I just came from the Civic Opening for the Pasifika Festival. Prior to the concert beginning, there were formalities in the VIP tent. Unfortunately the turn out was poor – probably because the Auckland City Council only made the decision to run this at the end of last week. Our Pasifika leaders were there along with members of the City Council and of course that soon to be GONE (thank goodness) Auckland City Mayor was in attendance.
Pasifika people are very good with the protocol and demonstrate the respect that should be afforded to our Tangata Whenua – Maori. Unfortunately it was the Auckland City Council staff and the Mayor that undertook the formal proceedings that unfolded in the VIP tent. None of those that spoke acknowledged Ngati Whatua or the Chairperson of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board (who was there) – Grant Hawke. The only person that John Banks acknowledged was the one National MP in the room – Nikki Kaye (over and over again…to the discomfort of our Pacific community present). The only other thing that I recall John Banks rambling on about was the Mayoral race (as if anyone in that tent will be voting for him!). John Banks couldn’t even bring himself to say a simple ‘Talofa Lava’…I guess any language other than those stemming from European countries would be too much to ask of him.
They then closed those formal proceedings and then attempted to return to mix and mingling with their glasses of merlot. The music had started up but unexpectedly Grant Hawke took to the podium. He was as respectful as always but obviously disturbed by what had just unfolded. He pointed out very clearly the special relationship between Maori and Pacific and the support that Ngati Whatua have always demonstrated for Pacific and the Pasifika festival. He also pointed out very emotively the disappointment he felt from Tangata Whenua having been completely overlooked and ignored during these proceedings – and rightly so. As an onlooker I was almost reduced to tears out of embarrassment for what had unfolded. Following the speech from Grant Hawke – one of our Pacific leaders took to the podium and provided a formal apology for the complete disregard for Ngati Whatua that was demonstrated by the council – it was a genuine gesture and I’m sure it was accepted by Grant Hawke, but everyone in that room was still left feeling incredibly uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Oh my goodness – that was appalling behaviour – it shows just how ignorant that Mayor is of appropriate protocol – you would have thought he would have sought advice from his advisors – or are they either incompetent or so full of loathing for the mayor that they would set him up to fail so badly. How embarrassing for you and those who were there.
Someone didn’t get mentioned in a speech, and this is worthy of a blog post?
Priorities Carmel, priorities.
And a little less cockiness on your part might be appropriate – at Labour’s polling of 31.5%, you’d be the one who’s gone.
VIP? Very Important Palagi!
At the Auckland Bill select committee I attended the Mana Whenua forum was lumped in with the Pasifika groups and they were all squeezed together at the end of the table – put all the brown people on at once, they’re all the same… That’s how they roll in the VIP rooms.
John Bank’s vulgar behaviour knows no bounds.
I’ve witnessed him ignore minority groups, put down people who disagee with him, and speak contemptuously of the “ho-mo-sexual” community when he thought he was amongst a group of like minded bigots. I’m embarassed as an Aucklander that he represents my city, and think that the one good thing about the Supercity will be Bank’s demise when Len Brown is elected.
Carmel, I am far away in Dunedin, but your powerful post makes me think that tonight you witnessed a naked display of arrogance and colonialism that harks back to a foregone era. Keep speaking up.
Hamish – I’ll say what ever I like about John Banks – it’s my blog – you’re just a visiter to this page. As far as I’m concerned he’s a nasty piece of work and this city will be much better off when he’s not the one at the helm. If that sounds cocky…fantastic!
Hmmm, interesting take on the event, so totally unbiased, we don’t have to wonder why we have a growing racial gap in this country.
So lets look at John Banks, voted in to govern the largest pacific population in the world, and Carmel from the list, so who got the most votes?
See this for what it is, a childish attempt to stir up malice within a racial group on the eve of a local election.
Just make damn certain that you mobilise your people to vote in the upcoming elections.
Otherwise those Cit-Rats will be in power, and that is NOT a desirable outcome.
Hamish – I’ll say what ever I like about John Banks – it’s my blog – you’re just a visiter to this page.
I think we get the message, Carmel. I wonder just how deep this sort of sentiment goes…?
The only other thing that I recall John Banks rambling on about was the Mayoral race (as if anyone in that tent will be voting for him!).
