New Zealand General Election thread

Not much of a choice is there really.

What was wrong with the Foreshore and Seabed legislation? I thought the rights of all NZers were protected under that? (I plead ignorance to starting an "issue" here, I haven't been in the country for a while.)

Jay

I predict that whoever wins will go on spending my money.

Steve

Labour should be the party with the largest number of seats in the parliament after the election. Too close to call at the moment though. The Greens will win 7 or 8 seats, Maori Party should win 2 or 3 seats. National may increase its number of seats by a small number. If the other parties don't win an electorate seat they will be gone.

it has been a lolly scramble though and the adolescent behaviour of new zealanders is encouraged. hopefully a long term view will prevail in the minds of voters.

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
Labour should be the party with the largest number of seats in the parliament after the election. Too close to call at the moment though. The Greens will win 7 or 8 seats, Maori Party should win 2 or 3 seats. National may increase its number of seats by a small number. If the other parties don't win an electorate seat they will be gone.

Yip. Labour again probably!

quote:

hopefully a long term view will prevail in the minds of voters.

Ay? That's not realistic!

quote:

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

I don't understand all this. Prob best not to isn't it?

Jay

quote:

quote:

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

I don't understand all this. Prob best not to isn't it?

Jay

There was never even a suggestion that Maori did have title to the foreshore and seabed - only a decision that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims based on Aboriginal title (not a Treaty of Waitangi issue but based on international law centuries older) and a finding on the meaning of "seabed".

The honour of the Crown is the beginning of government - all else proceeds from this. That an interested party's access to the courts was denied based on a flimsy and populist idea that NZers would be stopped from going to the beach has cut away some of the moral claim to rule that the government enjoyed up to that point.

Not only that, but in my view the proper separation of powers was affected as interested parties have had their right to subject the Executive's actions to review removed.

In the history of dealings between the Crown and Maori (Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) the reasonableness, patience and understanding of Maori is as consistent as the underhandedness, corruption and venality of the Crown.

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

quote:

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

Theft of what?
When?
By whom?

Cheers

Don

Don

I sorry but I can't give a brief answer and do justice to the subject. More than 150 years of history would need to be recounted. However, just one example of the theft is the deal that was struck between the colonists and the local Maori who owned the land that the colonists needed for settlements. A deal was struck in which a tenth of the land would be set aside for ownership by the local Maori so that they would have a future stake in the wealth that might be created. The "tenths" agreement was never honoured.

Here are some excerpts from the Crown's apology to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu:

The Crown acknowledges that it acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with Ngāi Tahu in the purchases of Ngāi Tahu land. The Crown further acknowledges that in relation to the deeds of purchase it has failed in most material respects to honour its obligations to Ngāi Tahu as its Treaty partner, while it also failed to set aside adequate lands for Ngāi Tahu use, and to provide adequate economic and social resources for Ngāi Tahu.

...The Crown recognises that it has failed to act towards Ngāi Tahu reasonably and with the utmost good faith in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.

...The Crown recognises that Ngāi Tahu has been consistently loyal to the Crown, and that the tribe has honoured its obligations and responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi and duties as citizens of the nation...

My own history in this country goes back to 1841 when my ancestor, Earl White Foreman, landed in New Plymouth with his family. The further I look into the history of my country the less proud I am to be a white New Zealander.

Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

I seriously doubt it. Your point?

The further I look into the history of my country the less proud I am to be a white New Zealander

Deane,

Thank you for outlining the general issue.

I assume that the answers to my actual questions are

Land and its resources (you break an agreement etc but I don't think you can steal it)
about 150 years ago
white people from Europe

I don't know why you torment yourself over this issue. Same applies to all the ex European colonies and the decendants from the first European settlers and subsequent waves of European and Asian imigrants.

In VERY simple terms....

We can't put the clock back. And if you could, where would you stop it, and why.

Eurasia is full of intermixed people and societies. We don't fully know how and where the hunter/gatherers spread throughout Eurasia but we know some of them migrated to Australia, then more recently America and Polynesia and very recently, on to New Zealand.

Eurasia has been shaped by the invention of farming, war, alliances, broken promises....you name it. We can't put the clock back. We try to live with it.

The subsequent expansion of European farmers during the past 500 years to America and Australasia was simply a continuation of 'civilisation' as it had developed during the previous 10,000 years - survival of the fittest - and bloody cruel.

