It has been a hell of a week for race relations in Aotearoa New Zealand.
On Monday Christopher Luxon visited Kīngi Tuheitia to try and smooth relationships ahead of the weekend hui planned for Ngāruawāhia Marae to discuss the Government’s support for the introduction of a Bill that would undermine te Tiriti o Waitangi and its attacks on Te Reo.
Next morning Shane Jones went onto Radio New Zealand and did his best to undo any good that Luxon’s visit may have achieved. He described the Hui arranged for yesterday at Ngāruawāhia as a monumental moan session. Real mana enhancing behaviour that.
Then National announced that Tama Potaka and Dan Bidois would attend the Hui. Potaka described claims that the Government was underpinned by white supremacy as premature. Does this mean he thinks that this is a future possibility?
Then on Friday the draft Cabinet Paper on Act’s insane treaty referendum was leaked. It was as bad as if not worse than all of us thought it would be. Effectively if it was passed it would be difficult to see how the treaty could have any further effect.
It’s my understanding that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has promised Tuheitia that any legislation on the Treaty will not get out of the Select Committee after its 1st Reading. #TOWUpdate pic.twitter.com/jjedKz43cZ
— WestSide 8345 (@tauhenare) January 19, 2024
Paora Goldsmith confirmed that the paper was an actual draft of a Cabinet Paper and not a figment of someone’s imagination.
That same day the Herald gave David Seymour space to set out his views of the treaty which Enoch Powell would have been proud of. His views were internally contradictory and frankly complete bollocks. For a party that survives on the largess of uber wealthy people and historically the generosity of the National Party to give the wealthiest people in the country a nod and a wink to get them over the line, to talk about division and the need for unity is insulting at so many levels. But that is what he did.
He also completely misrepresented the treaty and continued with the lie that under the treaty Māori gave up their rights of governance.
If you think about the historical context and the time that the treaty was signed you will understand this. In 1840 there were 80,000 Māori and only 2,000 or so Pakeha. And Māori were and are a proud and independent race. If you believe that Māori willingly gave up Tino Rangatiratanga to an English woman who lived on the opposite side of the world then I have a bridge I would like to sell to you.
Then yesterday the Hui at Ngāruawāhia called by Kīngi Tuheitia took place. Thousands attended including significant numbers from all the major tribes, even Ngāpuhi despite their historical indifference to the Kīngitanga movement. An estimated ten thousand were present.
John Campbell has this wonderful description of the day and the background. He says this:
The National Hui for Unity was only called by Kīngi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII (Kīngi Tuheitia) at the beginning of December. That so very many people would arrive here, only six weeks later, in the holiday-season slowness of the third week of January, speaks not only to how resoundingly those present reject the coalition government’s Treaty Principles Bill, but also to a strength of unity already existing.
That is to say, a unified rejection of what Kīngitanga Chief of Staff, Archdeacon Ngira Simmonds, described as the “unhelpful and divisive rhetoric” of the election campaign.
“Maaori can lead for all”, said Ngira Simmonds, at the beginning of this month, “and we are prepared to do that.” *
This is part of a growing sense, as Ngāpuhi’s Mane Tahere told me, that “we’ve turned a corner”.
The corner is that u word – unity. The increasingly urgent sense of the need for a collective response to the coalition government.
And his description of what Act wants to achieve and how it represents the policy of division is captured in this passage:
My 1News colleague, Te Aniwa Hurihanganui, obtained details of the coalition Government’s Treaty Principles Bill. In its initial form it is not so much a re-evaluation of the role of the Treaty as an abandonment of it. Professor Margaret Mutu, speaking on 1News on Friday night, called it “an attempt to abolish the Treaty of Waitangi.”
This has arisen out of National’s coalition agreement with ACT.
I wrote about this at the end of last year, and also in the weeks after the election. I looked at the coalition agreements between National and ACT, and National and New Zealand First. And I noted their pointed focus on Māori. Some of it felt mean. What I called a strange, circling sense of a new colonialism.
I wrote about what I saw as ACT and New Zealand First’s experiments with a kind of “resentment populism”.
Who are we?, I asked. And where are we heading?
We’re heading to National reaching 41 percent in the first political poll of the year, “a massive jump”, as Thomas Coughlan described it in the NZ Herald, earlier this week. And we’re heading here, to Tūrangawaewae, and to thousands of people who travelled from throughout the country to collectively say, “no”.
In other words, we’re heading towards, or have already arrived in the vicinity of what PBS called the “divide and conquer populist agenda”.
And we’re heading to politics that purport to speak out against division, whilst arguably fomenting it.
The coalition politics are fascinating. National’s attempts to placate Māori are being actively undermined. The effects of Luxon’s visit to Tuheitia and Potaka’s and Bidois’s attendances at the hui have been completely undone by Jones’ “monumental moan session” and by Seymour’s actions. Act will clearly push the referendum as strongly as it can. NZ First will want to completely undermine it but in a way that does not upset its red neck supporters and I don’t think that it has worked out how to do this at least not yet. And National will be trying to keep it all together and douse down the feelings of outrage that are building while at the same time try and not fracture its rather fragile coalition.
Why does an Atlas funded far right political party want to completely undermine indigenous rights?
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it is all about access to minerals. Māori have been some of the most determined protectors of the environment in the country. If their rights are extinguished then this removes a major impediment to gathering minerals in National Parks and in our oceans and shores.
But this is going to get ugly. The choice is to either respect Tangata Whenua and the rights that te Titiri recognised or to increase their pain and sense of dislocation and the devastation of Te Ao Māori.
So which side are you on?
Luxon needs to speak with Findlayson.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/nzoa-pijf/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
I wish Chris Finlayson would publicly state his opposition to the legislation in no uncertain terms. His views are respected across the board.
I agree Anne. National party politicians don't impress me much as a rule and few have. Finlayson is an exception. I found him a bit acerbic and not a warm person but in time I came to see he had an intellect and seemed to use it for the greater good rather than just advance party interests or ideology.
Shipley on the other hand 🙁 It would have been good to see Finlayson at yesterday's hui rather than her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us.
In an increasingly polarised world the solutions are not to be found in entrenched positions….all wars end with dialogue.
where do you see the dialogue is here? And between whom?
Love em or hate them one thing Act have done is forced a conversation about how ToW fits in 21st century NZ….as I have said before, this conversation was inevitable at some point due to future governance, constitutional decisions. Another outcome will be a much wider understanding of our country's history as various positions are explained/justified…..that can only be a good thing.
What would not be good is ignoring the issue.
that sounds like you mean the dialogue should be between the left and ACT. Is that what you meant?
Certainly not…the dialogue should be between everybody….the wider the discussion the better.
In principle, in the abstract, this is very true.
In reality, in NZ in 2024, there are parties with an agenda to both strip Māori rights and to run Trumpian politics to consolidate RW power.
Those people have significant societal power right now. The wider discussion will inherently be corrupted because of that and because they're not going to want an open, wide, democracy promoting discussion.
That is the nature of politics….the problem dosnt disappear if we pretend it dosnt exist.
Fortunately we live in a democracy so those with power still have to convince the majority of the benefits of their position….remembering that without the discussion they still retain their power.
"Those people have significant societal power right now. The wider discussion will inherently be corrupted because of that and because they're not going to want an open, wide, democracy promoting discussion."
Then why play into their hands?….have the open, wide democracy promoting discussion.
which problem are you talking about. I haven't said *anything about pretending the problems don't exist. Quite the opposite.
No, they don't. They're already in power, they have the majority in parliament, they can essentially do what they want for the next three years.
Within some limits, but not the one you imply. Come the next election, a cost of living crisis will have more impact on swing voters' vote than the Treaty. It's a crude form of majority rules democracy, and if the majority decide to have a NACTF government again, that doesn't in fact endorse wrecking the Treaty.