You make a very valid point. But the other side of the coin is that very few people in the wider community really care about this sort of stuff, and those who do are normally so deeply red that there’s only one shade of party they’d ever dream of voting for. So being perceived as culturally unaware or unsensitive by a few might be discourteous, but it’s hardly likely to have any consequences whatsoever for a politician from the right.
John Banks couldn’t even bring himself to say a simple ‘Talofa Lava’…I guess any language other than those stemming from European countries would be too much to ask of him.
If he’s a true New Zealander speaking any language (including English) correctly is likely to be a struggle!
Parrotting a few coached phrases may be seen as some as attempting to be inclusive, but it’s just as easy to perceive them as patronising. I presume that Banks doesn’t speak any pacifika languages, so his choice not to spout a few words that (to him) were meaningless is completely valid. It just means that his notion of respect and yours are different. I’m sure he can live with that one. Can you?
Carmel; leaving apart the spelling error, isn’t this the LABOUR PARTY’S blog? You seem to have taken ownership
I’m with Peter G on this one, the Len Brown team have got to campaign hard in the Auckland City district, this is where the strength of Banks’s votes are from. It’s not going to be to hard in other parts, such as West Auckland and Manakau, where Brown’s from. It won’t be hard for Brown especially in the Rodney district. Those Rodney guys are pissed off that they’re included in the Super City, so they’re not going to vote for someone who is National anyway!!
As for John Banks not recognising the tangata whenua and not saying anything Polynesian, there is a popular saying:
“When in Rome, do as Romans do.”
One wouldn’t go to a marae and walk in with shoes on and have a yakka while the kaumatua is talking, unless they’re a redneck. It would be rude to do so. So I think Carmel is right to point out that John Banks as a Super City Mayor would be the pits. If he can’t make an effort to do the simple things, how is he going to handle the hard things?
Btw if Banks is elected he won’t implement Maori seats, and so the voice of Auckland Maori will be wiped out. No local representative of a general local seat will ever be accountable to Maori. This is because non-Maori outnumber Maori in general seats, hence the local rep will be elected out in the next election if he/she supports Maori.
Martin said: “Btw if Banks is elected he won’t implement Maori seats, and so the voice of Auckland Maori will be wiped out. No local representative of a general local seat will ever be accountable to Maori. This is because non-Maori outnumber Maori in general seats, hence the local rep will be elected out in the next election if he/she supports Maori.”
Interesting logic. Of course you could try to apply it to every minority group, and let’s not just stop at ethnicities. Then you might realise how ridiculous your logic is. Need you be reminded that Maori are human beings just like the rest of us. One person, one vote. Got it?
Yes Al, I also see this for what it is, a childish attempt to stir up malice within a racial group on the eve of a local election.
Why do Labour presume that because people are born brown they should vote Labour? Ultimate condescending behaviour.
And to top it off she was born and raised in my home town. A disgrace to the heritage.
@ Axeman. Ultimate condescending behaviour is if the Crown (under National) decides to abolish Maori seats. This will be condescending because it won’t not allow Maori the chance to decide whether they should retain the seats or not.
I mention National because this government is looking at abolishing seats depending on what the Constitutional Inquiry comes up with.
You are disgraced with Carmel. What are you disgraced with her about? And what is the heritage that you mentioned?
Btw if Banks is elected he won’t implement Maori seats, and so the voice of Auckland Maori will be wiped out.
So without Chinese seats the voice of Auckland Chinese is wiped out? Ditto for Koreans and English and Welsh?
Get a life, please.
C’mon George you ought to be able to understand by now that Maori have a partnership agreement with the Governments of this country, Chinese etc do not. If you cannot understand that difference you will continue to struggle to see the importance of this issue. God forbid you ever find yourself in a minority (of power that is, rather than numerically).
Lol
@ Sean.
1. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Read it.
2. Other ethnicities don’t need it because where NZ is heading the majority of NZers will be of Asian and African ethnicities.
3. “One person, one vote”. Maori also have one person one vote aswell, just under an optional reserved status, so I think your logic’s ridiculous. Of course you’re anal about that “reserved” bit aren’t you? Oooh scary, Maori have reserved seats!! Let’s hit the bunker!!
4. There are 63 general electorates compared to only seven Maori electorates. Are you telling me that you’ve got a problem with seven Maori seats? Again another cross in the box for your logic.
5. You’re pointing out that we are all one, aren’t you? OK Sean, define it.
Btw Tracey it’s good to see another leaning leftie on here. This blog has been flooded from the right, the “we are all the same”ers who don’t explain what that means.