We also know that none of these first emigrant groups of Aboriginies, North American Indians, South American Indians, Poynesians, (including those who eventually found New Zealand about 1,000 years ago), were able to farm succesfully and we know they had the odd squable amongst themselves over land and resoures.

They simply weren't able to withstand the recent impact of European farming. And in my view, they had no more right to the land than the invading Europeans. As I said above - survival of the fittest in an evolving world, and they weren't all 'goody-goodies' amongst themselves.

If (and its a big if) but, if we are going to compensate 'First Nation' poeple around the world, then (from a purely selfish point of view) I propose that we start with England getting compensation from Rome (Italy can help out), Denmark, and France etc.........

Then I suggest we ensure that Spain (mainly) compensates the South American Indians, followed by the Moguls compensating the earlier population of India, whom they exploited...

Nah, let's just recognise where we are, and muddle through.

Although I am open to sensible and practical suggestions

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

I seriously doubt it. Your point?

I find it interesting. The thread is clearly "labelled", so its contents will hardly come as any surprise (unlike Fritz's which are always surprising, albeit in an increasingly enjoyable way).
I was in Tasmania once, a place where the local indigenous population was - I understand - completely wiped out by the colonisers. This fact, and similar, were stated baldly and almost accusatively, to me as "And the Poms did this", "the English did that" and so on.
By people whose great grandparents had "done" it...

I'm not familiar with NZ politics, but I am curiously heartened that you have Maori MPs. Thanks for the insights.

Despite being strangely well informed going into this election (because I work from home and am fed a constant diet of politics by the National program's "morning report" and then the highly political Linda Clark) my voting motivations are largely based (like most NZ'ers) on my gut.

1) I'm sick of Helen Clark. She has got far too big for her boots and she has horrible teeth. Helen's demeanor is largely representative of the arrogance of her colleagues.

2) Don Brash seems like a nice man but he's too desperate and do we really want a nutty professor for PM ?

3) I usually vote National but it seems to me that a vote for National this time would be like handing the keys over to someone without a driver's license.

4) I'm sick of Cullen.

5) The idea of wiping out interest on student loans is mental. If I was student and was offered this deal would take out a very big loan and then wait until inflation made it into a very small one.

5) John Key is a big tosser.

6) Winston only exists to win elections. What else does he do ?

7) The major parties seem to have commandeered most of the good ideas from the minor parties and in doing so have made them somewhat redundant.

8) The lolly scramble that we are being enticed with makes me very worried. We have just had a graphic demonstration of what happens when the gulf between the haves and have-nots gets too deep. I would prefer to live in a country full of happy people than have more cash in the bank, so I would vote for the major party who promised more money on health, education, police etc, but there isn't one.

My prediction is that Winston's muck-raking will bear fruit and that he will form an alliance with Don and Dunne and (if they get through) Rodney and the Maori party.

Minky

Point 6 is brilliantly concise and describes a classic demagogue. Made me laugh too.

Linda is good but I do miss Kim.

Deane

Don

I can understand, if not exactly sympathise, with many of your points. But the colonisation of New Zealand was not achieved by conquest but by negotiation - and the "invading" party volunteered a willingness to be lawful and reasonable to the peoples already in New Zealand before colonisation even began. This is despite the (orthodox) view of this country being subject to the doctrine of terra nullius, (or unpeopled) according to international law, before the arrival of Europeans.

But the British Crown entered into a Treaty with Maori (some say because they couldn't beat them by fighting with them) and then almost entirely disregarded it after it was signed.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
There was never even a suggestion that Maori did have title to the foreshore and seabed - only a decision that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims based on Aboriginal title (not a Treaty of Waitangi issue but based on international law centuries older) and a finding on the meaning of "seabed".

The honour of the Crown is the beginning of government - all else proceeds from this. That an interested party's access to the courts was denied based on a flimsy and populist idea that NZers would be stopped from going to the beach has cut away some of the moral claim to rule that the government enjoyed up to that point.

Not only that, but in my view the proper separation of powers was affected as interested parties have had their right to subject the Executive's actions to review removed.

In the history of dealings between the Crown and Maori (Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) the reasonableness, patience and understanding of Maori is as consistent as the underhandedness, corruption and venality of the Crown.

