New Zealand? Or the new Australia?

I have now spent some time reading Don Brash's speech from yesterday, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Don Brash doesn't actually understand what he is talking about.

The speech is so deeply flawed that there is no point in rebutting it piece by piece. It would take too long and the problem with it is not the words; after all, as one would expect, it is a well-written text and superficially hangs together quite well.

No. The problem is the frame of mind of the dangerously deluded people who put the speech together.

It is clear that Brash is still trying to dog-whistle his way to power. Unfortunately he is doing so on a range of arguments and ideas that are totally false, but which the public think have been driving Treaty policy for a long time. If you were to sum these up you would say they go something like this:

• Maori culture is just a nice "tack on" and is not worth protecting
• The law and the government treat Maori as first class citizens, and the rest as second-class.
• The law provides for differential treatment of Maori and non-Maori New Zealanders
• The settlement process is divisive.

That is why I liked the comment on FrogBlog yesterday about Brash teaching illusion. The National leader, knowingly or unknowingly, is totally on the wrong track.

Let's try thinking about this in a way that is designed to build a united nation, not to commit cultural assimilation upon Maori. Consider the following statements, which are comments out of Brash's speech, and the obvious responses to them.

"The treaty process is out of control,"

Is it? Major settlements have been made, the focus in Maoridom is moving to issues of development and growth, not grievance, and an end to historic claims is in sight. The process is not out of control. It may need more resources to speed it up, but of course if you're doing mammoth tax cuts you won't have money to make a difference. Far from being divisive, as he has elsewhere alleged, the process has been about healing the past. That is not always comfortable but it does not seek to divide people. It seeks to bring us together.

"race-based political correctness is infecting the institutions of our society,"

This is hard to respond to because it's meaningless. It is a dog whistle aimed at those who whinge about "bloody maaarreees" and then disengage their brains. What has infected our society is an inability to debate issues, and sometimes in Treaty issues as in so many areas, we strive not to cause offence - and thus patronise by mistake. That's not PC, that's just Kiwi paranoia about offending people. I feel it's insulting to people not to be able to have a barney with them. Maybe this is what Brash is talking about.

"we are headed towards a racially divided nation, with two sets of laws and two standards of citizenship."

This is fiction. By recognising the wrongs of the past, and by putting them right, we are removing the grievances that have held Maori back for so long. Nobody can deny a range of services - Maori-language education and broadcasting key among them - have helped Maori out of the terrible place they were by the end of the 1960s.

Even more infuriating, nothing that anybody has done or proposed to do leads to two sets of laws for *anyone*. All New Zealanders are equal under the law. They always have been and they always will be. The question is simply how you recognise the social structures of a different culture in your European-based legal framework; whether you force 'assimilation' (or perhaps more accurately 'cultural genocide') by ignoring that reality or not is up to you, but it's a really, really dumb idea.

"I said that the Treaty did not create a partnership: rather it was the launching pad for the creation of one sovereign nation."

I am reminded of King Canute, ordering the sea away. Events, life, practice, law, politics over the past forty years have firmly established the notion of the partnership at the heart of the Treaty, and at the heart of New Zealand. We have been engaged in a very interesting and important experiment: how do you meld two cultures without abolishing either of them. Don Brash is a throwback to an earlier era, the old assimilationist impulse which wants to abolish any collective sense or reality of Maori social organisation, and reduce all to a European individual basis. He is now at least being up front about this. It is not going to work, because Maori will not wear it.

Were he ever in a position to pursue it, then he will be treading down the path to creating the divided nation he rails against but is constantly striving to create. You cannot deny what actually exists; you cannot bury the past or ignore the hopes and aspirations of 15% of the population. It simply cannot be done - and it simply should not be done.

---

The extracts above are just from Brash's first page. He had three major areas in the speech. He argued treaty settlements are out of control. Clearly they are not and he is wrong. I agree with one of his points: that more resources should be given to OTS and the Tribunal. His stupidly over-optimistic timetable cannot be met and should he happen to win the election, he'll be left with mud on his face.