Imagine what Sir Keith Holyoake, “a REAL National man” according to Winston Peters, would think of what we’ve just heard from the right?
Martin, those who crow one person one vote, conveniently leave out the enormous influence of lobby groups /powerful indiiduals which undermine the one person one vote philosophy, just privately, behind closed doors. Peter Shirtcliffeis an example of one man one vote with a hellova lot more influence on policy than you, I Sean or George have.
Well Tracey, the thing about it is, is that we aren’t all the same. That’s why we have different political parties, different religions, different Christian dominations etc.
George, Sean et al haven’t got a problem with those things. But the moment you bring out different ethnicities and the issues that they face, it becomes a full-out panick attack on divisiveness.
I don’t know why people like these lads can’t accept different ethnicities. It’s as though they live in a settler denialist coccoon, not accepting other ethnic people’s voices. I hope that future NZers can amend this ignorance.
If the notion of democracy means providing reserved seats for a few who can claim a tiny bit of one ethnicity somewhere in their background then I’m glad that I don’t get it. Nonesense like this has no place in a modern society.
I find it astounding that someone from the left can write about “those who crow one person one vote”. Is this to be an issue on which Labour will campaign at the next election? Or is it only the disowned extreme of socialist opinion that considers one man one vote so terribly old fashioned a concept?
Hi Martin, I reply to your 4:46PM comment which is in italics below:
1. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Read it.
- Just read it. Saw no mention of special Maori seats on the upcoming Auckland Council.
2. Other ethnicities don’t need it because where NZ is heading the majority of NZers will be of Asian and African ethnicities.
- But if they are minorities now, why aren’t you advocating seats for them (and Pacific Island peoples) on the Auckland Council as well, lest their voices be wiped out? And by your logic you will support special seats for Pakeha should they become a minority.
3. “One person, one vote”. Maori also have one person one vote aswell, just under an optional reserved status, so I think your logic’s ridiculous. Of course you’re anal about that “reserved” bit aren’t you? Oooh scary, Maori have reserved seats!! Let’s hit the bunker!!
- Lets keep the debate of a mature tone, shall we? Assuming it eventuates, technically you are correct so I will rephrase to what you knew I meant anyway: “One person, one equal vote”.
4. There are 63 general electorates compared to only seven Maori electorates. Are you telling me that you’ve got a problem with seven Maori seats? Again another cross in the box for your logic.
- So far I have been referring to the Auckland Council and your comment that if Banks won’t implement Maori seats, the voice of Auckland Maori will be “wiped out”, but here you seem to want to move to the national level where special seats for Maori do exist. Not so long ago it was 95 electorate seats and 4 Maori seats so it is even more skewed now. Of course you do realize that Maori can join the general seats or the Maori seats, but non-Maori do not have that choice? So the comment “only seven Maori electorates” is somewhat misleading.
5. You’re pointing out that we are all one, aren’t you? OK Sean, define it.
- Not “all one” whatever that really means, but if I am catching your vague drift here I refer you to my comment above, “One person, one equal vote”.
@Tracey 5:03PM – regarding your comment about the influence of lobby groups / powerful individuals, I am sure you will agree this is not a left/right issue – Owen Glenn, trade unions, horse racing industry in the last election, then there was Exclusive Bretheren, trade unions, “big business” in the one before. Of course the Iwi groups in themselves are influential lobby groups. Peter Shirtcliffe is so 1993 and even then the No vote lost (thankfully) so the influence of powerful individuals is questionable.
At the end of the day we have free speech so to an extent people with the opportunity will take advantage of this. I think the answer to all this is consensus based electoral finance regulation, though even that also will never be perfect. For my mind anyway the influence of cash in elections is overrated so as long as it is about right, I am not too concerned this is a major issue.
Martin said: “I don’t know why people like these lads can’t accept different ethnicities. It’s as though they live in a settler denialist coccoon, not accepting other ethnic people’s voices. I hope that future NZers can amend this ignorance.”
You really shouldn’t make such broad based assumptions and pigeon-hole people because THAT is a definition of ignorance. Why not play the ball instead of the man because you’re so far off the mark here that you’re embarasing yourself.
Sean
The Maori people do have a voice, don’t you agree? If you don’t know the Maori language I will tell you, it’s called Te Reo. On that basis Maori have a right to Te Reo, just as you have a right to the voice that you have. The Treaty was signed to protect their rights. One of those rights is their voice. Thus they have a right to representation. Equality is a partnership (two voices, not one).