And?
Play into their hands how?
One of the problems with your position is that it legitimises the premise that the Treaty can be defanged. It's not an open, wide democracy promoting discussion if that's the starting point. It's a fight.
In the same way it would be if for instance they wanted to remove women's right to vote.
Or say, remove women's sex based rights. Oh that's right, a government already did that without having to convince the majority.
"Or say, remove women's sex based rights."
Must we include this issue in every discussion?
🙂
That one, and the moan about vaccination. <yawn>
"which problem are you talking about.'
The problem of differing expectations of the ToW
'No, they don't. They're already in power, they have the majority in parliament, they can essentially do what they want for the next three years."
Are the Government the only power?….I thought their strings were being pulled?
"Play into their hands how?"
Your words…"The wider discussion will inherently be corrupted because of that and because they're not going to want an open, wide, democracy promoting discussion.'
They may not want an open ,wide , democracy promoting discussion but if the wider public become involved they cannot control what form the discussion takes.
"One of the problems with your position is that it legitimises the premise that the Treaty can be defanged. It's not an open, wide democracy promoting discussion if that's the starting point. It's a fight."
A discussion legitimises nothing…a discussions purpose is a clarification of positions….and if you are concerned about fights then I struggle to understand why you gravitate to politics…
"Politics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshed'
Mao Zedong
"…have the open, wide democracy promoting discussion…"
Tangata Whenua just did.
he tika tāu
E pa ana ki te patai a Micky; kei te haere au ki te taha maui, te taha kakariki, te taha Māori ranei.
Kei aua taha hoki ahau. Kei te tumanako ahau ki nga korero mo enei taha e toru.
Good….thats one group that have, only a multitude to go….and then there needs to be an agreement.
Agreement? Like some sort of contract or perhaps…treaty?
Yes, like a Treaty Robert….we have one from 180 years ago that no one seems to be able to agree what it means exactly other than it hasnt been adhered to all those years so now would be a good time to clarify that , especially if it is to be the basis of our Constitution into the future.
I’m puzzled why you believe this.
and none of what I just said is new or particularly controversial.
This idea that keeps being trotted out that ‘no one knows what it means’ is simply untrue. It’s just a tactic to reexamine the Treaty to get to the space that each person or group using it wants to get to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/maori-king-calls-for-hope-over-protest-while-dismissing-govt-treaty-bill/M2EXZG3JLNHTPFKEEUFK7Z5QXY/
…and it means different things to different people.
Not a terribly sound basis for a constitution, or a stable society for that matter.
I reformatted your comment to make the quotes clear.
Only if you ignore everyone else in my comment and cherry pick out a single sentence to support your position. Which would be an odd thing from someone advocating for an open and wide discussion on the issues.
So you keep saying. But why should we expect all citizens to know and have a shared understanding of Te Tiriti when we don’t expect this with other aspects of politics or society. Humans are quite good at parsing agreement across difference.
There is in fact a body of knowledge about the Treaty, and that doesn’t go away just because some people don’t know what it is. It would be like saying that feminism doesn’t exist just because feminism covers a range of perspectives. Or leftism.
Your quotes from the Herald article are selective sentences chosen by a journalist to represent what he thought was important. They don’t represent what you are implying.
A selective quote?….The Maori King is at odds with the Waitangi Tribunal over Treaty Principles and you contend there is common understanding?
This is the the governance and constitution of the country we are talking about….and why some may think it worth clarifying what it all means, even if you do not.
fuck off Pat. I’m not objecting to clarifying, I’m saying that the way this is being done by ACT is racist as fuck and comes with a massive agenda that doesn’t serve NZ. Those that think in binary might interpret my position as meaning don’t clarify, but they would be wrong.
A referendum and law change driven by the desire to remove Māori rights is not a useful way to have an open, wide and democratic conversation about te Tiriti, and if Māori and progressives manage to win this fight, then it will come at some costs, including a cost to clarity
No. I’m saying that we need to see Tūheitia’s words in context and probably in their entirety in order to understand and make sense of them. MSM are better than they used to be, but we still have a large disconnect between MSM and understanding and reporting on te ao Māori in ways that clarify. Taking one journo’s selective reporting isn’t insufficient.
@ pb
"This idea that keeps being trotted out that ‘no one knows what it means’ is simply untrue. It’s just a tactic to reexamine the Treaty to get to the space that each person or group using it wants to get to."
By all means explain it then….because if you can you will be doing better than the authors of He Puapua.
Did you find He Puapua difficult to understand, Pat?
@Robert
Did I find He Puapua difficult to understand?
Not at all Robert, it is quite clear in its proposals including the fact that they are to be developed as they progress, or after the fact and by Maori .
The funding mechanism is also clear but not the quantity (or viability)
It is also clear that much of the initial phase had been implemented despite the previous Government stating that it was not government policy.
But ultimately the clearest message from it is the proposed incorporation of ToW into our constitution is completely incompatible with a democratic system.
Many circles to be squared.
"Many circles to be squared."
Ah! The nub of the issue!
The Western mind, as typified by Seymour et al. cannot square circles.
Indigenous cultures can and do..
"The Western mind, as typified by Seymour et al. cannot square circles.
Indigenous cultures can and do.."
If that is true then they are doing a poor job of it, or keeping it to themselves.
Id suggest the former as that is pretty much the admission of the authors of He Puapua.
If you havnt already I suggest you read it.
They're not keeping it to themselves, they are waiting for us to understand what they are saying.
What the authors of He Puapua are saying is democracy is dead in NZ (assuming their proposal is enacted)…..whether thats what the majority of Maori are saying is yet to be determined.
Then theres the not insignificant issue of how the other 84% of the population view such.
[please provide evidence for your claim that “the authors of He Puapua are saying is democracy is dead in NZ (assuming their proposal is enacted)”. If you mean they are literally saying this, then I require quotes and links. If you mean you are interpreting the implementation of He Puapua as killing democracy, then please provide an explanation of your thinking and back this up with quotes and links. Links alone are insufficient. Please don’t waste my time. You can also choose to withdraw the claim – weka]
mod note.
Response to mod note
"There is much room for improvement in the kāwanatanga sphere, as Māori remain a minority with their rights vulnerable to the majority and face disproportionate socio-economic disparities."
vi exectutive summary HePuapua report
"As the chapter on participation in kāwanatanga Karauna illustrates, there is much room for improvement in the kāwanatanga sphere, both structurally, as Māori remain a minority with their rights vulnerable to majority will, and instrumentally, as socio-economic disparities make brutally clear."
page 11 He Puapua report
• create special protections for Tiriti clauses, (e.g. they can only be changed by support of Parliament).(80)
(80) A super-majority requires two-thirds of Parliament support.
page 48 He Puapua report
"There will be equity between peoples, which means that rangatiratanga and Maori authority is recognised and respected"
page 89 He Puapua report.
A constitution written by Maori (elites) for the benefit of Maori (elites) underpinned by a super majority and authorised by dint of lineage….that is not democracy, that is aristocracy.
Please provide link/s for your quotes. Please also read this and let me know if agree to provide links each time you quote going forward or not,
https://thestandard.org.nz/moderation-notes-in-election-year/
You’re in premod until both those things happen (your comments won’t appear on site).
Link that was requested (despite the fact the quotes were all cited by page number and document)
https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf
[moderation isn’t a pick n mix. We require links for good reasons (in this case, people reading on a phone might not be able to find the quote so easily). I asked for two things. One you’ve done but you still seem to think you shouldn’t have to, the other you didn’t do. 1 week ban for wasting my time and basically refusing to abide by TS policy. Expect future bans to increase – weka]
[on further communication, self martyrdom and a fundamental disrespect for moderation and how things work here. Updated to permanent ban – weka]
mod note.
ACT's mean-spirited, selfish behaviours have galvanised a threatened party into defence-mode, none of which needed to happen.
