Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 2, 2016 10:50:27 GMT 12
Northland Age 2/6/16
LONG-DEAD CONCEPTS
Angela Herbert-Graves (May 17) has learnt a lot about long-dead concepts of sovereignty, even quoting a 1569 Frenchman who called it perpetual power over citizens ... to which after immortal God we owe all things." She goes on about it seeking "to accommodate the long disputed interests of the nobility, the church and the 'lower classes,'" with "the monarch, or alternatively the 'monarch in Parliament,' which had absolute authority and dominion over the land and its peoples. It was that culturally. defined notion of constitutional authority which the Crown brought to Aotearoa after 1840."
This is a blatant falsehood. Moreover, even saying our country's true name clearly chokes in her throat and demonstrates her bias. Her 'Aotearoa' appears nowhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, and was not recognised by either Britisher or Maori. It must surprise her to know that effective sovereignty has continued to evolve, even to the present day. Following a hard-fought civil war in the 1640s, the British people successfully disposed of the supposed "divine right" of their foolish King Charles I, and the "absolute authority" with which Henry VIII had ruled was disposed of forever. The power of elected representatives —the House of Commons— was increasingly affirmed with the first reform of the constituency in 1832, and a progression until full adult franchise was attained in 1928.
It was in this real spirit of progress that New Zealand became British in 1840, initially as an extension of the colony of New South Wales. There has been constitutional evolution in New Zealand since, of course, adult male Maori actually getting the vote several years ahead of all others. The last trace of appointed rather than elected members came with
the abolition in 1950 of the Legislative Council by the National government of Sid Holland.
The most significant recent step was adoption of MMP for election to the House of Representatives. The well-thought proposals of the Royal Commission to abolish special Maori seats, deemed redundant, was disregarded by Parliament, and the ridiculous 'coat-tailing provision' included to the detriment of true proportionality. It is only by meddling on both these counts that Marama Fox is an MP today, effectively wielding the balance of power.
Notwithstanding these imperfections, we have as good a constitutional system in New Zealand as anywhere in the world. Witness the long-drawn-out and almost farcical process through which Americans must choose their next chief executive. Ours can be changed by a simple vote in Parliament Herbert-Graves' description of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy might be of some academic interest, but its relevance to New Zealand is as remote as the Bolivian constitution, ridiculously advocated by our recent ill-conceived Constitutional Review Panel.
It has been a long and gradual process to eliminate the last traces of special privilege and appointment, not election, to political office. Yet now we have the insidious drive for appointment of unelected members to local bodies solely on account of their ancestry in part, flying in the face of what it has taken so long to achieve. Our democracy is a precious possession, and we allow meddling with it at our cost. As some philosopher somewhere said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Those wise words we forget at our peril.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
DARK AGES
It is saddening to observe how patronising some New Zealanders have become towards part-Maori people. In their view Pakeha (any non-Maori) can stand on their own two feet, but Maori need continual help from those who "oppressed" them.
It would be understandable if the "natives" were impoverished and denied privileges because of their race, but that is the exact opposite of the existing situation. Midway through the last century the last full-blooded Maori died, and at that point in time the Maori race ceased to exist as a distinct entity. All of those remaining were now of mixed heritage, Maori blood combined with Pakeha. All were now one people. Every Maori had become a Maori/Pakeha, all were now descendants of both parties who had signed the Treaty.
The Treaty of Waitangi had run its course. There are no oppressed indigenous people in New Zealand, just those of mixed heritage who have chosen a particular life-style.
Any consideration that part-Maori deserve special privileges is based upon a lie that has arisen simply because a few of mixed race accept one side of their heritage while denying the other. Bloodlines are unchangeable realities, but cultural practices are a matter of choice.
The Treaty of Waitangi was an important part of New Zealand's history, but is now obsolete and should be consigned to the archives, where it belongs. We can prosper and succeed as a united people. The alternative is apartheid — the road that leads back to the dark ages of ignorance and tribalism.
