Viewpoints
Tuku Morgan voices his opinion that:
“The Government’s denial of Maori representation on the Auckland Super City Council is a stark sign of the lowly status accorded to Maori in New Zealand.”
It strike me that one could view this the other way round as well – that National and Act think well enough of Maori that they think they can stand on their own feet without the prop of racially allocated seats. In other words it is a stark sign that New Zealanders in general now regard Maori as “part of us” rather than “poor, victimised brown people”.
While I agree that the treaty of Waitangi would dictate that Maori should have adequate input into all levels of government, guaranteeing seats at all levels of government would seem to be a very poor way of doing it. Even in parliament, the Maori party represent a very small bloc of seats that Key could easily have ignored completely, in the same way Clark did with the “last cab off the rank” (probably the most poisonous racist remark I have ever heard in New Zealand). Essentially the provision of seats only has significance in a balance of power situation, or when the “white” party is interested in dialogue. This means that the entrenchment of partnership envisaged by the treaty is not achieved by guaranteed seats but by (surprise, surprise!) willing participation on both sides.
To my mind, so far, National has upped the ante in treaty participation by saying to Maori “we want you to walk along side us – as part of us” as opposed to “here are your guaranteed seats – now be quiet and don’t annoy us”. Not guaranteeing Maori seats in the New Auckland council, is not denying representation, it is allowing Maori to stand candidates who will appeal across the spectrum of voters.
Frankly, if you don’t believe that Maori have such people then you really are a racist, no matter what your skin colour.
Related posts:
- Bad Reason for a Bad Idea Garth George broaches the issue of Maori seats in local...
- And Seats For All… I guess it was only a matter of time before...
- An alternative to MMP John Key has promised a referendum on MPP at the...
- Political Stability Turns out that I was right about the Left-wing blogs...
- Big Auckland I have been silent on the whole Auckland “Supercity” debate...
Aug 31 09 7:06 pm
Well-said- as usual!
Aug 31 09 7:33 pm
Where in the Treaty does it mention “partnership”?
kg´s last blog ..Aussie politician lost in mountains.
Aug 31 09 8:38 pm
Kg: Where in the Treaty does it mention “partnership”?
You would know better than I that neither the English, nor the Maori version of the treaty contains the word “partnership”. But just as the Bible does not contain the word “Trinity”, the lack of the word does not preclude it’s importance. While the English version of the treaty is clearly a document of subjugation, the Maori version conveys a sense of equality between the crown and the tribal leaders that can only be described as partnership.
This is the consensus view of historians (if not right-wing bloggers!) and history is usually interpreted by consensus, unlike science (IPCC, please note!).
Aug 31 09 9:57 pm
Leaving aside for the moment the question of the Littlewood Treaty- which some people maintain is the original- the consensus view of historians isn’t necessarily an accurate representation. Historians who get quoted in NZ and whose views are taught as holy writ tend to be leftist academics and there’s no great tradition of honesty or accuracy from that quarter. (Hobsbawm, anyone?)
The consensus view of historians in Australia regarding the history of Aboriginal/European interaction turned out to be little more than a pack of lies and half-truths, as Keith Windschuttle proved.
Further, only some Maori chiefs signed the document and far from being a ‘document of subjugation’ it guaranteed their rights to their traditional hunting and fishing grounds and conferred on them the same rights and protections as British subjects under the Crown.
Hardly “subjugation”.
kg´s last blog ..Aussie politician lost in mountains.
Aug 31 09 10:00 pm
(since academics in certain disciplines tend to be overwhelmingly of a leftist bent a consensus view in those fields is little more than socialist groupspeak anyway)
kg´s last blog ..Aussie politician lost in mountains.
Aug 31 09 10:16 pm
Kg:
Be fair. I didn’t say that a consensus of historians was the truth, merely that consensus is how historians arrive at their version of history. This is precisely why history, despite being something that actually happened, appears so fluids.
While the current consensus is that the treaty can be viewed as a partnership document, I think that that is how we should accept it, rather than try and second guess the historians.
I grant you that the bulk of academic historians leans somewhat to the left, but, in this case, I don’t have any problem with the idea of partnership as long as it assumes we are both on equal footing. My point is that Maori seats do not assume this. Race-based seats assume that Maori are somehow inferior and cannot stand on their own without our (white) help. Call me cynical if you like, but that sounds pretty racist and patronising to me.
Perhaps subjugation was too strong a word. By It, I meant that they were to subject themselves to the crown, rather than the connotation of conquest. My understanding is that they did this not as a defeated people, in which case the feeling of partnership is much stronger, even in the English wording.
Additional: You’ve probably noticed that I tend to take a rather sanguine view of history.
Aug 31 09 10:25 pm
I take your point MacDoc. And I have no problem with the idea of partnership at all, except where Maori tend to use it as it suits them and ignore the concomitant obligation–that of responsibility.
The whole kerfuffle over Maori seats is baffling to me–if Maori regard themselves as being in all ways equal, then why cannot they simply vote for their candidate of choice? The only possible conclusion is that they seek some special advantage based purely on race.
Which I guess is the point you were making.
kg´s last blog ..Aussie politician lost in mountains.
Indeed, it was…
Sep 1 09 10:31 am
My thoughts exactly Macdoctor.
When I was growing up the Maori kids at my school were just as smart, capable and hard working as we were. I’m not sure when they ‘lost’ these abilities and became dumber,less able and in need of ‘special’ treatment.
Sep 1 09 11:13 am
They didn’t become less able Lucy–they learned how to game a system which treats them as though they are and is willing to throw money at them to ‘fix’ it.
kg´s last blog ..BESLAN -lest we forget
Sep 1 09 6:32 pm
It was a sarcastic question kg
Sep 3 09 11:20 pm
Frankly, if you don’t believe that Maori have such people then you really are a racist, no matter what your skin colour.Not at all. You simply have to believe that a) Maori (or some other group) should be represented in parliament, and b) that the current electoral system prevents their representation.
For example – and for the sake of this argument, I’ll phrase it in terms of classic FPP electoral system, where each seat has the same population, so the areas of each seat vary greatly.
So lets say there are a few highly productive farmers in each electorate, who would vote for a farmers’ party. Unfortunately they will be outvoted by unproductive civil servants and beneficiaries from the towns who greatly outnumber them in every electorate, so they would never be represented in parliament. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the farmers, but everything to do with the attitudes of the beneficiaries
In the same way, the capabilities of Maori simply don’t matter if the vast majority of the electorate will not elect them!
Now NZ’s recent history includes at least one Maori Deputy PM and Treasurer, so arguably many Kiwis will vote for at least Maori. But still, in a situation where some group – Maori, Women, Farmers, Bishops, are under-represented, and where that is thought to be a problem, them reserved seats may be one solution to the problem. In an proportional / MMP-style environment, lowering the threshold for certain kinds of parties might be another solution. For the farmers, example, going to a geographically proportional system, where all electorates are the same size – can work very well indeed.