No one lying, misleading, fomenting division, should be credited with the conversations that result. Conversations about Te Tiriti, shared management of resources, shared decision making in other spheres (health, education etc.) were already progressing, ACT, NZ First and National have stymied those and forced an adrenaline-fuelled debate where reasonable dialogue already existed.
You are obviously in the hate em camp Robert…as is your right.
You cannot deny however the conversation has begun.
"Conversations about Te Tiriti, shared management of resources, shared decision making in other spheres (health, education etc.) were already progressing,"
You might have missed this bit, Pat.
Hate em?
Nah. Recognise their intentions and oppose them?
Sure.
Who were having those conversations Robert?
Id suggest to you that you would be hard pressed to find 2 people who agree how the ToW is to be applied in 2024….indeed the previous Government appeared unable/unwilling to even explain co governance to the general population, nor the implications on public service provision.
But if you are so confident that its all straight forward take the opportunity to outline how the ToW is to be applied in 2024.
Leaders from across the board, Pat – councils of all sorts, industry leaders, service industry leaders, political groups, farming leaders; local and national, the arts community, education leaders, from ministry to classroom/centre, etc.etc.
If you haven't heard any discussions about the developing relationship between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti, Pat, I gotta ask, what rock..?
As to 2 people agreeing, surely that's what conversations are for; and I don't accept for a moment that no groups hold a common opinion on the issue; perhaps, for starters, you should visit a Marae and listen in to the korero there. The ultimate form of te tiriti 2024 hasn't been forged, being a living issue and all, so expecting that is going to disappoint you.
I did not say it is all straight-forward, Pat; I said it was already progressing and credit for the sour form it has been presented in presently, should be given to Seymour, Peters and Luxon, if any credit at all is to be given to them.
You've made some good points Robert and lifted or maintained the quality of the sharing of ideas. Your opposite, not so much. Lack of good faith and spoke in the wheel come to mind.
And it continues to progress Robert
It does, thankfully. I am not perturbed by the actions of Seymour et al and am very pleased to see the taniwha stir – as you say, it continues to progress.
I believe you are more clever than I, Pat. You reliably hold to a reasoned argument that seeks to engender the best possible result, imo. That is an admirable trait.
I, otoh, am prone to mischief-making through the use of inflammatory statements and words that innuend (is that a word 🙂 although sometimes I play it straight, whenever I feel it's an important enough topic or when I have real, living experience with it.
I like to respond to your comments to tease them out and perhaps cause you to slip up in some minor way or expose gaps in your process, for the sake of the argument, not as point-scoring. Others here don't recognise that strategy, c'est la vie 🙂 In truth, I'm probably not an agile enough thinker to do it elegantly, but there you are; we work with what we've got.
Agree! Like giving credit to a ram raider for starting a conversation about crime…
Yes Robert has stated that very clearly.
I don't think people are as stupid as you and David Seymour believe they are.
I think some end with a monologue
Some end with conditions imposed by the 'victors'….that could be described as a monologue perhaps…however for the cessation of hostilities there must be an agreement, whether that agreement is 'equitable' is not a requirement.
The alternative is conflict until one side or the other ceases to be.
The phrase "unconditional surrender" springs to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender
As noted…the alternative to 'surrender ' ( negotiated cessation) is conflict until one side ceases to be.
Which do you prefer?
Negotiated cessation, negotiated surrender, unconditional surrender – one of these things is not like the others, and all are preferable to extermination, imho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
"..and all are preferable to extermination, imho."
Well at least on that we can agree
Ha. 🙂
For some it would be hard to imagine someone who supported Alliance writing this, but his opposition to a CGT, because those of his generation would not like it*, was indicative of someone who in the end would choose identity (property owner and non indigenous) over solidarity with the "other".
(*when 80% of the generation would not have been liable for a CGT payment)
The open support for the state security apparatus spying on Maori activists, as the left wing activists of past times … might well give some former comrades wonder about his past connections.
Maybe he sees it as getting with the zitgeist of the age (the GOP southern strategy now in full flourish under Trump), safer with the white mob on the streets, given they only represent the visible force of imperial power (which has the modern technology to cower the old aging once leftist, as it once did to Ken Douglas via the ECA).
https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/2024/01/19/chris-trotter-when-push-comes-to-shove/
His this and that reminds one of the Spanish Civil War – the false narrative of a choice between communism or fascism? Here TPM or ACT? Suntan to assimilate or playrimmerspacestation whiteracestarsruleoverfromabove?
It seems to me to be part of a wider narrative where we are being manipulated to reject the “extremes” of both centralised government (diminishing capacity for state led public delivery) and an authoritarian settler dominance of the right regime as equally bad.
This as part of selling Nationals own agenda to reduce government and outsource. Thus realise an ever diminishing circle of difference between neo-liberal and neo-liberal lite alternatives being provided for democratic governance.
A right wing populist backlash threat being posed to coerce the social democratic left into silence.
With "useful" commentators like Trotter being enablers.
National will try and buy off Maori by making them one of the parties of outsourcing, not at the Maori Health Authority level but local/regional community. Of course private groups as per charter schools, health delivery, water bodies etc, and faith based providers etc (to keep the American order of rule evangelicals in caucus sweet).
I argue here a lot for building bridges. Sometimes you just have to stand up and fight. Those two things don't preclude each other, and I agree with Pat about entrenched positions. But like climate, Te Tiriti is the hill we will die on one way or the other. It's not something we can afford to lose, it won't only affect Māori if we do, it will rip this country apart.
However, how we engage with this fight matters a lot. And we should absolutely be building bridges with as many people who are still open to it as possible. I refuse to believe that most people in NZ want the treaty destroyed or are that racist. I do believe that many don't have a good grasp of why it matters or our history, as well as a chunk of the population who will be swayed by the likes of Seymour.
ACT need to be resisted with all we have, and we have to present compelling, positive narratives that people can engage with and be attracted to. The days of just fighting back are gone.
https://lyrics.lyricfind.com/lyrics/pete-seeger-which-side-are-you-on
As an Ursula LeGuin admirer, weka, you've probably read, "The word for world is forest". If not, I recommend you do.
In the book, set on another planet, the indigenous forest-culture is set-upon by an alien civilised culture (earth-humans) intent on logging the planet.
LeGuin describes the limited outcome of bridge-building as well as a more immediate change that resulted in the end of the invasion and the cessation of the destruction of the forest world.
It puts me in mind of this situation with indigenous people here.
*** Spoiler Alerts in this sub thread ***
It was a very influential book on me at the times I read it (multiple times). But it's been a very long time since I have. Remind me what the nature of the bridge building was and what happened?
I'm no book reviewer, but what I can say is 🙂
The bridge was formed between an off-worlder and a native. Both languages were shared and learned. The earth-human almost understood the role of dreaming in the other's culture – equal weight was given to dream and wake. The native could see how the atrophying of earthlings' dream culture had resulted in a insatiable hunger for materials, especially wood, and an almost total dulling of connectivity/empathy, for any living things other than themselves (sound familiar?). The indigenous people had developed a non-killing culture. The earth-humans exploited that phenomenon. Our native hero dreamed a change to the culture and his people rose up against the invaders/colonists, killing some. That show of strength caused the earth-humans to retreat home, never to return, by contract. One dark cloud remained. Now, the indigenous people could dream killing.
In a rough-hewn nutshell.
Have you read "Midworld" by Alan Dean Foster? Humans turn up in a massive jungle world but its planetary ecosystem/ consciousness quickly evolves a humanoid to go meet the invaders, and the humans find themselves being colonised by a more powerful life force – luckily it's mostly benevolent
I like the sound of that and will look it out, thanks, roblogic!
quite Avatar {ish}
Yes, I thought that also. The book though, has integrity; it's well-crafted and has believable characters. The film relies upon whizz-bang visuals and doesn't need to tell any more than the bluntest of stories, imo 🙂
(in reference to The word for world is forest that is – I’ve not yet found Midworld 🙂
its good versus evil the long time running scenario and the good guys win!!!….