MITCH MORGAN
Kaipara
DENIAL OF FACTS
Final proof (if more were needed ) that Maori are indeed a uniquely privileged race is provided when we begin to see articles denying it. Such opinions, invariably from self-appointed part-Maori spokespeople and their wringing wet, pseudo-liberal white patrons, are simply a denial of demonstrable facts. However, in the current Alice in Wonderland world of politically correct moral relativism, denial of "facts has long since become a definite strategy.
Particularly galling is the self serving tactic of many modern Maori to completely disavow the manifold influences that their non-Maori ancestry certainly has upon them. Like so many others, I find it impossible to believe that it's just pure coincidence that this misled and malcontent element of Maoridom unwaveringly believe anything that is to their advantage— and nothing that isn't. Fair minded objectivity? What's that? It would come as no surprise to many New Zealanders if it turned out that Maori were not only the most privileged race in New Zealand but in the entire world.
If a disproportionate number of Maori really are 'failing" then the reasons must be sought not in any imagined racism but in forbidden areas which are ruled out-of-bounds by the anti-Western, left-wing, PC tyranny; namely in all those circumstances arising out of the fact that at the time of colonisation/ civilisation of New Zealand, Maori consciousness, and therefore culture, was thousands of years behind that of Western civilisation. And let's be very clear, whatever the reason was for the backwardness of Maori society at that time, it had nothing to do with anyone but themselves.
The "wicked white man" could only help them to bridge this vast gap, and much has been achieved. Ultimately, however, this task is one that Maori must shoulder themselves. This country's treaty/ grievance industry goes from bad to worse with every passing day, and it is all based upon an orchestrated litany of lies (to borrow Judge Mahon's magnificent phrase ).
C R
Dunedin
CROCODILE TEARS
'Songs and tears as Bill passes first reading. Wanganui iwi went to Parliament where they cried crocodile tears over the first reading of the millions of dollars they are going to get to have control over our water. If the original people, like the Ngati Hotu/Waitaha fand Patupaiarehe, got it I wouldn't be crying crocodile tears. I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
The Ngati Hotu, Waitaha and Patupaiarehe were living here long before any other group of people arrived. The Ngati Hotu were the indigenous people, the true tangata whenua, they were our blood line. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu, and were described by Te Arawa as "of non. Maori". Later Ngati Hotu moved down to the Wanganui area. The Wanganui Maori exploring up river found the Ngati hotu/ patupaiarehe living where the Whakapapa and Wanganui rivers join. They were in such numbers that the two chiefs with the exploring party sent back for reinforcements. A third chief arrived with a war party, a battle was fought, and a lot of the Ngati Hotu/patupaiarehe were killed. The limbs of the slaughtered people were hung on poles, hence of the name of the stream of Kakahi Whakapapa,"The hanging of the legs in a line'.
On a hill near Kakahi a great heap of stones stand, which local Maori believe to be the remains of the hangi where some of the people were cooked. So it was our people, the Ngati Hotu patupaiarehe and Waitaha who lived here and were in control of the river. So where is the compensation for our people?
I B
Wanganui
HARDLY OPPRESSORS
Your correspondent Reuben Chapple writes of those who trumpet "racism" at every opportunity. Perhaps they should consider life in Godzone in the good old days before the bad white man arrived.
There is an educational/aka Maori propaganda booklet called 'Network Waitangi' in which pre-colonisation Maori are described as "a highly developed, sustainable civilisation, autonomous tribes operated their own systems of health, education, justice, welfare and spiritually" — all warm and fuzzy, but not one whisper of their short, harsh, brutal lives due to centuries of tribal warfare. Nor any mention of the devastating Musket Wars, in which tens of thousands of Maori died at the hands of their own people. In comparison, about 3000 Maori died in the Land Wars.
Chief Taipari of Tauranga referred to the slaughter of the Musket Wars: "If we continue fighting our race will become extinct." It was the arrival of the missionaries and subsequent colonisation which saved the Maori race from extinction.
