Maori Seats

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Maori Seats

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 22

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1827511 23-Jul-2017 11:20

Coalition Agreements should be announced before the election and the policy details of the agreement announced prior the election so the voters are fully informed and know what they are or are not voting for.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1827527 23-Jul-2017 11:53

MikeB4: Coalition Agreements should be announced before the election and the policy details of the agreement announced prior the election so the voters are fully informed and know what they are or are not voting for.

Even with clear majority, governments when elected don't seem particularly bothered when back-tracking on campaign "promises".

They just cite "changed circumstances" and do whatever they like.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1827722 23-Jul-2017 17:11

Pumpedd:

Linuxluver:

Pumpedd:

This seems to be quite topical at the moment due to Peters astute electioneering.

But really, why do we still have these special seats in 2017?

Should they not have gone when we ditched the "so-called" undemocratic FPP electoral system?

I realise that without the maori seats national would have lost power a couple of times, but is that any reason?

The Maori seats were established when Maori were 50% of the population of NZ. They got 4 seats and the white folk got the rest.

Every election Maori get the chance to affirm they want to remain on / leave / join the Maori electoral roll. So, in effect, there is a rolling referendum going on continuously. Roughly 55% opt for the Maori roll.

Absolutely NO WAY should anyone else be able to vote the Maori seats out of existence. Letting a bigoted, ignorant majority vote away the seats of a minority would be a gross injustice from any angle.

If there is to be any referendum on this, Maori should be the only people voting in it.

Or maybe Maori should be voting in a referendum to get rid of the general seats. All these other people have made a pig's ear of the environment and social policy and destroyed entire industries over the past few decades.

If that makes no sense....then nor does letting Maori-hating "Bruce" or "Betty" from Te Atatu vote to get rid of Maori seats.

I take offense at being called "a bigoted, ignorant majority".

This is exactly why the seats should be abolished due to a minority wanting to have it all without contributing in any way.

I also agree that this thread should now be closed as it has turned into racial slander.

I used those words because anyone wanting to get rid of the Maori seats can only be ignorant of the Treaty of Waitangi and the issue it poses constitutionally.

For someone to know nothing about that takes some commitment as it has been a political topic since the 1960s at least.

Of course no one who refuses to know about a thing and votes out of having judged the issue from a position of ignorance (a.k.a "prejudice") would see themselves that way.

That they typically think the Treaty is about race highlights how little they know it. It's not about race at all.

The Treaty is about an agreement between the previous "owners" of New Zealand and the Imperial forces that imposed themselves on this land and the people already here.

It's a property agreement.

If all anyone can see is brown people and white people....and ignore the reality if what the agreement actually is......then, yeah, I use the words "ignorant" (because they can only be so) and "bigoted" because they see race where the reality is property.

It's about property. Not race.

I hope you've got that.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827922 23-Jul-2017 20:36

Linuxluver:

It's about property. Not race.

Its actually all about the seats in Parliament. They ARE about race. Hence they called "MAORI" seats.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1828151 24-Jul-2017 09:39

Once again you slander those that dont agree with your line of thinking.

The Maori seats have little to do with the Treaty but more to do with history that needs to be left in the past so NZ as a Country can move forward.

I am sure many agencies and intelligent people have tried to ponder on what the Country can do to move on as a single population after this round of settlements is complete.

Clearly, as long as people live in the past, and want to forever dwell on historical grievances this will never happen. Most Maori I know also want NZ to move on, it seems to be a outspoken minority that want to have it all. The news is bad for them...they wont get it. So move on.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1828253 24-Jul-2017 10:52

Pumpedd:

Once again you slander those that dont agree with your line of thinking.

The Maori seats have little to do with the Treaty but more to do with history that needs to be left in the past so NZ as a Country can move forward.

I am sure many agencies and intelligent people have tried to ponder on what the Country can do to move on as a single population after this round of settlements is complete.

Clearly, as long as people live in the past, and want to forever dwell on historical grievances this will never happen. Most Maori I know also want NZ to move on, it seems to be a outspoken minority that want to have it all. The news is bad for them...they wont get it. So move on.

It is easy for those not aggrieved to say forget the grievances and move on as they are not losing anything. Maori want these issues resolved and the opportunity to move on just as much if not more than you. And even when the issues have been resolved the Tanaga Whenua have gained nothing but hopefully they have had restored that which was taken.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1828259 24-Jul-2017 11:05

Pumpedd:

Once again you slander those that dont agree with your line of thinking.