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

Hi Deane

Thanks for that. Appreciate the trouble you've gone to bring me up to speed.

Jay

Deane

How many people (Maori?)lost out in the $600million settlement v $20bn 'theft'?

and how many people (other Maori?) were not covered by that settlement

Cheers

Don

Party vote and local vote? How does this work then?

Steve

Don

Here is a link to Ngai Tahu's website.

Sorry, but your question is too strange to answer.

Ngai Tahu is but one Iwi (tribe) that has historical grievances against the Crown but they are one that has reached a settlement and received compensation which each party freely admits is a mere token. If you feel that my use of the word "theft" is innapropriate then I beg that you allow me to change it to "misappropriation" or "fraud" or "rort" - take your pick.


Steve

We have a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system in New Zealand and each voter has two votes at each General Election. One vote is for the local candidate for that voter's electorate and the other is a vote purely for a political party. There are more seats in parliament than there are local candidates. These seats are filled from a ranked list of candidates that each party determines and publishes before the election. According to the proportion of the vote that each party receives from the party vote list members are assigned to seats in parliament - but their party must win more than 5 percent of the party vote or get a candidate elected to a local seat to receive an allocation of seats based on the proportion of the party vote.

Here is the official site - I found it a bit cheerful and patronising though, I'm afraid.

New Zealand reformed its electoral system from the traditional first past the post (FPP) system to MMP in 1996 after a referendum held at the previous General Election. It has effectively reformed parliament as minor parties are now able to win seats and have held the balance of power through coalitions with major parties in every election since MMP was introduced. It is still possible, though, for a party to win an absolute majority.

Oh, and the parliamentary term in New Zealand is three years.

Deane

quote:

Sorry, but your question is too strange to answer.

Let me put it another way....

How many people would have shared in the $20bn settlement of the broken promise?

and what proportion of the Maori population does this represent?

Meanwhile, thanks for the link. A brief look left me wondering whether I was reading about a corporation/company or a tribe. But i wasn't able to find a statement of their purpose, which I presume is to persue the Crown (New Zealand Government?) to honour the 150 year old promise? nor was I able to find details of this promise. I presume its in the company charter?

I don't have my dictionary to hand so I shall have to look up 'indigenous' tomorrow.

Cheers

Don

Don

Sorry, but this is going to be a long answer. I hope it actually does address your question. My apologies if you persist to the end and it doesn't.

I'm not sure of the proportion of the population that the Ngai Tahu (pronounced sort of like "nigh tarhoo") people represent but to answer your questions I will have to depart from certain misuses of words to which I have resorted for the sake of ease.

The word "Maori" is a catch-all phrase but really there is no such thing as "The Maori People" except in the imagination (but even this statement is not quite true) - and there never was such a thing as Maori in colonial times. The structure of Maori society is Iwi, Hapu and Whanau - and all are rooted to a geographical region. Whanau is the family unit and can be small or large, extended or not. Together, many Whanau together make up a Hapu which is a grouping of families - and many Hapu together make up an Iwi. The shorthand for an Iwi is "tribe" but this term in its popular conception does not do justice to the shades of Maori societal structure. *All* people who claim status as members of Ngai Tahu are able to demonstrate genealogical links to Ngai Tahu. This is known as "whakapapa" and means more than just genealogy but also a that the person has a sense of things Ngai Tahu.

So the Ngai Tahu Iwi is an umbrella term for the indigenous people of a certain area in New Zealand - that being almost all of the South Island of New Zealand in the case of Ngai Tahu. Within Ngai Tahu there will be Hapu and groups of Hapu (made up of individual Whanau). But all people who are members of these Hapu will identify as Ngai Tahu. But I am being too absolute about it as not all people who identify as Maori feel strong links to their peoples and places of origin. It's a difficult thing to explain.

So, if you like, the Iwi of Ngai Tahu is the tribe associated with the South Island of New Zealand. It was Ngai Tahu that owned the South Island before the settlers arrived.

The link was to the website of the Runanga of Ngai Tahu which is, as you quite rightly inferred, almost like a corporation. During the settlement process through the Waitangi Tribunal (which was set up to hear historical grievances and recommend settlement if it found merit) it was required that if a Hapu or Iwi bought a claim to the Tribunal then they demonstrate a mandate to do so and also that that they had a governing body.

Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu acts like a corporation in some respects but like a social agency in other respects. Actually, it is part of their structure that the corporate side of the Runanga MUST serve the social side and, IIRC, 50 percent of the proceeds of the corporate side of the Runanga is necessarily put back into the social side.

Ngai Tahu have settled their historical grievances with the Crown for all time. Both parties reached an agreement and Ngai Tahu accepted that the Crown could not undo what was done and could not return all that had been taken. They accepted the amends that were made and the terms of the settlement - of which only a portion (1/3rd ?) was cold hard cash. So their purpose is not to persue the Crown but to advance the cause of Ngai Tahu Iwi, Hapu and Whanau.

There have been many settlements with other Iwi and Hapu but there are many yet to be heard. But if you can be bothered go to http://www.google.co.nz and select to search New Zealand pages try Tainui and Ngati Porou. I'm pretty sure that Tainui have a website and certain that Ngati Porou do.

Sorry for the long winded reply. It would be forgiveable if I was telling you how to overhaul an LP12...

Deane

quote:

Let me put it another way....

How many people would have shared in the $20bn settlement of the broken promise?

and what proportion of the Maori population does this represent?

Deane, I can't see anything complicated with the above 2 questions. Approximate numbers would be ok. eg 500,000 Ngai Tahu would have shared in the $20bn settlement and there are 2,000,000 'Maori' in New Zealand. [obviously my figures are ficticious]

I had a quick look at "indigenous"..... = 'native'... 'belonging to the land' ....

I think we misuse this word a lot. We often really mean "first group of people to occupy the land"

The word "ownership" (of land) adds to the confusion.

As does "ownership of natural resources" eg does it extend to the oil beneath the surface that the first occupiers knew nothing about and had no use for (eg First Nation in America) but which the second, and more dominant, occupiers subsequently found a use for?

Plenty of opportunity for manipulation....

Cheers

Don

Don

Sorry, I should have added that I am looking into the answers to your questions before I post. From memory though, I think the proportion of the population of NZ that identify as Maori is roughly 10 percent. I'm not sure how many people claim Ngai Tahu rights though - I'm looking into it but I have misplaced my notes (I may just have thrown them out bugger it).

The word "indigenous" is no more open to misuse or prone to confusion than any other word or phrase that might replace it, surely?

The ideas of occupation, ownership, stewardship, or title to land/resource is certainly confused, I quite agree - but to me the point is that each society has developed some system to sort it out amongst themselves - and each society is willing and usually quite practiced at going to war over it too.

Whether or not the Maori are aboriginal or indigenous is, I believe, beside the point. The ownership of land in New Zealand was subject to a complex system of ownership, conquest and occupation long before the arrival of Europeans. Indeed, it was observed by an early historian that at the time of the arrival of the first Europeans there was not a valley, tree, rock or stream in this country that was not known and that was not subject to certainty of ownership and rights of use according to customary law.

Deane

Don

The $20bn has been lost to generations of Ngai Tahu people and is a figure that speaks only to the loss of property. There was never a suggestion that a $20bn settlement could or should be made but it is certain that the position of Ngai Tahu people in modern New Zealand would be better than it was at the date of settlement if the agreements had been honoured.

Deane

Deane,

My knowledge of New Zealand is limited. However, my school-day recollection of the Maori in general, is that they were a pretty aggresive bunch. The usual illustration is some attrocity that 900 of them carried out on the Chatham Islands when they slaughtered the Moriori population. (ok, so the Europeans stood by and watched....)

Now, New Zealand is a long ways from here, so you will no doubt sort your own problems out and live with your own conscions. For my money, I wouldn't loose too much sleep over what the European settlers of 150 years ago did, or the treaties that have since been broken but eventually resolved.

By all means let's learn from our history, but let's not torture ourselves too much either.

The main thing is, to ensure that today, everyone has an equal opportunity.

Canada hands out $25k per First Nation person on their 18th birthday (plenty of opportunity for people to correct me on this one....) and in my opinion this doesn't work.

To my mind, too many 'indigenous' people are looking for the easy life, or an unrealistic return to the pre-European way of life. Its over. Keep the history, some of the traditions (I presume that most of us would object to traditions of ritual sacrifice and the Maori tradition of keeping the Moriori caged up as food on the hoof??), but move on.

Cheers

Don