All of us in New Zealand enjoy the privilege of living the Western culture compared to the misery of life in pre colonisation times. Colonial oppressors — hardly!
R B
Tauranga
NOT GETTING IT
Some mayors just don't seem to understand they serve at the behest of their community.
The iconic leader of this hall of shame is of course Andrew Judd the current, and soon to be former, mayor of New Plymouth. But he is not alone. Joining Andrew Judd is Masterton Mayor Lyn Patterson. She, along with (six) councillors voted in favour of two unelected iwi representatives, with voting rights, being appointed to key council standing committees.
Masterton locals were not given the right to determine whether they too wanted a race-based council —they had no say. Opposing the move were councillors Gary Callen and Brent Goodwin. They said councillors were only given 24 hours' notice of the proposal and the vote. As if that was not bad enough, with the 2016 local body elections effectively just months away— and these new arrangement not expected to be in place until July — this decision has clearly been designed to bind the future council Mayor Patterson justified her actions by saying that the proposal "emerged from the council's 2015 .25 long-term plan process, to promote a genuine partnership with Maori as required by the Treaty, particularly on environmental issues".
In recent years only two other district councils have changed their constitutional balance through iwi appointments with voting rights—without recourse to the community at large .Jenny Rowan pushed that decision through in Kapiti in 2012 and Steve Chadwick in Rotorua in 2014. The Kapiti Coast District Council appointed three Maori representative with voting rights to the council's standing committees, just weeks ahead of the 2013 local body elections. The Mayor, Jenny Rowan, said "It has been a long journey to get to this point. My belief has always been that the tangata whenua of this district, as our treaty partners, should he involved in the decision-making process, to challenge, inform and assist us in developing the best outcomes for this district". Just weeks later, she lost the mayoralty. Unfortunately the new Mayor and council did not hold a poll of local residents and ratepayers to seek their views of the decision.
In Rotorua, Mayor Steve Chadwick pushed through a proposal to have two local Te Arawa board representatives sitting on council committees with voting rights. Supporting the Mayor were (seven) councillors, with five opposing. Mayor Chadwick said "For 25 generations Te Arawa have shared their life force with the community and this will continue for our futures and those to come. This partnership allows Te Arawa to beat the table: two representatives on council committees who can contribute to the direction of our district".
Not allowing the public to have a proper say on the contentious issue of voting rights around the council table, through a district-wide referendum process, is an outrage. It is after all, their council— supposedly representing the community at large.
The point is that by giving unelected vested interests voting rights, the Mayor and supporters have altered the balance of power on their council. This has the potential to swing the local authority vote, enabling councils to pursue agendas that might not have been possible before such appointments were made. But not only are such appointments undemocratic, they are also manipulative, since appointing iwi representatives with voting rights onto councils exploits a loop-hole that exists in the law. While Section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001 sets out the mechanism by which local authorities can establish iwi representation on councils through the creation of Maori wards, Section 19ZB enables local voters to challenge such decisions through a binding poll of electors— if supported by five per cent of registered electors.
It is an acknowledgement that defining a council by race marks a substantive change to local government. However, no such safeguard applies when councils appoint Maori representatives on to councils with voting rights— despite the effect being the same as creating a Maori ward. No doubt when the law was drafted the idea that Maori could gain representation on councils by the back door, through appointment rather than election, was not even contemplated. Accordingly, it is time that this loophole in the Local Electoral Act was closed, by enabling the public to demand a binding poll— if supported by five per cent of registered electors — whenever a council tries to change the constitutional makeup of a council through the appointment of unelected representatives with voting rights.
