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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824272 18-Jul-2017 11:19

MikeB4:

kryptonjohn:

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty"

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes".

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824274 18-Jul-2017 11:20

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

Every time this comes up, I wonder where the Maori voices are. Isn't this just a bunch of Pākehā once again pontificating on what is best for Maori?

Presumably what is best for all New Zealanders? Or do you mean we should have special race-based treatment?

I mean if you are going to talk about what is best for all New Zealanders, then shouldn't all New Zealanders be part of the conversation?

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#1824277 18-Jul-2017 11:22

Rikkitic:

And Maori are not discriminated against? In jobs, in housing, in the justice system, in society at large? Just asking.

Are you suggesting being Maori is the only trait that leads to discrimination? I suspect there's a lot more to it than that, and that many different peoples are discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, in a number of ways and areas. Is it right? No, it's not. But it's pretty hard to argue that race should play no part in things when something as fundamental as government allows for segregation of rights based on race. Is now the right time to change that? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think it is, but I also acknowledge I don't have full visibility of all the issues and reasons why these seats still exist - though I do know the official reason they were created no longer exists. I'd like to think we're at a place, or close to it, where race becomes irrelevant for judging people. Perhaps I'm just too idealistic.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824278 18-Jul-2017 11:22

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

kryptonjohn:

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty"

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes".

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824280 18-Jul-2017 11:26

Wiggum:

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

kryptonjohn:

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty"

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes".

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

With that I am disengaging.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824281 18-Jul-2017 11:27

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

kryptonjohn:

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty"

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes".

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

With that I am disengaging.

Apologies, maybe my post came across as a little too democratic?

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824282 18-Jul-2017 11:27

Pretty much. I expect that the TOW would be included in a republic's constitution much as it is now to try and keep everyone happy: little or no constitutional power.

Remember that no TOW Tribunal decisions are binding on the government, and the extent of force the TOW holds in legislation is that its principles be "recognised". Which is waffle.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1824283 18-Jul-2017 11:29

Actually Maori do get extra political power via the Maori seats. How? Because someone who is Maori can swap between the general electoral roll and the Maori roll. This means that if the general electorate where a Maori person lives is a safe seat for either national or labour. And the Maori electorate where they live is a marginal seat. They can change to the Maori roll where there vote has more influence. Or vice versa if they live in a safe Maori roll electorate but a marginal general roll electorate.

Also the real reason the Maori seats were introduced was to oppress Maori. At the time there were far more Maori than Europeans in NZ. So by forcing Maori to go on a Maori roll where they could only vote for 4 (at the time) seats. Was a way of granting Maori the right to vote, but without giving them any real political power.

Today there have been plenty of Maori MPs elected via the general seats. So claiming that the Maori seats are somehow necessary implies that Maori are somehow inferior, and cannot be elected via the general seats. There have already be Samoan and Asian MPs elected without special seats. So special seats for one racial group are definitely not needed today.

It really gets to me how whenever a problem gets raised to do with a certain ethnic group (usually a health care related problem) the solution proposed is often something race based. So in effect the government keeps trying to use racism to solve race based problems. What's worse most such problems if you dig a bit deeper. Are not actually caused by anything race related.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824286 18-Jul-2017 11:33

Wiggum:

Thats not the point. Discrimination is discrimination, and you seem to agree with it, when it suits.

It is the point, and I do agree with it when it suits.

A painful example of discrimination was segregation in the American South. When that obscenity was finally legislated out of existence, the country was left with the consequences of it. Simply making it illegal did not get rid of it. Imagine being a young black kid trying to enter a formerly segregated white school. It might be allowed, but you sure wouldn't feel very comfortable.

To try to compensate for this ugly legacy, busing policies were introduced to aid integration and break down barriers. Kids from one formerly segregated school district would be transported to another each day. In this way racial mixing was stimulated and the kids had a chance to get used to each other. It also forced local authorities to bring the educational standards of 'black' schools up to the level of the white ones.

Busing was a form of legal race-based discrimination intended to make up for past evils. It could be said that something of the same is currently the case in New Zealand.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824290 18-Jul-2017 11:40

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

Thats not the point. Discrimination is discrimination, and you seem to agree with it, when it suits.

It is the point, and I do agree with it when it suits.

There is no such thing as "fair" discrimination as far as I am concerned. Nobody is more equal than anybody else, even if some have been discriminated against in the past. Fixing the wrongs of the past, by more discrimination does nothing to fix anything.

If you agree to "fair" discrimination, then you no better than anybody else who discriminates.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824293 18-Jul-2017 11:46

Geektastic:

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824294 18-Jul-2017 11:47

Wiggum:

There is no such thing as "fair" discrimination as far as I am concerned. Nobody is more equal than anybody else, even if some have been discriminated against in the past. Fixing the wrongs of the past, by more discrimination does nothing to fix anything.

If you agree to "fair" discrimination, then you no better than anybody else who discriminates.

We disagree on this. What else is new?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1824519 18-Jul-2017 16:14

So - now that the inevitable ad hominem and hyperbole are out of everyone's systems...

Back to the issue of Maori Seats:

1) Established (as Mike correctly describes) to overcome the limitation at the time where only landowners were permitted to vote.

2) Became redundant (per the original intention) in 1867 when the right to vote was extended to all Maori men. (Or arguably in 1893 when the right was also extended to women also)

3) Results now indicate that Maori have disproportionate representation in New Zealand's parliament. (26/119 MPs identify as Maori - or 22%)

Compare with 14.6% of NZ's population identifying as Maori...

If you were to abolish the 7 Maori seats, and assume that NONE of the MPs sitting in Maori Seats were able to successfully win a seat on the general list - Maori representation in parliament would still be 17% - comprising Maori MP's already elected on the general role.

I think it's reasonable to have a referendum on the issue.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824535 18-Jul-2017 16:19

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

It would probably be better if "people" were discussing what "people" should do...

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824539 18-Jul-2017 16:22

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

No more bemusing than brown people telling white people what to do.

But where above in this discussion are white people telling brown people what to do? "You can't force people to join in, can you" suggests the opposite.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22