out there too – they will get there on their merit but not while “Them Thar Good Ole Boys” are holding the reins! The sooner Hyde steps down the better.
It is a principled stand against apartheid. Brash, National and Henare stood for the same thing in 2005; they are the turncoats.
What a joke, now you’re just being stupid (A principled stand against apartheid my arse)it’s a line you/they can push for as long and hard as you like but it’s just a smokescreen.
Brash at Orewa, Asians with small hands, Islanders needing to be toilet trained, South Aucklanders kept out of Mt Albert, Maoris off council seats.
We know what priciples parties of right have!
Opps should be “Parties of the right have!”
I’m sorry you bill wasn’t passed, Phil. Keep up the fight.
It only proves that they are planning to privatise Auckland assets.
@Moi
The fact that it wasn’t passed dosn’t prove that at all. It just shows that enough people can see this campaign for what it is. Thank goodness it failed.
Gooner, correct me if I’m wrong, but under ‘apartheid’ the blacks didn’t get a vote at all, only the whites?
Jennifer, what I do know is that you are in favour of only Maoris having special seats all for them to the absolute exclusion not only of all other races but also so that the exclusivity on voting is also subject to those on the Maori roll. So under this system that you purportedly want, blacks (Maoris) will only be allowed to vote for blacks, and whites will not be permitted to. Sound familiar?
Gooner, no, it does not sound familiar. Anyone can enroll for the Maori roll, and anyone can stand as a candidate for a Maori seat. No different from anyone in a general electorate seat. Stop making stuff up.
Gooner I noticed there were about 7 posts further up which you didn’t respond to (because they succinctly destroyed your previous and subsequent arguments). Have a good read through them, formulate an argument which they haven’t dealt to already, and then post. Otherwise just stop repeating the same old banalities. It’s tiresome.
Gooner, stop being a goon.
You’re twisting everything around to suit your own purposes. Maori seats are not apartheid. Because a minority is voting for a minority as well as the majority. And the the majority votes for the majority. Everyone has a vote (or more) and that is the opposite of apartheid. In apartheid, only the minority (whites) got to vote. Here, everyone does.
Think of maori seats as a way towards integration. To make sure that the interests of maori are represented so one day, we don’t have to have Maori seats.
I’m just doing what the left does constantly: beat out the same old tired, worthless arguments time and time again until the population eventually starts to believe it.
Do I really believe it’s apartheid? No. Do I think it’s repugnant to have race based seats? Yes.
And I don’t have time to answer every pathetic venal argument posted on this website as I earn a living during the day. The argument that Te Tiriti guaranteed Tino Rangitiratanga to the Chiefs has been countered many times by the proposition that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown and that Parliament is now supreme. You might disagree with that and counter with the old contra proferentum argument which is expected but the point is these arguments go backwards and forwards and there is no proper answer.
What I’d prefer is a written constitution of New Zealand that includes Te Tiriti as Aotearoa’s founding document and which sorts these issues out once and for all. Until we have a written constitution that is supreme these fights will continue which I think is a shame. We have politicians who argue the toss over many minor issues without focusing on sorting out the core issues of governance this country sorely needs.
If they did that idiots like me wouldn’t need to get excited about race base seats and race based representation but until these fundamental governance/constitutional issues are dealt with finally I will.
Sorry in advance.
Phil Twyford thinks it is a ’sensible’ idea to have separate representation for Maori-doesn’t this man understand even the basics of democracy?! God save us from the Labour party and people like this!
Roger, I believe you’re after the “Your Views” section of the Herald website where ill-informed curmudgeons are welcomed with open arms.
And gooner seems like a rather cynical refugee from the Kiwibog. No time to engage with reasoned arguments, but plenty to complain about the evil lefties.
Saying that contra proferentum is an “argument” with “no proper answer” is like saying the world is flat or there is no climate change. Reality is mighty inconvenient for dunces who prefer a faith-based world instead.
Great to see Labour has not changed and is into personal attacks. What about attacking the argument?
It is obvious that racism is about someone being selected (or self selecting) based on race. Everyone is an individual and as a Maori I resent being told that I am superior/inferior and so should have special/different support/systems. I am no different to any other normal and healthy person on this earth and demand to be treated as such.
Special Maori seats on the new Auckland Council is an insult to Maori.
What’s stopping someone 100% non-Maori from enrolling in Maori electorate seat? Just curious…. I don’t think anyone’s out there tracing geneology are they?
Rodney Hide is providing much direction to a directionless and opportunist National “led” government. Heather Roy is in there too. Is this an ACT-led government in fact?
Pita Sharples is proving of no great consequence, and no great hurdle for Hide to overcome.
Turiana Turia can be set off once in a while, and she may yet be provoked. But when?
Sacha, let me make three points.
First, despite the Treaty having no formal legal status, it has been accorded a kind of constitutional status because it gave legitimacy to the British Crown in New Zealand.
Second, the Government would be dealing with indigenous law issues whether there was a Treaty of Waitangi or not. Australia is proof of that. There were no treaties in Australia, as there were in North America, South Africa and New Zealand, and yet Australians are still facing many of the same debates that we are.
Let’s not blame the Treaty. It is hugely significant but it is not the be-all and end-all, nor the panacea for every challenge we face as a country. We would still have to face the challenges of genuinely redressing Maori grievances, of fully associating Maori with New Zealand nationhood, and of ensuring their fullest participation in our economy and society, regardless of whether we had the Treaty or not.
Finally, in many ways the Treaty no longer underwrites what it used to. Maori, when they signed the Treaty, signed up to the British global order which existed at the time. Since then New Zealand has become an independent self-governing country. But the government’s duty to look after all its citizens, Maori and Pakeha, equally.
Finally a reasonable argument, Gooner… but do you not think it is unfair for one party to the Treaty to disregard it when they decide it no longer applies? Surely we can only leave the Treaty behind when both the crown and Maori decide that it is time. And the fact that Maori still seem to strongly support Maori seats suggests to me that they are not ready for this.
And they never will be wtl. Andrea Tunks has repeated that in law lectures at Auckland Uni for years and years. Irrespective of their attitude the law should be the same for maori, pakeha, korean et al.