Le Guin's book has a serious sting in its tail that left me feeling very uncomfortable.
Avatar just annoyed me and left nothing to consider.
I consider this comment possibly the most timely and best stuff you’ve written.
The days of just fighting back are gone.
Exactly. I've been thinking about stuff lately that a while back you'd think was real wacko (civil war or an authoritarian fascist government in the USA, an authoritarian fascist government in the UK etc) and you realise that it's entirely possible. There is a current flowing and it must be resisted. I only mention the genocide enablers because this current is flowing far more widely than NZ.
But like climate, Te Tiriti is the hill we will die on one way or the other. It's not something we can afford to lose, it won't only affect Māori if we do, it will rip this country apart.
Nailed it.
“I do believe that many don’t have a good grasp of why it matters or our history, as well as a chunk of the population who will be swayed by the likes of Seymour.”
Seymour sounds plausible if, as you say, you don’t understand why it matters. I’ve had to say to quite a few people in recent years that yes, we are a multicultural country, BUT first and foremost we are a bi-cultural nation founded on Te Tititi.
It’s insidious and corroding Aotearoa.
Thank-you GA, and apologies for not replying earlier. The feedback is always welcome and a boost when trying to write about such things in such difficult times.
I think NZ has a disconnect from what is happening with rising fascism because we are so buffered by geography from the worst stuff in the world. I even struggle with this at times, in a 'can this really be happening here?' kind of way. This is the great value in solidarity and debate, we can keep reminding each other.
Lately I've been looking back to see where that insidious corrosion started. Mostly I point to 2016 because Trump enabled so many to be open and public about things that were previously kept in check by social mores. It goes back further of course, but that was a watershed moment and the set up for everything that came next.
[H]ow we engage with this fight matters a lot. And we should absolutely be building bridges with as many people who are still open to it as possible. I refuse to believe that most people in NZ want the treaty destroyed or are that racist. I do believe that many don't have a good grasp of why it matters or our history, as well as a chunk of the population who will be swayed by the likes of Seymour.
ACT need to be resisted with all we have, and we have to present compelling, positive narratives that people can engage with and be attracted to. The days of just fighting back are gone.
Well put Weka. My choice of the title was to set out the position that we have to oppose this. How we do this is an important issue.
And social media involves the left and the right throwing slogans at each other. We do need to move on from this.
If you are so confident of your position then you should welcome the opportunity to put your case before the public….if Act (Seymour) is so blatantly racist and the clarification of the ToW role in 21st century NZ is crucial to the future of this country then have some faith in your arguments and make them accordingly.
How can anyone be confident of their position and expect that to prevail, when there are devious players on the field who are supported by large amounts of money and a world-wide trend to de-power indigenous peoples?
In the same way that advertising influenced the consumption of tobacco for so long, advertising, in the form of paid-for media across the board can form public views and positions. The anti-3Waters campaign is clear evidence of that, imo and the people stirring up bad feeling now are the same players.
Confidence in the strength of an argument Robert….I believe Mickey is a lawyer.
Devious players have been with us since time immemorial and power never voluntarily abdicates but we persist or we would never have made the progress we have.
Embrace the fight if you believe the outcome is worth it.
Definitely back that up, Robert. Pat puts it to one decent left wing activist to take on the the might of ACT's multi million dollar white supremacist funding organisation.
These people are only interested in exploiting labour and the environment for personal profit and legacy. They'd be the first to balk if someone tried to renege on a contract yet this is what Seymour wants to do.
Remember what happened when we were having an open and democratic debate on whether to switch to MMP? The powerholders in society that didn't want MMP threw shitloads of money at stopping it.
In other words, the playing fields is skewed by money, and now by social media.
You also appear to be doubting that ACT and Seymour's approach is racist, have I got that right?
"Remember what happened when we were having an open and democratic debate on whether to switch to MMP? The powerholders in society that didn't want MMP threw shitloads of money at stopping it."
And yet we have MMP
"You also appear to be doubting that ACT and Seymour's approach is racist, have I got that right?"
You have…it is anti racist….check the meaning of racist.
would you vote for ACT's changes in a referendum?
It would depend on what the changes were that were proposed.
And it is unlikely that the wider public will be given the opportunity to make such a vote….as it is unlikely the public will have input into what is being discussed, unfortunately.
I wish you had called this a less binary name Micky.
The ten thousand who physically went to answer the call represent many more who are alarmed by the attitudes shown in the documents leaked, and by Seymore's weasel words and wants.
The question is, do we need the Treaty and the Tribunal as much as Maori? The answer is yes.
It has protected us from the worst predatory behaviour, and has led to the Waitangi Tribunal where wrongs are exposed and rules and reparations are agreed. Changing it for greed and racist reasons should not even be considered. National have agreed to a deal with the Devil here.
What is the new gold? Water and rare minerals. Atlas wants ownership without barriers. This new PM has shown he will be ruthless in reaching those goals. So why would we believe this is beneficial for us?
His attitude to Maori Health is indicative of his overall attitudes. Ignore evidence and do what the billionaires club wants.
This is not a true coalition of conservatives, it is rather a "stitch up" of 3 greedy groups who are using it to scratch their itches. National power, New Zealand First pay back, and Act racism through assimilation.
It is to be hoped by our steady forthright resistance we will stop this behaviour before huge lasting damage is done.
Luxon's coded caucus message of "don't get caught up in cultural arguments" shows, they ignore precedent evidence and change laws under urgency without consultation to achieve their goals. It is all about business.
He has allowed Seymore to inflame the radical Maori and to encourage the racists, while pretending it is possible to govern for business and ignore any fallout.
I am shocked at the failure of the Labour Leader to give King Tuheitia support. Crickets from that quarter.
Ratana and Waitangi will confirm direction and attitudes, the social fabric could be in grave danger.imo
The speech from the Maori King, to not be like them, to keep to cultural strengths to argue and find a way shows true Leadership. He spoke a universal truth. For all, not just for some.
I wish you had called this a less binary name Micky
I thought about that. I rewatched an eposide of Succession from series one last night involving the boardroom brawl and the show down between the father and the son and the evil geniuses that created the series played the Pete Seager song of the same title.
It was a piece of dark genius, placing working class expectations of solidarity against a family feud between people who already have more money than they could ever need.
The song stuck in my head.
John Campbell in his writing urged us to not see it as a binary decision because that is what Act wants to do but I don't think we have much choice.
Thanks Micky. We are in a fight for what is right.
Anyone who repeats the mantra "everyone should be treated the same" as Seymore does, is denying equity and is implying "someone is getting more".
Seymore grasps the power of the Treaty and the Tribunal, so his threat to both is akin to removing Maori from department names, removing NZ history from the syllabus and Maori representation at all levels of governance, with the co-operation and consent of National and New Zealand First.
So trusting this only going to the first reading appears to be in doubt on those grounds alone.
Luxon should stand up to Seymore and nip this foment in the bud, but he has an agenda, and an ego which can be played. Being PM is more important than race relations for him. He will do token gestures as Key did with flying the Maori flag on the harbour bridge, but real power and position is for the colonial arm of the Luxon government. imo
John Campbell wrote with feeling and understanding, and genuine warmth, but his plea for a peaceful outcome felt wistful.
"If you believe that Māori willingly gave up Tino Rangatiratanga to an English woman who lived on the opposite side of the world then I have a bridge I would like to sell to you."
