4G Maori Rights?

Forums › New Zealand Mobile and Wireless › 4G Maori Rights?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#696865 5-Oct-2012 17:28

KiwiNZ:

New Zealand has a constitution ...

http://gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz.htm

True but not a 'written constitution' as they are generally understood.

We have what is known as a 'constitutional framework', a system by which the government is run. It is made up of The Treaty, the Letters Patent, Orders In Council, the Cabinet Office Manual and other things such as the Bill of Rights.

What most written constitutions have is something that says the government can't change anything in the constitution without more than a simple majority, much of the US constitution can't be changes without a 2/3rds majority. Any NZ law can be changed with simple majority, such as the Bill of Rights.

On the upside, governments can't say "It isn't against the constitution" and isn't bound by laws made for other circumstances.

In the context of this debate the lack of a written constitution could allow us to have a meaningful dialogue about Maori claims, such as 4G, and the place that Maori should have in NZ without that place being stuck in whatever time the conversation is had. It can evolve and change as the country evolves and changes.

Sure we need to get over our differences but saying: "Right from today everything is different" just doesn't work. People get over stuff when they do. But, as usual, 'they' are not the only people who need to get over stuff. 'We' need to stop saying things like "If the Maoris can claim XYZ, why can't I?". Have any of these 'crazy claims' gone anywhere? No, they have not. As my mother might have asked "If the Maoris jumped off the roof, would you be getting the ladder out to go next?".

We all need to grow up and at least attempt the reasoned conversation that would move this country forward for everybody.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#696866 5-Oct-2012 17:31

crack: You are right, not many go far, but they take a fair amount of resources and time and attention away from areas of NZ that require that attention.

Kyanar

3877 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#696886 5-Oct-2012 18:15

crackrdbycracku:

Have any of these 'crazy claims' gone anywhere? No, they have not. As my mother might have asked "If the Maoris jumped off the roof, would you be getting the ladder out to go next?".

3G spectrum. 4G spectrum. There was no spectrum in the 1800s, because there was no radio. So I cannot see how Maori can claim they have a "right" to this. A radio broadcast on the 700MHz band does not infringe on cultural beliefs. A Taniwha will not die or eat a village because Telecom has LTE phones. So yes, these crazy claims do go somewhere. Let me step to the side a moment and recognise that there was actually a benefit of sorts to the 3G spectrum claim (2degrees) but frankly the principle remains - this claim of ownership over something that did not exist is stupid.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#696892 5-Oct-2012 18:23

Kyanar: this claim of ownership over something that did not exist is stupid.

I agree, so why do people take it so seriously and allow it to frame the conversation?

We can ask 'Why would someone make such a claim?' and we get answers such as 'God loves a trier' or 'Because they need a hobby'. But what we don't, shouldn't, get for an answer is; because sensible people will take this seriously.

My point is that we all need to move past this kind of thing and towards a proper constructive dialogue.

Yes, claim like this is stupid. Getting upset about such a claim is ... ?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#696947 5-Oct-2012 20:44

The Spectrum existed then, the technology to use it was not but its was there. Given that the following applies...

"Article the SecondHer Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;"

Linuxluver

5824 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#696969 5-Oct-2012 21:54

BTR: Is it just me or does everyone else think this is ridiculous?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7768115/Iwi-allocation-could-delay-4G-roll-out

It's part of the Treaty Partnership. The maori language is indisputably a taonga...and the Treaty guarantees the right to such treasures. Broadcasting rights is an important way to maintain the language.

Catch up. You're 162 years behind...and counting. :-)

You're not understand this because there are a lot of things you don't know. You can continue to not know them..and remain bewildered.

Up to you. I frame it that way because so many people not onlly do not know...they do not want to.

So they remain confused. No need for it....but many insist on it.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#696981 5-Oct-2012 22:16

Linuxluver:
BTR: Is it just me or does everyone else think this is ridiculous?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7768115/Iwi-allocation-could-delay-4G-roll-out

It's part of the Treaty Partnership. The maori language is indisputably a taonga...and the Treaty guarantees the right to such treasures. Broadcasting rights is an important way to maintain the language.

So they remain confused. No need for it....but many insist on it.

Maori TV is broadcasting, it's doing so with funding from the NZ Government. It's used to help keep the Maori language going. 4G frequencies are not likely to be used to help keep Maori language alive even if Maori owned it (Which I dispute).

Based on your stipulation, basically all broadcast frequencies belong to Maori in New Zealand?