You are right about Maori being able to vote or stand in general seats. Personally I don’t think they should be able to, just as non-Maori can’t vote or stand in Maori seats. This could be amended.
Other ethnicities don’t need seats because they aren’t tangata whenua. But as I said other ethnicities will eventually flood the country, and so their voices will be heard anyway. And for what you said about white people being a minority, that’s too bad, white people aren’t tangata whenua. But white ethnicity will eventually be mixed with other ethnicities. They’ll be no white people left. That said, the same fate will happen to Maori. However if there are people in the future who are all micro-Maori, they will still have rights as tangata whenua. A Treaty is recognised until the government removes it. Or maybe you want to scrap the Treaty, is this where you’re heading?
“Not ‘all one’ whatever that really means.” If we’re not all one will then we must be different ethnicities. So where’s the problem?
“You really shouldn’t…pigeon-hole people.” Isn’t that you’re doing in regards to Maori representation? (One person, one equal vote).
I said what I said about people like yourself, because I think it’s true. Being a settler denialist is ignorance. We are descendants of settlers. Just own up to it.
“Lets keep the debate of a mature tone, shall we?” skip to “Why not play the ball instead of the man” Whoopsee.
Yes the Maori people have a voice. It’s called a vote.
They have a word for what you want: apartheid.
I saw your kooky talk about the future of ethnic make-up and super races on another post (“Pacific should not be pitted against Maori in battle for funding”). You would have a good time over at Crusader Rabbit with that sort of talk.
Yes there are different ethnicities, but they must all have the same voting rights.
Nope. Quite the contrary. What you did was make all sorts of assumptions about me and fit me into a stereotype that suits you. Yet you don’t know me at all and we have barely swapped a few comments.
And then in your second to last paragraph you just prove my point.
Sean I take your point.
However Mr Shirtcliffe is not so 1993, he is one of the main protagonists behind the move to referenda the Voting system. His work has paid off, and as we approach the election and that referendum you will see his money at work. Of course it is not a right only issue everyone uses lobby group/person tactics but even you might concede that the majority of money is likely to emminate from the Right? The UNions are strong as are others. BUT even the Unions are voted based and answerable to their membership. I’m not sure how I vote for or against a path taken by Mr Shirtcliffe or the BRT. The BRT went silent until the National campaign began in 2007…
As an aside I don’t consider Owen Glen right or left, I give him a third place, I call it Owen Glen.
Sean it is not Apartheid. The Treaty document clearly imposes, as do other Acts of Parliament, including the Local Government Act, an obligation to recognise and treat Maori as the recognised Partner of our nation. As much as it may gall some that a “minority” can gain this preferential treatment, that is the contract which was negotiated with Maori.
Funny thing is, Maori were about 99% of the population when they signed the Treaty. Very generous of them, given that today with a majority of (whatever white NZ has) so many here wouldn’t sign anything like that and would say we are the majority so stuff ya. Mighty cool of them not to treat us that way back then, and now all they ask is we honour that partnership agreement which absolutely includes the SuperCity. It’s all very well championing the slogan “one vote one person” but it is so loaded in this context (George – if you really support this do you rail against ALL lobby groups, on all sides, or are you happy to believe, for example, the Unions don’t sway beyond one person one vote?).
The saddest thing is that after all this time people still dont trust the people who will probably make up the CCO’s to actually take account of this special interest group without a hammer.
The irony is that white NZers only got to be a majority by virtue of ignoring the one vote one person rule upon arrial.
Tracey – I’m sorry but I don’t get the quantum leap you make between lobbying and voting.
There are powerful lobby groups on both left and right. And also powerful groups lobbying on behalf of Maori.
But when it comes down to a democracy it should be (however untrendy the notion is) one person, one equal vote. Trying to read into an almost two hundred year old document things that were not intended is merely trying to play expedient politics.
And the whole thing is further weakened by lack of a clear definition of what is Maori. That someone can be 95% pakeha in their heritage but be able to claim a special position in society by virtue of the other 5% is seen by most of the country as a nonesense.
Hi Tracey – okay so Mr Shirtcliffe is back, schemeing away. I could have sworn though that having an referendum on MMP was an election promise of the current govt. Anyway I don’t think FPP will make it back but personally I’m leaning towards STV.