`Whenever they are asked, conununities have said they do not want their local democracy defined by race. Residents and ratepayers in the Waikato, Nelson, Wairoa, Hauraki, the Far North and New Plymouth have voted against Maori wards for their district councils, with an average 70/30 split. Had the people of Masterton, Rotorua and Kapiti been asked, it is highly likely that they too would have rejected race. based representation.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research
LONG-DEAD CONCEPTS
Angela Herbert-Graves (May 17) has learnt a lot about long-dead concepts of sovereignty, even quoting a 1569 Frenchman who called it perpetual power over citizens ... to which after immortal God we owe all things." She goes on about it seeking "to accommodate the long disputed interests of the nobility, the church and the 'lower classes,'" with "the monarch, or alternatively the 'monarch in Parliament,' which had absolute authority and dominion over the land and its peoples. It was that culturally. defined notion of constitutional authority which the Crown brought to Aotearoa after 1840."
This is a blatant falsehood. Moreover, even saying our country's true name clearly chokes in her throat and demonstrates her bias. Her 'Aotearoa' appears nowhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, and was not recognised by either Britisher or Maori. It must surprise her to know that effective sovereignty has continued to evolve, even to the present day. Following a hard-fought civil war in the 1640s, the British people successfully disposed of the supposed "divine right" of their foolish King Charles I, and the "absolute authority" with which Henry VIII had ruled was disposed of forever. The power of elected representatives —the House of Commons— was increasingly affirmed with the first reform of the constituency in 1832, and a progression until full adult franchise was attained in 1928.
It was in this real spirit of progress that New Zealand became British in 1840, initially as an extension of the colony of New South Wales. There has been constitutional evolution in New Zealand since, of course, adult male Maori actually getting the vote several years ahead of all others. The last trace of appointed rather than elected members came with
the abolition in 1950 of the Legislative Council by the National government of Sid Holland.
The most significant recent step was adoption of MMP for election to the House of Representatives. The well-thought proposals of the Royal Commission to abolish special Maori seats, deemed redundant, was disregarded by Parliament, and the ridiculous 'coat-tailing provision' included to the detriment of true proportionality. It is only by meddling on both these counts that Marama Fox is an MP today, effectively wielding the balance of power.
Notwithstanding these imperfections, we have as good a constitutional system in New Zealand as anywhere in the world. Witness the long-drawn-out and almost farcical process through which Americans must choose their next chief executive. Ours can be changed by a simple vote in Parliament Herbert-Graves' description of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy might be of some academic interest, but its relevance to New Zealand is as remote as the Bolivian constitution, ridiculously advocated by our recent ill-conceived Constitutional Review Panel.
It has been a long and gradual process to eliminate the last traces of special privilege and appointment, not election, to political office. Yet now we have the insidious drive for appointment of unelected members to local bodies solely on account of their ancestry in part, flying in the face of what it has taken so long to achieve. Our democracy is a precious possession, and we allow meddling with it at our cost. As some philosopher somewhere said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Those wise words we forget at our peril.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
DARK AGES
It is saddening to observe how patronising some New Zealanders have become towards part-Maori people. In their view Pakeha (any non-Maori) can stand on their own two feet, but Maori need continual help from those who "oppressed" them.
It would be understandable if the "natives" were impoverished and denied privileges because of their race, but that is the exact opposite of the existing situation. Midway through the last century the last full-blooded Maori died, and at that point in time the Maori race ceased to exist as a distinct entity. All of those remaining were now of mixed heritage, Maori blood combined with Pakeha. All were now one people. Every Maori had become a Maori/Pakeha, all were now descendants of both parties who had signed the Treaty.
The Treaty of Waitangi had run its course. There are no oppressed indigenous people in New Zealand, just those of mixed heritage who have chosen a particular life-style.
Any consideration that part-Maori deserve special privileges is based upon a lie that has arisen simply because a few of mixed race accept one side of their heritage while denying the other. Bloodlines are unchangeable realities, but cultural practices are a matter of choice.
The Treaty of Waitangi was an important part of New Zealand's history, but is now obsolete and should be consigned to the archives, where it belongs. We can prosper and succeed as a united people. The alternative is apartheid — the road that leads back to the dark ages of ignorance and tribalism.