Some didnt , as they said so at the time- they knew the reality was the Governor would have power over them ( "The Crown" is just a figure of speech then and now)
Colenso was present at the Treaty signing and understood Maori and wrote down what he understood maori were saying. Most important is those chiefs who refused and the reasons why
https://waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
My understanding is that the Chiefs who refused to sign were telling all the others that you would lose your chiefly sovereignty to a governor representing the Crown
ACTs bill is going nowhere , its just something they have fund raised on , so have to deliver. But National has refused to let it go past the ‘1st reading stage ‘
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
At the least, this is National, ACT and NZF using Trumpian politics to build future RW political power and security. That's dangerous, because even if they don't have a referendum or make legislative changes, it will cement in anti-treaty sentiment and racism in a broader section of society.
Its old news . Luxon has said it wont progress before and Potaka says the same the other day
https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/07-12-2023/thats-as-far-as-it-will-go-luxon-on-acts-treaty-principles-bill
That’s as far as it will go’: Luxon on Act’s Treaty principles bill
The prime minister has appeared to suggest that Act’s Treaty principles bill will not be allowed to proceed beyond the select committee stage. Supporting such legislation to select committee is promised in the Act-National coalition agreement, which implies the bill won’t go any further, but Luxon has not said it so explicitly before.
[image resized – Incognito]
lots of 'appears' and 'implies' there.
You said "National has refused to let it go past the ‘1st reading stage ‘"
I've not seen any evidence for National refusing yet.
As for it just being ACT fundraising, this completely ignores the culture war that they are still fomenting.
Lots of damage done even getting to the first reading.
That's right, weka.
Waitangi both the museum and the main marae should be a pilgrimage for every New Zealander. It's enthralling and moving.
Almost as important is going to the Archives in Wellington and seeing our other main Constitutional documents that are on display there.
I have a set of antique maps from the 1860s legislation that set out all the lands taken as punishment off Maori – it's far further than one could see with the naked eye trig to trig on a clear day. Good to have the dark reminder on the wall of what the fuss is about.
Good to see Campbell getting the appropriate profile on TVNZ news.
In the meantime we will just see more and more civic water systems completely fail because National were successful in their campaign.
I know where I stand, and well done Mickey for setting it out well.
From Mokau to Maxwell.
An interview with Te Miringa Hohaia.
21 January 2024 at 12:29 pm
Given the bald lies and innuendo during the election campaign (and since) who in their right mind would believe him. If he found a significant portion of his voters would welcome such legislation (and imo it would be inevitable) then he would quickly weasel his way out of that promise.
I don't believe a word of it either. Putting it as diplomatically as I can, Luxon is untrustworthy. As for NACT + Winston First, they'll have gamed the legislative process. They know that, if they can flood the select committee with pro forma "submissions" in supoport of the Bill, spineless MPs will recommed that it proceeds. Expect ACT's astroturfed troll farms to start working over time (after all, they are well-funded with donations).
Tau is probably in a better position to know this than most – and Luxon has intimated this in the past too. However now is the time for him to come out and just plain say "the National caucus will not be supporting this past the select committee stage".
Anything else and he is welcoming the societal division that's being creating by the unknown future Seymour (spit) has created
I certainly don't trust him on this. National's "abolition" of the superannuation surcharge in the early 90s should be warning enough.
My take as well Anne.
" bald lies"
A Freudian slip? Bare lies might have been better. Nah. That's worse. 😮
Bald lies is perfect but I'll not use it again 🙂
It would seem the fragility of settle culture is now a given in this country.
The real question is, will that fear drive us toward a civil war?
No, it won't.
There are wise heads to guide the developing play.
Seymour, Peters and Luxon are not amongst those.
People said the same thing about Gaza. And it has turned into a bloody disaster.
The language and actions used by act, nz1st and others – is hyper emotive, which lends itself to violent reactions. There is a reason why the mass shooting in NZ are always done by the far right – Aramoana to Christchurch. None of it is logical it's all emotive (mind you that would mean breaking the law and reading what the muppets said to prove my point)
I'm not convinced when you openly discuss removing the rights of one section of society, you have a cool/wise head anywhere in the room.
In the room?
You'll notice I excluded Seymour, Peters and Luxon.
The wise heads are outside of the room. Many were at Turangawaewae on Saturday 🙂
It's game on, imo.
This move by tangata whenua is very powerful.
The concept of claiming the Maori language version as a mana that can be lived by Maori, despite courts adhering to the English version approach, is a way around direct confrontation.
That leads to Maori co-operation and networking, independent of parliament.
How the Crown abides by UNDRIP is then possibly the bridge over that impasse.
JA rejected a Maori upper house with veto over parliament (sovereignty) – but Maori can organise its own places of gathering.
We could still choose to follow precedent of the UK, where the PM informs and receives advice from the Crown King/Queen but the determination is that of parliament as peoples representative. Here the Maori King and or a collective of others could represent that as an indigenous voice.
We have existing structures for impact statements for new government policy, they could include that on the Maori people.
I'm mostly on the third side.
Author Aaron Smale is studying for his history doctorate at Vic.
Corporate maori are a thing. Can't beat em, join em.
Give the lad a break. He just needs a suitable occasion for the headline grab.
The iwi corporate as a residue of economic chieftainship, but politically there is public service and Maori NGO (ground up or seed capital from the settlements) delivery to local/regional Maori.
That's a sideshow – the main game, which is fairly obvious, is that it's about controlling the water. The 3 waters race resentment and scaremongering was a front for selling out our tāonga to evil foreign entities.
The Nats need councils to fail so they can introduce PPPs and then gradually privatise the whole shebang until the NZ public is left with nothing
This is not just idle speculation, it's obvious they are moving the chess pieces to do exactly that.
…
This strategy has played out perfectly for the oligarchs in England. And who did Luxon visit in the UK recently?
Simon Watts – an investment banker from London –
And he's the Climate Change minister. That's a good measure of this Coalition Govt's lack of commitment to CC. He's my local MP. Sick of looking at his bill board face dotted around the place. M Barry used to do the same thing. He looks untrustworthy and he's not popular – or so I've been told. His eyes are close together and my late Dad used to warn me about people whose eyes are close together. He was right from my experience. 👿
Very long : put on Facebook, "Imagine if you were living peaceably on your land as your tribe had done for 1000 years, living with your culture and traditions, speaking the language your whanau spoke, feeding your family from the land and sea. Then the invaders. They came with guns. They came for your land and riches promised to them by a far-off Lord, who you had never heard of. They killed some of your whanau and made many of you sick bringing unknown diseases. Some of them were wild, drank a lot and took your women. I’m not just talking about Aotearoa/New Zealand here. And that’s where it gets to me about the good white folk here who are afraid of the “Maorification” of New Zealand, because many of them will be descended from lands in England and Ireland and Scotland, where exactly the same thing happened. In Britain, the original Britons were pretty well wiped out. The Romans invaded and the English were overtaken by Normans. In Ireland, land was stolen, people starved and those who dared fight back were punished, usually by hanging. There were the land clearances in Scotland, once again driven by invaders, seeking riches. In Aotearoa, Maori leaders were wise enough to see that a deal had to be done to stop the madness. They outnumbered the colonisers by thousands, but decided to get an agreement where they would enable new arrivals to live here in peace, provided they did the right thing. This is called Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We know what happened were the Land Wars, where land was confiscated when Maori resisted. We know that many of us whose forbears came from other lands got land that wasn’t theirs. We should know that some of the soldiers sent to tame “the natives” came from countries like Ireland on a promise of land and prosperity. What is left is Te Tiriti. And even now, some want to redefine it and diminish it. I’m not sure why they are so afraid. Why can’t our unique Te Reo be celebrated and encouraged? Why can’t we celebrate our language as the Irish do? Or support co-governance, which is far less than Scotland who are still demanding a separate say from their original conquerors? Why do we continue to ignore the damage done to our first peoples and welcome means to address this and instead have this “they might get more than me” bullshit. To those of you who came from conquered lands, look back at your history. If you can’t see the parallels between that and the Aotearoa you came to, then I can’t help you.”