Actually I think you’ll find that the grouping of left based parties received more donations in the last campaign, but it was more or less prety close I think. I suppose all lobby groups are answereable to those they represent in some way. Owen Glenn donated to Labour as we all know.
You misunderstood my apartheid comment. It was to Martin’s comment about Maori-only seats and non-Maori only seats. I don’t think he meant ill of this but I was making clear where this leads to. The apartheid comment did not refer to the wider issue we had been talking about.
Now I notice twice you mentioned about the internal voting of trade unions. Is this in reference to positions that unions take in political matters or the ones individual members make when deciding upon industrial issues, or in the case of the EPMU, on the political positions Mr Little takes in his dealings as both Labour party President and EPMU head? Are union leaders still compelled to hold secret ballots in industrial dispute matters or can they have them open now? What is their preference?
You see it stinks just much on your own side as that of your opponents. As far as I’m concerned they’re all guilty. As Lord Acton once said: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”. Like I said before, strong consensus basedregultion in the area of electoral finance should be enough to keep things on the level.
Tracey, the sad thing is that Sean, George et al can’t even own up to Maori having a voice. They do have a voice of their own. It should be up to Maori and not the Crown (or mini-Crown in regards to the supercity) to decide whether they have Maori seats.
Well done Tracey for not denying what the settlers did. And you’re right, there wouldn’t have been a non-Maori majority if there hadn’t been a Maori majority allowing non-Maori to settle here in the first place. To drive the point home further, the 28th Maori Battalion had the highest casualty rate per capita of all NZ forces in WWII. This fight for freedom on our behalf DEFINITELY entitles Maori to have their own seats, and Maori arguably shouldn’t have gone to that war.
@ Sean. What do you find so kooky about what I said on the other blog? Would you accept that when different races breed together, hybrid people are created? I think that’s cool.
And Sean all ethnicities do have the same voting rights, except Maori because of the Treaty and because of the 28th Battalion. I bet you wouldn’t have wanted Nazis and Japs down here.
@ George. “Trying to read into an almost two hundred year old document things that were not intended is merely trying to play expedient politics.” Can you explain this?
The British have a document that’s almost a thousand years old, the Magna Carta, and that’s still very relevant to them.
And then there is the US Constitution which is the bedrock of the US system. This is over two hundred years old. I don’t know what you’re getting at.
@ Sean. You’re twisting words, apartheid is the WHOLE system not just Maori seats. What I mean is, look at South Africa during apartheid and it related to everything. Where people lived; where they dined at restaurants; where they went to school; where they worked; even where they went to public toilets!! We don’t have apartheid in New Zealand Sean. But you pick on ONE little thing and then apply apartheid.
You probably think it’s apartheid what I mentioned on the other blog, since you’ve been recceing me. It’s the one on Whanau Ora.
Oh and you haven’t mentioned what’s kooky about me yet? Come on Sean, back yourself up. I said what I thought about your crowd, and I gave a reason.
I do make one amendment and say that we will have white seats at some stage, but not for long because, as I said, we’ll be bred into assimilation.
Maori voice – good.
Worrying about what race every one else is – futile. 
It doesn’t matter people are people. That’s all I’m gonna say. Going to have a wine now 
Sean, your mistake is assuming I am on one side or the other, I thought my reference to Unions etc showed I understood lobbying happens on all sides of the house. I dont defend it.
I sympathise with the core values of Labour but I far from agree with everything they stand for now or in the past.
I didnt vote for National, well insofar as I gave Richard Worth my strategic electorate vote ( devil and deep blue stuff there). You know what I am saying.
There are things National has stood in the past that I have agreed with. However there are things they have done;
Rushed through 90 day probation under guise of job creation no consultation
Raising sentences under guise of reducing crime
National Standards
SuperCity haste
I want Labour to be strong to challenge these kinds of things.
No particular order.
When trying to apply three paragraphs hastily written, and even more hastily translated, in 1840, to modern New Zealand the concept of rebus sic stantibus has to come into play.
The rebus clearly aren’t stantibus any more. For a start there are almost no maori left in the sense of the ethnicity of the iwi who signed the treaty. Many of those who seek to benefit from a special place for maori have more pakeha in their background than maori. Clearly a nonesense.
Martin : The British have a document that’s almost a thousand years old, the Magna Carta, and that’s still very relevant to them.. Total BS.