The Maori seats have little to do with the Treaty but more to do with history that needs to be left in the past so NZ as a Country can move forward.

I am sure many agencies and intelligent people have tried to ponder on what the Country can do to move on as a single population after this round of settlements is complete.

Clearly, as long as people live in the past, and want to forever dwell on historical grievances this will never happen. Most Maori I know also want NZ to move on, it seems to be a outspoken minority that want to have it all. The news is bad for them...they wont get it. So move on.

Can you elaborate on what 'it all' is?

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1828269 24-Jul-2017 11:31

MikeSkyrme:

Pumpedd:

Once again you slander those that dont agree with your line of thinking.

The Maori seats have little to do with the Treaty but more to do with history that needs to be left in the past so NZ as a Country can move forward.

I am sure many agencies and intelligent people have tried to ponder on what the Country can do to move on as a single population after this round of settlements is complete.

Clearly, as long as people live in the past, and want to forever dwell on historical grievances this will never happen. Most Maori I know also want NZ to move on, it seems to be a outspoken minority that want to have it all. The news is bad for them...they wont get it. So move on.

Can you elaborate on what 'it all' is?

It means that no matter what they receive or what is done, they will never be satisfied. I agree that injustices were done in NZ all those years ago by people to people far removed from current NZers. Large amounts of work(and huge sums of money) have been done and is still being to done settle those historic grievances. But at some point don't we need to move on?

Isnt it the interests of everyone to draw a line in the sand at some point? The Government at the time was the Queen of England, quite removed from our democracy today. It would be great (in my mind) to live in a unified New Zealand. I see removing Maori seats (at some point) and becoming a Republic as part of this process.

But I am done now and regret starting this topic as no matter what discussion takes place some take it the wrong way or in a personal way.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1828271 24-Jul-2017 11:34

I agree in principle. I guess the question is when that point is reached.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1828272 24-Jul-2017 11:39

Pumpedd:

MikeSkyrme:

Pumpedd:

Once again you slander those that dont agree with your line of thinking.

The Maori seats have little to do with the Treaty but more to do with history that needs to be left in the past so NZ as a Country can move forward.

I am sure many agencies and intelligent people have tried to ponder on what the Country can do to move on as a single population after this round of settlements is complete.

Clearly, as long as people live in the past, and want to forever dwell on historical grievances this will never happen. Most Maori I know also want NZ to move on, it seems to be a outspoken minority that want to have it all. The news is bad for them...they wont get it. So move on.

Can you elaborate on what 'it all' is?

It means that no matter what they receive or what is done, they will never be satisfied. I agree that injustices were done in NZ all those years ago by people to people far removed from current NZers. Large amounts of work(and huge sums of money) have been done and is still being to done settle those historic grievances. But at some point don't we need to move on?

Isnt it the interests of everyone to draw a line in the sand at some point? The Government at the time was the Queen of England, quite removed from our democracy today. It would be great (in my mind) to live in a unified New Zealand. I see removing Maori seats (at some point) and becoming a Republic as part of this process.

Wrong, the Government at the time with the vast majority was/ is the NZ government. NZ was self determining during the lead up to WW2 there are many outstanding grievances relating to that period and prior. There are many issues that relate to modern day it is not all 18th and 19th century issues.

Have a look here https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/ and https://www.justice.govt.nz/maori-land-treaty/office-of-treaty-settlements

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1828275 24-Jul-2017 11:49

MikeB4:

Wrong, the Government at the time with the vast majority was/ is the NZ government. NZ was self determining during the lead up to WW2 there are many outstanding grievances relating to that period and prior. There are many issues that relate to modern day it is not all 18th and 19th century issues.

Have a look here https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/ and https://www.justice.govt.nz/maori-land-treaty/office-of-treaty-settlements

And old outstanding grievances had nothing to do with me, or most people today. They were sins of our forefathers. They old and are past their use by date and I don't see why I should be held liable in the 21st century.

Perhaps we should start a claims process for the Moriori people too. If you feel so strongly for outstanding grievances for Maori, what about the sins of their forefathers? Surely you feel the same for Moriori?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1828277 24-Jul-2017 11:53

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wrong, the Government at the time with the vast majority was/ is the NZ government. NZ was self determining during the lead up to WW2 there are many outstanding grievances relating to that period and prior. There are many issues that relate to modern day it is not all 18th and 19th century issues.