I try not to nitpick too much as I get older, and the main thrust of Darien's piece is true enough. But I feel I should point out that the Highland Clearances were as much down to the clan chiefs looking to maximise income from their lands, as to any outside invader. Those dispossessed crofters and other enforced emigrants were betrayed by their own. (Though it's also true that the notion one should maximise said income was an alien concept, and therefore an invader of a less tangible kind.)
True that. Thanks. It was the landlords!
The Scots conquered England when their King began to rule over the English in 1603, though over-confidence led to the Union of the Crowns in 1707.
What do mean by this? New Zealand became independent from Westminster in 1947. Legislation was passed in 1947 that granted the New Zealand Parliament full legislative powers, extra-territorial control of the New Zealand military forces and legally separated the New Zealand Crown from the British Crown.
I suspect the issue is a restoration of a form of chieftainship (via delivery) and a sovereignty voice (Maori language version) – the latter has overlap with an indigenous voice (UNDRIP and He Puapua).
Well, National doesn't have to be ridden over by ACT.
As far as I'm aware, the paper isn't something that's embodied in the coalition agreement. If it was, if would have caused a bigger uprising.
So, assuming each party has the right to vote as its conscience dictates. It could back Luxon's trip to see Kingii where it counts and there would be four or five of the six parties in the house against just one.
The alternative is that National supports ACT, even partially, but (as the majority shareholder of the coalition) it would be seen to lead one of most divisive acts of the 21st century, more or less as divisive as Australia's decision not to recognise Aboriginal rights, recently. No party would want to be remembered for that (ACT aside, seemingly).
The price of not being seen to lead such a divisive part of New Zealand's history, however, would be disunity of the coalition and the impression that things were not well in the state of Denmark, perhaps the beginning of the end for this cobbled-together government.
But, Luxon could have asked any one of the contributors to The Standard months before the election and we could have predicted how things would turn out. It was going to be a Faustian Bargain at some point, IMHO.
Maori land is protected for them by the Maori Land Court
Water is a toanga under the treaty.
All these protections will be lost if these greedy white supremacists get what they want, and never doubt, they will manipulate the populace until they do. The majority of media are enslaved to them. (thank God for John Campbell). I have long suspected that as NZ steadily gets sold off to foreign interests, all that will be left will be Maori owned. Well – even that is under threat now.
I stand with Maori.
This fight must be big. Get your placards and banners out of the attic now.
LIKE 1981? 3rd test?…..im guessing someone will be killed….i was there and the govt and police were radical back then…now??? anything to kill off dissent and normalise rape and pillage of our country.
Noted anti-Maori activist Graham Adams over on Batshit & Hide, claims David Seymour wishes to drag out the select committee stage for months:
Can't see that being an ideal situation for Luxon and Goldsmith.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/graham-adams-treaty-principles-debate-takes-off
Seymour's inane grin given in the face of challenge indicates a surety of focus.
He's not just flying a kite here.
This challenge to Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been a long time incubating and has some serious players and plotters behind it.
And what will Luxon do if Seymour threatens to pull the plug on the CoC after the lengthy select committee hearings?
Will Luxon have the strength to call his bluff, face an early election and possibly go down in history as the least successful NZ PM?
Or will he buckle, return the bill to the house for a third reading and instruct the Natz to vote as their conscience sees fit so he can get his knighthood?
My bet is his (Luxon's) ego will get the better of him and he'll give in to Seymour!
Several comments from me here.
Firstly, my understanding is that National has guaranteed to support Act's policy to the first reading only. I suspect it will die a natural death after that.
Secondly, should we be focussed on poorly targeted measures, or more measures that more effectively that improve the outcomes for Maori who are in need?
From my experience being involved in a trust that functions in a low socio-economic area of Christchurch, I definitely believe that Maori are much more highly represented in areas such as poverty, poor health outcomes etc. That being the case, then policies that aim to improve outcomes for individuals in these areas will proporitionally benefit Maori more than other groups. And, will also help others who are in similar categories.
When specific programs are targeted on the basis of race, it is firstly sending a message that, if you are part of that race, then that factor in itself is a negative attribute. I think this approach as the potential to be very condescending and self-limiting.
Also, these sorts of programs will likely benefit members of that race who are already successful, and overlook others who don't happen to be of that race, but are in a similar position.
Therefore, I think programs based on need rather than race are likely to be much better targeted, and much more effective in improving outcomes for all in those categories, and proportionally more for Maori if they are more highly represented in those groups.
I know that in Crossroads trust we definitely are more involved with Maori youth, but we don't focus on that. It is just the consequence of the socio-economic area in whic we are working. But, we work with people from any background in that area who need our help, regardless of race. So, I guess this is a micro-example of the approach I have advocated.
"Therefore, I think programs based on need rather than race are likely to be much better targeted, and much more effective in improving outcomes for all in those categories, and proportionally more for Maori if they are more highly represented in those groups."
This is how programmes have been based until recent changes by the Labour Government.
How has that gone for Māori? By your reckoning, they should be sweet!
I didn't say they should be sweet. Just likely to be more effective, assuming the programs are well designed in the first place. But, if the programs themselves haven't been well designed, then the outcomes for all the groups in target demographics won't be optimal either.
I think another point is that programs that target need rather than race will benefit Maori a lot more without causing the political backlash. For example, if we had a health authority that targeted improving health outcomes for lower socio-economic demographics rather than a specific race, I think people generally would see that as fairer, and Maori would likely benefit the most. For example PI people are likely represented in a similar way to Maori in lower socio-economic stats, and likely to have similar issues.
"I think another point is that programs that target need rather than race will benefit Maori a lot more without causing the political backlash."
Ignoring the "backlash" from tangata whenua who understand that their at-risk rangatahi need to be supported by Māori kaupapa and Māori whanaungatanga and Māori manakitanga.
Shall we just brush that inconsequential "political backlash" aside, coz it doesn't really matter…
"I know that in Crossroads trust we definitely are more involved with Maori youth, but we don't focus on that."
You don't tailor your programme to suit Māori youth better, given you've a lot of them/are more involved with them? That seems irresponsible/short-sighted. You don't take advice from the Māori community on how better to accomodate your Māori clients? You don't mould your programme to mirror the cultural differences of your Māori rangatahi?
Our organisation is heavily involved in the Maori community. Working with youth also means considerable contact with families as well. The originator of our trust (now retired) ended up being seen as a Komatua, despite not actually being Maori himself, and was often asked to takeTangis in the community.
The staffing of the trust strongly represents the community, with the manager and youth workers, and many of the volunteers being Maori. But, again, this is a result of looking to employ from the community as much as we can.
Crossroads was recently designated a tier one charity by the local council, meaning that they have a view that the community would be worse off if Crossroads ceased to exist. As a result, they encouraged us to apply for more funding.
Crossroads is highly valued in the community, and is often contacted to help with specific needs. But this has all arisen from a focussed care for the community rather than superficial or token posturing.
Support agencies have manaakitanga etc. as their core values are guilty of
"…superficial or token posturing."?
You reckon?
That would be putting words in my typing don't you think?
Could you please clarify what you mean by "superficial or token posturing"? Perhaps some examples?
I guess from the perspective of Crossroads, "superficial or token posturing" would be to give ourselves a name with "Maori" in it somewhere, have a Maori logo, have a mission statement that specifies meeting the needs of Maori, require our staff to answer the phone with a Maori greeting, but in the end not actually having programs or people that actually meet the needs of the community, which largely comprises Maori people.
Here is a short 3-4 minute video that gives some insight into Crossroads if you are interested:
https://fb.watch/pJl0zxqHPv/
It says, "This video is no longer available".
You have a high percentage of clients who are Māori, but won't answer the phone with, "Kia ora" because that's superficial, token posturing?