@ George. The Crown still recognise the Treaty so you’re going to have to get over it, regardless of whether Maori are full Maori or micro-Maori. If you think I’m wrong about the Crown, then how come the Crown established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975, which is still in existence?
And to your response of the Magna Carta, from the British Library’s website:
“Magna Carta is one of the most celebrated documents in English history but later interpretations have tended to obscure its real significance in 1215…
“Only three of the original clauses in Magna Carta are still law. One defends the freedom and rights of the English church, another confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns, but the third is the most famous:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
Sounds very relevant George.
Martin – that may be the way the treaty is viewed by government today, but in a world of changing circumstances that view is already well outdated. One day, sooner or later, things will change. The future of New Zealand in a changing world depends on it.
As for your quote from the British Museum library – it’s academic tosh. Magna Carta dates from 1215 – there was no English Church at that stage. And the habeas corpus clause exists in plenty of jurisdictions that don’t have a Magna Carta. Just because that’s when the concept first appeared on the English scene doesn’t mean that the document in which that concept is enshrined is relevent, per se, today.
The government of the day ignores the Carta as it pleases. Indeed when the period for which suspected terrorists could be held without charge was extended Tony Benn claimed that was the day that Magna Carta died. He was probably one of the last to still believe it was alive…
Tracey – okay thanks for the background. On those 4 points you mentioned most were election promises so at the end of the day the mandate has been given to the new government. That’s democracy. You’re entitled to disagree of course, I am sure they have been debated on this blog several times.
Twice you bemoan the speed of how the policies are implemented. From my point of view, I generally prefer any government to act decivisely, particularly when an electorate mandate has already been given. National aren’t the only party guilty of speeding through law. But consultation is always good, as it can fine tune the bill, and it also brings people on board. But the right balance needs to be found. I guess I tend to be on the faster side of things, you on the slower.
George, you and I agree on the changing circumstances. In the future everyone will be micro-Maori, so they’ll be no point in having the Treaty, compared to 1840 where there was Maori and non-Maori.
The reason why Maori and some academics might appear anal to you on the subject of the Treaty, is because it was signed. It’s like if you’re married, that is a bond. You don’t just turn around and say screw it, you stick at it. However if it gets really bad you’ll have a divorce. Eventually the ‘divorce’ will happen with the Treaty, just not yet.
What do you think of the idea of a written constitution? I think that could go towards solving problems people have with our system. For example, if people knew what the powers of Parliament were, they might be more involved in our system, as they would know what the powers are via the constitution. I’m also a republican, which we’ve got to start discussing, but the PM’s just ruled out Keith Locke’s bill. So much for open government….
Martin – actually in the future there’s no reason why everyone will be ‘micro maori’ as you put it. All that will happen is that fewer and fewer people will have an entirely non-maori heritage. Do you envision that those who don’t have the maori stamp on their card will always be treated differently, or is there a set proportion of those within society who are at least a bit maori at which you think this particular ethnicity will cease to be treated differently? And if so, what is that?
In most advanced countries in the world the idea that the racial/ethnic background of someone has a bearing on their political status would be unacceptable. It’s time that became the case in New Zealand.
The lack of a clear definition of ‘maori’ is a real problem. It allows rich almost-totally-pakeha to take advantage, for example, of scholarships for ‘maori’, whilst those living in communities which are much more what would generally be accepted as ‘maori’ are left in relative poverty. This doesn’t help maori at all. It just helps vested interests. I’m sure that most Labour supporters don’t think that’s sound.
The left gets itself onto sticky turf on this one as it end up in the situation of supporting privelige and the position of an almost feudal hierarchy whilst ignoring the needs of the poor.
Sean,
I have no problem with speed per se, but speed is not always a good thing. Less haste more speed.
Two (the two where I bemoan haste) of those 4 issues have in common, rule of law (or Natural Justice) changes or major constitutional issues. When laws changes of this kind are made or changed it needs to be more carefully thought out than a populist based mandate. I am not suggesting people dont know what is good for them, but in light of the misinformation masquerading as education it is hard for people to grasp the detail of what they are having proposed at them. We are naive if we think that marketing and advertising gimmickry are used in pressing certain messages so “debate” may/is deliberately framed to press “hot buttons” and gain acceptance. All parties to their discredit practice this.
You are right, that is democracy which is why I am here ascertaining Labour’s stance and pressing/encouraging them to fight, fight well and successfully.