MITCH MORGAN
Kaipara
DENIAL OF FACTS
Final proof (if more were needed ) that Maori are indeed a uniquely privileged race is provided when we begin to see articles denying it. Such opinions, invariably from self-appointed part-Maori spokespeople and their wringing wet, pseudo-liberal white patrons, are simply a denial of demonstrable facts. However, in the current Alice in Wonderland world of politically correct moral relativism, denial of "facts has long since become a definite strategy.
Particularly galling is the self serving tactic of many modern Maori to completely disavow the manifold influences that their non-Maori ancestry certainly has upon them. Like so many others, I find it impossible to believe that it's just pure coincidence that this misled and malcontent element of Maoridom unwaveringly believe anything that is to their advantage— and nothing that isn't. Fair minded objectivity? What's that? It would come as no surprise to many New Zealanders if it turned out that Maori were not only the most privileged race in New Zealand but in the entire world.
If a disproportionate number of Maori really are 'failing" then the reasons must be sought not in any imagined racism but in forbidden areas which are ruled out-of-bounds by the anti-Western, left-wing, PC tyranny; namely in all those circumstances arising out of the fact that at the time of colonisation/ civilisation of New Zealand, Maori consciousness, and therefore culture, was thousands of years behind that of Western civilisation. And let's be very clear, whatever the reason was for the backwardness of Maori society at that time, it had nothing to do with anyone but themselves.
The "wicked white man" could only help them to bridge this vast gap, and much has been achieved. Ultimately, however, this task is one that Maori must shoulder themselves. This country's treaty/ grievance industry goes from bad to worse with every passing day, and it is all based upon an orchestrated litany of lies (to borrow Judge Mahon's magnificent phrase ).
C R
Dunedin
CROCODILE TEARS
'Songs and tears as Bill passes first reading. Wanganui iwi went to Parliament where they cried crocodile tears over the first reading of the millions of dollars they are going to get to have control over our water. If the original people, like the Ngati Hotu/Waitaha fand Patupaiarehe, got it I wouldn't be crying crocodile tears. I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
The Ngati Hotu, Waitaha and Patupaiarehe were living here long before any other group of people arrived. The Ngati Hotu were the indigenous people, the true tangata whenua, they were our blood line. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu, and were described by Te Arawa as "of non. Maori". Later Ngati Hotu moved down to the Wanganui area. The Wanganui Maori exploring up river found the Ngati hotu/ patupaiarehe living where the Whakapapa and Wanganui rivers join. They were in such numbers that the two chiefs with the exploring party sent back for reinforcements. A third chief arrived with a war party, a battle was fought, and a lot of the Ngati Hotu/patupaiarehe were killed. The limbs of the slaughtered people were hung on poles, hence of the name of the stream of Kakahi Whakapapa,"The hanging of the legs in a line'.
On a hill near Kakahi a great heap of stones stand, which local Maori believe to be the remains of the hangi where some of the people were cooked. So it was our people, the Ngati Hotu patupaiarehe and Waitaha who lived here and were in control of the river. So where is the compensation for our people?
I B
Wanganui
HARDLY OPPRESSORS
Your correspondent Reuben Chapple writes of those who trumpet "racism" at every opportunity. Perhaps they should consider life in Godzone in the good old days before the bad white man arrived.
There is an educational/aka Maori propaganda booklet called 'Network Waitangi' in which pre-colonisation Maori are described as "a highly developed, sustainable civilisation, autonomous tribes operated their own systems of health, education, justice, welfare and spiritually" — all warm and fuzzy, but not one whisper of their short, harsh, brutal lives due to centuries of tribal warfare. Nor any mention of the devastating Musket Wars, in which tens of thousands of Maori died at the hands of their own people. In comparison, about 3000 Maori died in the Land Wars.
Chief Taipari of Tauranga referred to the slaughter of the Musket Wars: "If we continue fighting our race will become extinct." It was the arrival of the missionaries and subsequent colonisation which saved the Maori race from extinction.