Jesus wept!
Again, putting words into my typing. I didn't say we don't answer with a Maori greeting. In fact we do.
Just that if we just focus on the trappings without attending the the substantive matters then we are just engaging in superficial posturing. And, from what I see, many in the community see that sort of thing a lot in organisations and get heartilly sick of it.
Why don't you have a statement that specifies meeting the needs of Maori in your mission?
Do you believe the needs of your Māori clients are in no way different from those of the rest of your clients?
Again, putting words in my typing. But we prefer to be judged by our actions rather than our words.
Here is an example of what commitment to the community looks like.
The founder of our trust regularly (weekly I think) took a daughter of a long term prisoner from the community into prison to get to know her father. This was from when she was a young girl until she was an older teenager. He felt it was good for both the daughter, and the father. And, it may well have been the safest way for the daughter to get to know her father as well.
This is the sort of commitment Crossroads has to the community and why it is so well respected. So, when you have finished judging on whether we tick all the PC boxes you would like, you might like to have a look at the video link I sent through.
Our approach is not to assume the needs of the community and to impose a solution upon them, but rather to respond to the needs of the community as we find them.
Your video link is "no longer available" it says.
You may want to be judged by your actions, rather than your words, but you've made the effort to join the conversation here, and good on you, so must expect … conversation, in return 🙂
One point; those who answer the phone at Crossroads, do so, you say, in Māori, at least at times, I'm guessing. Why do they do that?Are you/Crossroads accomodating clients from a culture that uses that greeting and therefore might feel comfortable/encouraged to hear to being used by you and your organisation? I applaud that, if it's the case. It sounds like a good policy, even if perhaps unofficial.
Why then, wouldn't you/your organisation take it further and include other cultural behaviours in your programme? It seems logical to do so and certainly beneficial to what you say are the majority of your clients? Would you, say, use other Māori phrases or words in your dealings with clients and their families? Perhaps you have art works or decorations the building – would you, could you, include some that reflect Māori culture? In other words, taking steps to make people from another culture, in this case, the native culture of these islands, feel valued for belong to that culture?
A bit weird. Working fine for me when I click the link. Be interested to see if others are having problems with it.
Absolutely, and I am enjoying this conversation. So, thanks for that. It is good to able to discuss this sort of stuff while realising that ultimately, we both have similar goals, and that our disagreements are more around the method.
I am not involved at the day to day management of Crossroads. But, my understanding is that they use Te Reo because it is part of who they are, not because it has been mandated that they do that.
Our main program is called "Stay Real". I interpret that as "stay genuine and true to who you are". And I guess that is what Crossroads is about. Not only communicating those values, but living them out in the community.
Yes, good conversation, tsmithfield, thanks (I have to go and visit a flower-growing friend now, so won't respond for a few hours 🙂
If you use Te Reo because it's part of who they/we are, why wouldn't you use other Māori tikanga because it's part of who we/they are.
Or is the telephone greeting a mere token?
Do you think you/they have taken this accommodation of the Māori community far enough? With just a token greeting? Culture is deeper than that.
Watched the video. Very good. I worked on a programme like that when I was younger and my eldest son works on one now here in the south.
I notice the STAY REAL programme is subtitled, He tangata he tangata he tangata and that there are kowhaiwhai or similar panels around the whiteboard and that the matua interviewed talked about the importance of whanau. All good stuff. I can't quite figure why you wrote this;
"I guess from the perspective of Crossroads, "superficial or token posturing" would be to give ourselves a name with "Maori" in it somewhere, have a Maori logo, have a mission statement that specifies meeting the needs of Maori, require our staff to answer the phone with a Maori greeting…"
That seems at odds with your position. I do understand what you are saying about "token posturing" and "substantive matters" I just feel there's something ideological obscuring your wider view of the situation. No matter though, we've explored this fairly fully. That programme looks really good, even though you don't start the day with a karakia 🙂
Thanks for watching the video. Glad you enjoyed it. I don't know if you noticed, but there is a clip of the ceiling of our activity room where the ceiling is wallpapered with pics of people and groups who have been through Crossroads. Quite moving.
The reason I made the comment that you refer to is because I thing the substance is more important that the form. It is not that I am against the form. But, if that is all there is to it, then I think it is quite superficial and tokenistic. I actually don't think you would disagree with me on that would you?
Joyce seems to be thinking much the same thing, although a more common combo is 'substance over style'.
Might "the people it works for" be code for 'shareholders'? Not-for-profit health and education services are an ideological anathema to the Nats. Won't someone please think of the 'poor' shareholders, and stop starving them of opportunities to profit – they need to feast.
They really do want it all.
Seems like more of a gap in description here, than in administration. Probably you and Rob are thinking similar practices while using different words.
I think this largely applies to the treaty and its interpretation. For all the rhetoric about co-governance we don't see Iwi groups holding councils to ransom or even particularly being influential on them. For all the history about sovereignty vs chieftanship we still have one parliament which makes all the laws in practice.
It would be better for the discussion of these proposals to talk about what is being proposed directly rather than any indirect claims about what these proposals imply or are motivated by.
Quite simply, this is all a colossal waste of time. At least, that's the most positive take (less positive would be that it's divisive, not just in the country but within the government). Ministers are directly contradicting one another.
Seymour says the referendum bill will be introduced in May. So we get 3 more months of pointless pontificating even before anything happens in Parliament. Then, several months later, National/Luxon will kill it.
Nobody seriously believes there will be a referendum or any serious legislation. It's all just role-play, it's performative posturing. Opposition grandstanding, except it's being done not by the opposition, but members of the government.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-partnership-a-misinterpretation-david-seymour-believes/XLWOW3CAIZDJFNXUNKLVTB3MAI/
David Seymour's and ACT's position on this is quite clear – there should be a nation wide debate on what the principles of the Treaty mean for NZ as a whole. The opposition to this concept seems to be that debate on this is bad because of racism. This could apply to any are of public policy where ethnicity may be involved e.g. social welfare, justice systm, education, health, etc. If we decide we can't debate topics which might lead to some people making racist views public that is going to heavily restrict what is open for debate. That is not good for an open and democratic society.
The Hui on the weekend seemed to reach a consensus around the fact that the Treaty means Maori retain sovereignty and presumably the Crown does not in fact have a basis to claim it does have ultimate sovereignty. This may well be correct however it has massive implications for our country and how it is structured both practically and constitutionally. To argue that you can't debate this if you disagree with the proposition being proposed because of racism is completely ridiculous.
Indeed. Successive governments in the past 30 years seem to have taken the view that debate amongst the wider population around the meaning and application of the Treaty, and concepts such as sovereignty and partnership, are beyond the comprehension of the 'great unwashed'. This has led to division, rancour and misunderstanding.
It's a shame more of our recent leaders haven't considered the approach taken by Sir Apirana Ngata, when he wrote a thoughtful response to a question from "an old lady who asked me quite recently…"
The Treaty of Waitangi an Explanation | NZETC (victoria.ac.nz)
Busby had little to do with the Maori version.
As for Seymour as a good faith actor.
What David Seymour says
How he gets that from this is the mystery. He is not competent to lead any debate.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-faqs
Note how Seymour tries to re-invent article 2 to conform to ACT party design for governance
individualised, any group of people, right to to be independent of some government order – public education, health, housing etc. Privatisation, user pays or separation of funder and provider – libertarianism.
I did note that, SPC.
The David commenting here is blind to the obvious and sought to divert to his ACT-provided talking points.
The David commenting here is interested in the democratic process. A fullsome conversation on our constitutional arrangements is a healthy part of that process. It's clear you are uncomfortable with that, but I'm yet to see any argument from you as to why it should not proceed.
Not sure why you mentioned Busby, but anyway:
"The English version guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all properties, but the Māori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which can be intangible).