The irony of the outcry from Act and National over the EFA, it’s haste and its anti-democratic principles and their hasty implementation of the Super City is not lost on me, is it you? Also I note Labour’s haste with EFA and objection to haste of SuperCity.
I may be more politically even handed than some here think.
George, you wrote ” It allows rich almost-totally-pakeha to take advantage, for example, of scholarships for ‘maori’,”
Is this anecdotal or some other basis (genuine question, not sarcasm).
I have a contract at a Tertiary institution. The number of Maori on scholarships in my classes, when I have been aware, have been low socio economic. I will add, anecdotaly, that these particular scholarship folks came to my attention (ver a period of 8 years ecturing) because of continual non attendance in class and failure to submit assignments. Yes, they were wasting our money, but not rich.
George, you wrote ” It allows rich almost-totally-pakeha to take advantage, for example, of scholarships for ‘maori’,”
Is this anecdotal or some other basis (genuine question, not sarcasm).
I have a contract at a Tertiary institution. The number of Maori on scholarships in my classes, when I have been aware, have been low socio economic. I will add, anecdotaly, that these particular scholarship folks came to my attention (ver a period of 8 years ecturing) because of continual non attendance in class and failure to submit assignments. Yes, they were wasting our money, but not rich.
Tracey – could part of the problem here be the very short parliaments we have in NZ?
Three years isn’t very long to achieve anything if you don’t get stuck in quickly and move things along briskly – perhaps even to the extend of cutting corners?
Coming from the UK where the term is 5 years it seems like in NZ we’re almost always either in pre- or post-election mode.
Perhaps another year or two on the term would enable whoever is in government to take a longer term view?
Just a thought.
Tracey – you seem to have a sticky ‘o’ and ‘l’ key now as well
I have no documentary evidence, merely the friends of my children who benefitted from maori scholarships of one sort or another. None of these kids were the sterotypical needy maori, and some were far better off than we are. Most would have had only a tiny bit of maori in their heritage if their appearance was anything to go by.
The money distributed to these kids would have been far better off going to poor kids regardless of whether they were ‘maori’, pacifica, asian or european.
Sorry, Sean, we are off topic but meant to ask
I dont recall the lack of elected representatives being in the main decision-making roles in the new CCO’s being discussed during the election, does this change the mandate? Probably not in general terms but as to specifics?
George there seems to be an assumption that in this day and age we are all grown up and able to take account of the needs of those who differ from us. I don’t see evidence that we as a society have indeed reached the point where Maori are so readily accounted for and thought of within politics, policy decision-making that attention doesn’t need to be drawn to them. Everyone seems to agree that Maori are disproportionately accounted for in ill health, crime and education statistics but we holler “racism” when their specific needs are accounted for in a focused way.
The argument about Racial preference was always, as I understand it about oppression, and side-lining a group because of their colour. I, as a white NZer neither feel oppressed nor sidelined in this society. I once had a Dean of Law School explain my failure to get into law by .5 as down to my age and my “being a female”.
Councils are integral in the provision of services and community funding. Many groups doing sterling work addressing the areas above for Maori and Pacific Island peoples can access funding through the Council. Their goal? To eradicate the need for those special problems because those groups are thriving alongside and equal to their other counterparts in society.
You dont like the Traety of Waitangi anymore? Well, frankly, tough, the way our society is today is an absolute reflection on the systemic behaviour following its signing. It suited us (white) people then.
I am not a proponent of white guilt. I do not feel guilty but I recognise the history, the impact and the legacy. My paternal parents, both sides, were immigrants around 1850 – 1860 and benefitted with parcels of land etc etc. Somewhere there is a Maori whose family used to own that land (I dont know how the land was traded or taken). I find it hard to believe that if youhad vast tracts of land, a thriving commercial fishing business trading with Australia, and it was all taken from your family, you wouldn’t still think of it from time to time.
Yes, we have to move on, but the disparity remains, look at the failing areas. Address these openly, genuinely and we save down the line on the cost of providing those services.
We are not going to agree on this and I have enjoyed the debate.
George
Turns out Sean is wrong I prefer speed…hence the missing letters
I agree we are always in pre or post election mode and we as electors also reward short term thinking.
I have two nephews who are “entitled” to claim Maori status (16th I think). Even when this might have helped them to gain out of zone entry to a particular school they didn’t. Not saints just that their parents (wealthy) acknowledge that if they have no connection with their wakapapa (sp) and no sense of Maori-ness then it’s simply wrong.