Kyanar

3877 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#696999 5-Oct-2012 23:46

KiwiNZ: The Spectrum existed then, the technology to use it was not but its was there. Given that the following applies...

"Article the SecondHer Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;"

That doesn't apply and you know it. Your argument strikes me as the kind that would be used to argue that Maori own the airspace over the country, and get absolutely enraging $1 billion settlements, while the rest of the country is told to tighten their belts because the country is broke.

I am all for the preservation of culture, and recognising cultural significance (such as sacred lands, etc). But I am sick and tired of the money grubbing from the selfish vocal minority of Maori who are all about bleeding the taxpayer dry to enrich themselves. By no means can spectrum be considered any kind of cultural property. Without the technology to use it, it effectively didn't exist. So no, the Maori do not own it.

I'm going to bow out now, because no topic pisses me off more than that demon-damned treaty. It's the single most divisive item in all of this country's history, and the sooner the thing is gotten rid of, the better.

gzt

15219 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#697008 6-Oct-2012 00:46

Flaming and leaving the discussion is not going to help you or anyone else. I got that you are enraged but much of the rest was incoherent flaming. Your attitude is far more divisive than anything else in this discussion anywhere so far.

$1 Billion dollar settlements?

Get a grip on reality - Total cost of treaty settlements since 1992: less than NZ$1 Billion.

Bailing out South Canterbury Finance and others in a very short space of time: more than NZ$1.6 Billion. I don't remember you being enraged about that.

Not sure what to say next but if you are going to return - pose some sensible questions and maybe do some sensible research.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#697017 6-Oct-2012 01:49

gzt: Flaming and leaving the discussion is not going to help you or anyone else. I got that you are enraged but much of the rest was incoherent flaming. Your attitude is far more divisive than anything else in this discussion anywhere so far.

$1 Billion dollar settlements?

Get a grip on reality - Total cost of treaty settlements since 1992: less than NZ$1 Billion.

Bailing out South Canterbury Finance and others in a very short space of time: more than NZ$1.6 Billion. I don't remember you being enraged about that.

Not sure what to say next but if you are going to return - pose some sensible questions and maybe do some sensible research.

Actually in the grand scheme of things what he does it doesn't do in the context of this discussion makes no difference whatsoever, not saying I don't agree with him since largely I do. The TOW is the biggest wedge which stops NZ from making progress in areas of race relations I believe.

FYI:

http://www.whakatanebeacon.co.nz/cms/news/2012/06/art100011945.php

My calculations say that amount is around 6.5 to 7 Billion in settlements.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#697024 6-Oct-2012 07:07

Kyanar:
KiwiNZ: The Spectrum existed then, the technology to use it was not but its was there. Given that the following applies...

"Article the SecondHer Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;"

That doesn't apply and you know it.? Your argument strikes me as the kind that would be used to argue that Maori own the airspace over the country, and get absolutely enraging $1 billion settlements, while the rest of the country is told to tighten their belts because the country is broke.

I am all for the preservation of culture, and recognising cultural significance (such as sacred lands, etc).? But I am sick and tired of the money grubbing from the selfish vocal minority of Maori who are all about bleeding the taxpayer dry to enrich themselves.? By no means can spectrum be considered any kind of cultural property.? Without the technology to use it, it effectively didn't exist.? So no, the Maori do not own it.

I'm going to bow out now, because no topic pisses me off more than that demon-damned treaty.? It's the single most divisive item in all of this country's history, and the sooner the thing is gotten rid of, the better.

The Treaty is not a snap shot of 200 years ago, it is a document in perpetuity, so yes the treaty article I quoted as is the Treaty in entirety is as relevant today as it was 200 years ago.

Ask your self is that US declaration of independence irrelevant? , is the Magna Carta irrelevant?

All New Zealanders benefit from the Treaty, everyday.

gzt

15219 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#697030 6-Oct-2012 08:17

networkn: Actually in the grand scheme of things what he does it doesn't do in the context of this discussion makes no difference whatsoever, not saying I don't agree with him since largely I do.

The TOW is the biggest wedge which stops NZ from making progress in areas of race relations I believe.

Incoherent enraged attitudes like his make a big difference. He found it impossible to engage in any kind of civil discussion with people he disagreed with on this topic for very long and perhaps learn something. That's a big wedge in my view.

What areas of race relations do you believe New Zealand needs to make progress in?