Ngata's view is that the Treaty effected a 'complete cessation' of the Chiefly authority or absolute authority. He wrote "The sum total of the authorities of the Maori Chiefs ceded to the Queen was the Government of the Maori people." and "My dear old lady, this is part of the answer to your question "What is the Treaty of Waitangi?" It was the first article of the Treaty which transferred the chiefly authority of your ancestors, affecting you and future generations for ever." The Treaty of Waitangi an Explanation | NZETC (victoria.ac.nz)
"The precise nature of the exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate."
Indeed. Which is why we should be welcoming this opportunity, rather than decrying it.
Because of the importance to the English version he claimed for himself in the link you provided.
Ngata's opine about the Maori language version is a better resource for any debate than anything from Seymour, or the legislation ACT might design.
"Because of the importance to the English version he claimed for himself in the link you provided."
Which is irrelevant to the points I have made.
"Ngata's opine about the Maori language version is a better resource for any debate than anything from Seymour, or the legislation ACT might design."
Do you share his views on the cessation of 'chiefly authority'?
I'm still recovering from this
One paragraph claims that the draft was written by Hobson and Busby corrected it.
The next says Busby clams he wrote the draft and Hobson approved it, but made a few alterations.
I'd go with the second paragraph, but wonder if the latter comments have similar issues.
The first paragraph was written by Ngata, the second was a quote attributed to Hobson. Ngata may be contradicting Hobson, or he may simply be pointing out (in language of the day) that Hobson wrote the first draft, Busby a second, which was then approved by Hobson with minor alterations. Either way, none of that impacts on the meaning of Ngata's work.
David – you are lost in the details.
Seek help!
This is not the first time you have sought to engage the person not the issues.
Perhaps I can help..?
Are you not a person?
A bot…perhaps?
The first paragraph was written by Ngata, the second was a quote attributed to Busby.
Agreed, one just hopes it was the focus on explaining the Maori language version that led to the carelessness of the opening. And that was on point.
Thanks SPC. What first drew me to the Ngata piece some time ago was trying understand the historical context behind the differences between the two versions.
Seymour wants a debate but Seymour represents a very small percentage of New Zealanders.
Seymour should check his shoe size.
You seem to have a very strange view of democracy. Our democratic system allows smaller parties to articulate opinions, to call for conversation you may find personally uncomfortable. On your logic, Te Pati Maori represents just 3% of New Zealander. The Green Party, again on your logic, represent just 3% more New Zealanders than ACT. Should their leaders also check their shoe sizes? Or should we agree that these conversations are healthy, even when you don't want to have them.
How, David, do you account for the huge disparity between the amount of money ACT spent on campaigning, and the relative-to-investment poor return in terms of votes?
ACT is bending the democratic process with money, then claiming popular backing for its warped programme.
"ACT is bending the democratic process with money, then claiming popular backing for its warped programme."
That's your opinion, and of course you're welcome to it. But your argument about the representative voice remains illogical.
Ps – you didn't answer my question…
"Ps – you didn't answer my question…"
Perhaps because it's irrelevant to the point. If "Seymour represents a very small percentage of New Zealanders", so do the leaders of the Greens and TPM.
Have a go at answering my question – it won't kill you…
You conveniently choose to ignore the fact that David Seymour is quoted in the MSM news/articles/videos/interviews to a degree far in excess of either the Greens or Te Pati Maori leaders. It has far out-weighed his level of importance within the political landscape since forever, and I am at a loss to comprehend why the media give him so much attention.
His aspirations are extreme and he wallows in mis/disinformation on a daily basis yet is rarely pulled up on it. He frequently articulates opinions which have little to no efficacy, His repeated calls for a 'conversation' on the ToW – in an attempt to sow doubts and drive wedges between Maori and Pakeha – are a case in point. He is a dangerous individual and its time the MSM showed some maturity and stopped giving him so much publicity.
He just ain't worth it.
On it, Anne!
It's difficult to know whether you're uncomfortable with the conversation, or just that Seymour is one of the people calling for it. Either way, this issue isn't going away.
The difficulty is your wilful lack of comprehension.
Projecting your own illogical ramblings on to others is the oldest trick in the book.
Are you comfortable with a broad based, inclusive conversation about the role of the Treaty in NZ?
It has never "gone away", it has evolved, been tested in the courts and by public opinion, on nga marae, in the House…
This latest flare-up is down to money and ideology.
It doesn't smell healthy to me.
There has been ongoing debate over the past 30 years, especially amongst those who have studied the complex topic and amongst Māori who hold it front of mind constantly.
This call for debate by Seymour is a farce.
With all due respect that is nonsense Robert.
Take the matter of sovereignty. The debate you are meaning I am pretty sure is all to do with what people believe the Hapu and Iwi leaders who signed the Treaty thought about the topic. Then there is a very weak argument made that what they thought holds more weight than what the Crown was trying to achieve by drawing up the Treaty in the first place. There is an even weaker argument made by at least one person who states the British were trying to achieve something other than what they actually did after the signing.
What there isn't out there is a debate around whether this idea of Maori sovereignty is actaully practical and if that is something that should be progressed. Certainly no Government has taken up this challenge. Even the last Labour Govt backed away hugely from the sovereignty implications of the Te Huahua report they received.
I ask you when have we had a nationwide debate on matters of sovereignty in NZ from ALL sides? This includes the side that states Maori DID effectively give up sovereignty over the entire nation that is now New Zealand.
Those bitter souls who state that Māori did etc. have had the same number of years to debate the issue as everyone else. It's just that now, their champion has managed to lever himself into an influential position and is clamouring to give his pinched crew an extra-advantaged bite at the apple.
So transparent.
What do you mean those bitter souls? The position of the government of NZ since it's inception WITHOUT EXCEPTION has been that the Crown has undisputed sovereignty over the entirety of NZ. Every single government YOU voted for has held this position. Are you stating they were all bitter?
The process of accomodating and understanding Te Tiriti has been in train for many, many years. It has been tested and tried across political landscapes that have changed with time. ACT has held fast to a discredited ideology throughout that period of fine-tuning but now sees an opportunity to sweep all that accrued learning aside and impose its blunt, unpopular view on the country because it believes it can and because it is backed by monied interests who seek to capitalise on de-powering tangata whenua.
What nonsense. This is a constitutional conversation. The Treaty is this nations most important historical document, yet minds far more qualified than you and I continue to debate it's meaning and application some 180 years after it was signed. This is a continuing conversation, not one that stops simply because you call time.
I haven't called "time", I've called Seymour "out".
So you're comfortable with the role of the Treaty being openly discussed, just not by David Seymour?
It's Seymour who is calling time. He wants to embed all the ill gotten gains made by Pakeha settlers with no further recourse.
There has been no discussion around stopping or reversing the Treaty settlement process so your claims have no foundation in reality.
When was the concept of sovereignty ever discussed at a national level and agreed by government officials in conjunction with others?
NZ citizens don't vote for governments. Under FPP, we voted for local representatives. Under MMP, we vote for parties and local representatives.
To imply that we've all been voting for the position that the Crown has undisputed sovereignty over the entirety of NZ is sophistry. Most people in NZ wouldn't be aware what the options are.
Besides, successive government positions aren't inherently right.
You have missed my point. The argument was that those who disagree that Maori Hapu and Iwi retain sovereignty in NZ are bitter souls with the implications they are out of touch with the mainstream. The reality is this IS the current mainstream position of the country as represented by official government policy and this has been fully supported by EVERY Government the nation has had regardless of their political persuasion. It is not controversial to make this case.
Comfortable? It's never comfortable, it's always challenging.
But it needn't be sneaky.
Keep up the debate and let sunlight in to expose the truth. Everyone will have the opportunity to have their say at the select committee.Nothing sneaky about that unless you don't want to hear the truth.