Have a look here https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/ and https://www.justice.govt.nz/maori-land-treaty/office-of-treaty-settlements

And old outstanding grievances had nothing to do with me, or most people today. They were sins of our forefathers. They old and are past their use by date and I don't see why I should be held liable in the 21st century.

Perhaps we should start a claims process for the Moriori people too. If you feel so strongly for outstanding grievances for Maori, what about the sins of their forefathers? Surely you feel the same for Moriori?

Say what you will but they do and they will. Read the websites I posted earlier they are very informative. The Treaty matters as it's a founding document. Do the US people say the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do not apply to them?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1828292 24-Jul-2017 12:05

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wrong, the Government at the time with the vast majority was/ is the NZ government. NZ was self determining during the lead up to WW2 there are many outstanding grievances relating to that period and prior. There are many issues that relate to modern day it is not all 18th and 19th century issues.

Have a look here https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/ and https://www.justice.govt.nz/maori-land-treaty/office-of-treaty-settlements

And old outstanding grievances had nothing to do with me, or most people today. They were sins of our forefathers. They old and are past their use by date and I don't see why I should be held liable in the 21st century.

Perhaps we should start a claims process for the Moriori people too. If you feel so strongly for outstanding grievances for Maori, what about the sins of their forefathers? Surely you feel the same for Moriori?

This is a ridiculous argument. It doesn't warrant a serious response but I am feeling generous today.

No-one thinks the people of today should be held to account for the misdeeds of their ancestors. That is nonsense. The argument is that Maori (or aborigines, or Native Americans, or whoever you choose) are disadvantaged today because of what happened in the past. We have an obligation to try to redress those historical wrongs as best we can not because we are to blame for what our forebears did but because it is the right thing to do and only then can we all move forward together.

It is not a hard thing to understand for those willing to make the effort.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1828345 24-Jul-2017 13:08

Basically Maori as a people were asset stripped. That disruption in their way of life (home, food, natural resources, community structure) led to many/all of the socio-economic challenges that Maori face today.

The same post-colonial pattern is seen all over the world - even within the United Kingdom.

The difference here is that the crown signed Treaty with Maori, giving Maori the rights and protections of British subjects ('we are one people' etc) and then went on to very much not treat them accordingly. Iwi asset losses and individual hardships have accumulated as a result.

The crown has a legal obligation to address the collective losses and IMO a moral obligation to address the resulting inter-generational socio-economic disadvantage. I think Maori have been extremely reasonable and patient with the crown - contrast with Fiji ...

As a non-Maori person I see the Maori seats as one way of guaranteeing advocacy for Maori in parliament. I don't really see any meaningful disadvantage or material costs to non-Maori in having those seats. If the Maori seats did not exist then additional general seats would have to be created to accommodate the additional people on the general role.

The seats might cause some people a bit of intellectual angst and irritation, but real dis-advantage? I can't see any at all.

Mike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1828416 24-Jul-2017 14:04

MikeAqua:
Basically Maori as a people were asset stripped. That disruption in their way of life (home, food, natural resources, community structure) led to many/all of the socio-economic challenges that Maori face today.

The same post-colonial pattern is seen all over the world - even within the United Kingdom.

The difference here is that the crown signed Treaty with Maori, giving Maori the rights and protections of British subjects ('we are one people' etc) and then went on to very much not treat them accordingly. Iwi asset losses and individual hardships have accumulated as a result.

The crown has a legal obligation to address the collective losses and IMO a moral obligation to address the resulting inter-generational socio-economic disadvantage. I think Maori have been extremely reasonable and patient with the crown - contrast with Fiji ...

As a non-Maori person I see the Maori seats as one way of guaranteeing advocacy for Maori in parliament. I don't really see any meaningful disadvantage or material costs to non-Maori in having those seats. If the Maori seats did not exist then additional general seats would have to be created to accommodate the additional people on the general role.

The seats might cause some people a bit of intellectual angst and irritation, but real dis-advantage? I can't see any at all.

Excellent post. I would also add that the Government and NZ still has bouts of treaty amnesia even today. The Treaty of Waitangi is not some historical relic it is an active agreement/ document just like the US Constitution and the Magna Carta.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 22