All of us in New Zealand enjoy the privilege of living the Western culture compared to the misery of life in pre colonisation times. Colonial oppressors — hardly!
R B
Tauranga
NOT GETTING IT
Some mayors just don't seem to understand they serve at the behest of their community.
The iconic leader of this hall of shame is of course Andrew Judd the current, and soon to be former, mayor of New Plymouth. But he is not alone. Joining Andrew Judd is Masterton Mayor Lyn Patterson. She, along with (six) councillors voted in favour of two unelected iwi representatives, with voting rights, being appointed to key council standing committees.
Masterton locals were not given the right to determine whether they too wanted a race-based council —they had no say. Opposing the move were councillors Gary Callen and Brent Goodwin. They said councillors were only given 24 hours' notice of the proposal and the vote. As if that was not bad enough, with the 2016 local body elections effectively just months away— and these new arrangement not expected to be in place until July — this decision has clearly been designed to bind the future council Mayor Patterson justified her actions by saying that the proposal "emerged from the council's 2015 .25 long-term plan process, to promote a genuine partnership with Maori as required by the Treaty, particularly on environmental issues".
In recent years only two other district councils have changed their constitutional balance through iwi appointments with voting rights—without recourse to the community at large .Jenny Rowan pushed that decision through in Kapiti in 2012 and Steve Chadwick in Rotorua in 2014. The Kapiti Coast District Council appointed three Maori representative with voting rights to the council's standing committees, just weeks ahead of the 2013 local body elections. The Mayor, Jenny Rowan, said "It has been a long journey to get to this point. My belief has always been that the tangata whenua of this district, as our treaty partners, should he involved in the decision-making process, to challenge, inform and assist us in developing the best outcomes for this district". Just weeks later, she lost the mayoralty. Unfortunately the new Mayor and council did not hold a poll of local residents and ratepayers to seek their views of the decision.
In Rotorua, Mayor Steve Chadwick pushed through a proposal to have two local Te Arawa board representatives sitting on council committees with voting rights. Supporting the Mayor were (seven) councillors, with five opposing. Mayor Chadwick said "For 25 generations Te Arawa have shared their life force with the community and this will continue for our futures and those to come. This partnership allows Te Arawa to beat the table: two representatives on council committees who can contribute to the direction of our district".
Not allowing the public to have a proper say on the contentious issue of voting rights around the council table, through a district-wide referendum process, is an outrage. It is after all, their council— supposedly representing the community at large.
The point is that by giving unelected vested interests voting rights, the Mayor and supporters have altered the balance of power on their council. This has the potential to swing the local authority vote, enabling councils to pursue agendas that might not have been possible before such appointments were made. But not only are such appointments undemocratic, they are also manipulative, since appointing iwi representatives with voting rights onto councils exploits a loop-hole that exists in the law. While Section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001 sets out the mechanism by which local authorities can establish iwi representation on councils through the creation of Maori wards, Section 19ZB enables local voters to challenge such decisions through a binding poll of electors— if supported by five per cent of registered electors.
It is an acknowledgement that defining a council by race marks a substantive change to local government. However, no such safeguard applies when councils appoint Maori representatives on to councils with voting rights— despite the effect being the same as creating a Maori ward. No doubt when the law was drafted the idea that Maori could gain representation on councils by the back door, through appointment rather than election, was not even contemplated. Accordingly, it is time that this loophole in the Local Electoral Act was closed, by enabling the public to demand a binding poll— if supported by five per cent of registered electors — whenever a council tries to change the constitutional makeup of a council through the appointment of unelected representatives with voting rights.
`Whenever they are asked, conununities have said they do not want their local democracy defined by race. Residents and ratepayers in the Waikato, Nelson, Wairoa, Hauraki, the Far North and New Plymouth have voted against Maori wards for their district councils, with an average 70/30 split. Had the people of Masterton, Rotorua and Kapiti been asked, it is highly likely that they too would have rejected race. based representation.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research