FYI:

http://www.whakatanebeacon.co.nz/cms/news/2012/06/art100011945.php

My calculations say that amount is around 6.5 to 7 Billion in settlements.

How did you calculate that amount? The article you linked is interesting but does not support the figure you name. Maybe it was not intended to? I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you arrive at 6.5 - 7 billion?

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#697045 6-Oct-2012 09:09

gzt:
networkn: Actually in the grand scheme of things what he does it doesn't do in the context of this discussion makes no difference whatsoever, not saying I don't agree with him since largely I do.

The TOW is the biggest wedge which stops NZ from making progress in areas of race relations I believe.

Incoherent enraged attitudes like his make a big difference. He found it impossible to engage in any kind of civil discussion with people he disagreed with on this topic for very long and perhaps learn something. That's a big wedge in my view.

What areas of race relations do you believe New Zealand needs to make progress in?

FYI:

http://www.whakatanebeacon.co.nz/cms/news/2012/06/art100011945.php

My calculations say that amount is around 6.5 to 7 Billion in settlements.

How did you calculate that amount? The article you linked is interesting but does not support the figure you name. Maybe it was not intended to? I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you arrive at 6.5 - 7 billion?

My point was you said that him storming wasn't helping him or anyone else, but whether he does or doesn't won't help or change anything regardless. I was just being picky.

Well they calculated they spend 68 Million to 72 Million each day on education and healthcare and Cullen (Not that I trust his financial information at ALL, I actually consider him a complete scumbag), said that settlements would cost between 2-3 months, so I took x (I used 100 approx but realize now it was actually 80) days and multiplied it by 68 million.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#697047 6-Oct-2012 09:21

networkn:
gzt:
networkn: Actually in the grand scheme of things what he does it doesn't do in the context of this discussion makes no difference whatsoever, not saying I don't agree with him since largely I do.

The TOW is the biggest wedge which stops NZ from making progress in areas of race relations I believe.

Incoherent enraged attitudes like his make a big difference. He found it impossible to engage in any kind of civil discussion with people he disagreed with on this topic for very long and perhaps learn something. That's a big wedge in my view.

What areas of race relations do you believe New Zealand needs to make progress in?

FYI:

http://www.whakatanebeacon.co.nz/cms/news/2012/06/art100011945.php

My calculations say that amount is around 6.5 to 7 Billion in settlements.

How did you calculate that amount? The article you linked is interesting but does not support the figure you name. Maybe it was not intended to? I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you arrive at 6.5 - 7 billion?

My point was you said that him storming wasn't helping him or anyone else, but whether he does or doesn't won't help or change anything regardless. I was just being picky.

Well they calculated they spend 68 Million to 72 Million each day on education and healthcare and Cullen (Not that I trust his financial information at ALL, I actually consider him a complete scumbag), said that settlements would cost between 2-3 months, so I took x (I used 100 approx but realize now it was actually 80) days and multiplied it by 68 million.

It is not X multiplied by $68 million. That interpretation is erroneous and disingenuous.

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#697050 6-Oct-2012 09:33

Well they calculated they spend 68 Million to 72 Million each day on education and healthcare and Cullen (Not that I trust his financial information at ALL, I actually consider him a complete scumbag), said that settlements would cost between 2-3 months, so I took x (I used 100 approx but realize now it was actually 80) days and multiplied it by 68 million.

It is not X multiplied by $68 million. That interpretation is erroneous and disingenuous.

The Government spent $12.4 billion on education and $13.1 billion on health during 2010-11.
Sir Michael said when the process of Treaty settlements was completed the total cost would be between two and three months of today’s spending on health or education, “but with that total cost spread over something like 25 years”.

Yes it would appear late at night wasn't the time for me to try math. I see now he was saying 2-3 months ( say 3) which amounts to roughly a quarter of what we as a country spend on education or healthcare. So 12.8 Billion x .25 equals about 3 Billion.

Let's be straight and honest here, would 3 Billion be better spent helping EVERY Kiwi, settling these amounts or put into in Healthcare OR education? How about 3 Billion in Christchurch?

Let's also be straight about something else, Cullen has no chance of calculating this correctly, I never once in 9 years saw him accurately predict surplus or deficit, he was always out by BILLIONS, usually under estimating, so who knows what the amount could actually be?

I am not saying no settlement needs to be made, but it needs to be over and done with and finalized and no further claims made after that point.

The reason for my calculations were that someone above posted claims had only reached about 600M, which isn't correct.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10