Second, Treaty references. I have already said I don't think there's a point to waffle fodder statements of that sort in the law. If in acknowledging special partnership matters for public services or related process such references are required, then they should be there. Wiping the Treaty out of the law is part of a cultural project to abolish Maori out of their place in our national life; to relegate them outside mainstream society. That would be shameful, and dangerous. More on that below.

Third, he talks about the "damaging political correctness" issue. Here I will say this: liberal New Zealanders should never shy away from an argument, from seeking to learn, thrash out issues, etc. The cringe I have about Treaty issues is feeling that asking an ignorant question might somehow be seen as offensive; and I get really angry when I see people being called racist simply because they disagree with someone who is Maori. That has happened in a few situations I've seen and it stinks.

Particularly in the public sector, there needs to be much more careful thought about how best to deal with matters Maori. People need an understanding of the language and basics of the culture if they are to be working with Maori; in Canada, you have no hope of working in the public service unless you can speak French and know a lot about the francophone history of Canada. I do not see why requiring the same thing here should be anything other than expected, and ordinary.

---

New Zealand is an amazing country. We have done best of the post-colonial countries in building a generous and fair legal recognition of indigenous rights, social organisation and political aspirations. We have treasured the inheritance we get from the powerful ideas of the Enlightenment, and our European forebears.

We have also come to acknowledge, and to start to treasure, Maoridom. Culture, language, resources, skills, mana, and all the other aspects of the indigenous people in these islands. The interactions between the Maori and later comers is what makes us New Zealand, and not Australia; what makes us New Zealand, and not the United States.

The heart of where and what we are as a nation is more than our place; it is about who we are.

Don Brash has presented voters with a stark choice.

Do they wish to listen to the siren calls of racist dog-whistles; to turn their backs on massive and sustained progress in building what is, arguably, the best country in the world in dealing with these issues?

Or do they wish to tread down a path that relegates the indigenous people of these islands to a sort of historical curiosity, banished to the museum and the marae, trapped without their own language and public institutions - removed from the public life of the nation?

I call the first scenario progress. I call the second scenario assimilation gone mad. It's close to earning the soubriquet 'cultural genocide'.

The second scenario is what National wants. It is wrong. It is immoral. It is backwards. It is the past. It will not work. It is playing with the future of New Zealand for cheap political gain.

The only question remaining is whether a souffle will rise twice. Will voters hook into the seductive wiles of the leader of the Opposition for the second time, and vote to destroy the progress New Zealand has been making? If they do, all I'll say is "buyer beware" - because the consequences will not be good for any one of us.

To restate. Let's have all equal under the law. Let's recognise the partnership at the heart of our nation, continue to build a united nation where we are NOT all forced into conformity, but where our different backgrounds and talents are a source of pride and strength.

Let's keep being New Zealand.

---

Some other interesting comment:

"Assimilation, anyone?" - frogblog
"One law for all New Zealanders" - David Slack
"Ko Singapore Airlines toku Waka" - Tze Ming Mok
"Just making it up" - Russell Brown
"Hori old chestnuts" - Che Tibby
"No place for Maori under National" - Idiot/Savant

Comments

[t selwyn]

The Labour government's very first reaction to the courts saying Maori might have property rights (Foreshore & Seabed) was to confiscate it a la 19th century colonial racists. Sec. 32 of the Act says the method by which Maori lose their property rights is by a Pakeha touching it.

Your entire post is hypocrisy.

[Paul]

Jordan

One of your finest posts to date (and despite what others think, I'm not entirely with you on some of your posts).

The use of Race by 'the don' is possibly the sickest tricks in politics.

T selwyn, you are of course correct except the last line. Whilst Labour created a modern greviance in it's knee jerk reaction to Orewa I, National is quite contemptable in it's actions.

Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand and for that reason only they should have special significance in law, rather than us all feeling good about the new haka.

[dogsbody]

Jordan,

To precis your rather lengthy post: It's fine and noble when Labour argues for equality before the law, but when National does it it amounts to racism.

But what of the Maori Party, which is founded on racial principles? Where is your outrage?

Paul,

- "Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand and for that reason only they should have special significance in law"

Using your racist argument, ethnic asians and africans living in Europe should be discriminated against, on the grounds that they are not indigenous.

[SPC]

Labour's policy is premised on a multi-cultural society which also has a bi-cultural nationhood. This latter aspect reflects continuing recognition of an indigenous people from the time of the "founding document".

National's policy is premised on land compensation ending the indigenous peoples "founding document" status. It is thus of a deliberate attempt to end any chieftainship (which largely expired with the loss of land but which Maori electorate seats in part compensate for).

National fears any practical effect from Maori being recognised as the the "indigenous people". Whereas Labour is able to allow consultation with Maori on the delivery of servies to all New Zealanders (this a compensation for the lack of continuing iwi chieftainship).

Ultimately National is talking the language of assimilation (with Maori identity reduced to one of language and culture and exploited in tourism). This can be understood within the context of an establishment order of rule. Pakeha, business and self reliant tax cut supporting middle income earners. Some mainstream va Maori, wage workers, and public services dependents. It's a very "1960's" National platform - most of the extreme edges are saved for a second term.

As to the foreshore and seabed. Labour's policy was to recognise this as public domain - but by political necessity this became Crown ownership. Maori claims are customary rights (right of use) and commercial title (ownership of used resources) - the latter was lost by court decision back in the 19thC - but which is now in question. But commercial title is not a land ownership title. This is still a matter for the courts.

Appropriate land ownership is "public domain" - Crown ownership suffices in place of this. The whole issue of access to this and the "Chain" is an on-going one.

[dogsbody]

SPC,

So, to be absolutely clear, and to cut through all the verbiage: discrimination based on the colour of someone's skin? Good or bad?

[Russell Brown]

"Sec. 32 of the Act says the method by which Maori lose their property rights is by a Pakeha touching it."

Accepting for a moment your characterisation of it Tim, how much does that differ from the common law test a court would apply? Seriously.

Cheers,
RB

[SPC]

For those who reduce sociological and cultural matters down to the dog whistle sound-bites of talk back radio.

Tony Blair talks of British values being accepted by migrants. Our founding document, refers to three articles, not just one.

Being one of the indigenous people, has never been a matter of skin colour, something even Don Brash recognises. But that point noted, the idea that being Maori is a matter of skin colour is somewhat racist. Sort of like the 1960's tests for being on the Maori roll.

[dogsbody]

SPC,

Any chance of answering the question rather than just posting evasive waffle?

Equality before the law for everyone, or state-enforced racial discrimination?

[Jordan]

Tim - that was a decision with which I disagreed, and find intensely regrettable. I can't change it though. I am not the Labour Party; I cannot be held accountable for what the Labour caucus does in government.

[Mark]

So when Maori Party candidate Hone Harawira says "sending Donna Awatere Huata to jail ahead of her sentencing is proof that the justice system is racist".

So a Maori person is convicted of fraud and the justice system which is based on the same law for all is racist.

So does this mean that under the Maori Party this is really just a Maori person reclaiming what is rightfully their entitlement and not actually fraud.

Why don't we put the Treaty into the Crimes Act with some meaningless statement that not even the courts can decide.

[Insolent Prick]

No, Jordan. You can't have it both ways.

You can't on the one hand criticise National for derailing the gravy train, and then be silent when Trevor Mallard saying that he admits that there have been major excesses in the public sector, and that he doing something about it.

The difference is that National's plan is not just rhetoric: Mallard claims to be pegging things back, but he's not. National means what it says. Labour is no threat to the grievance and social engineering industry; it is a supporter of it.

Your only gripe is that National means what it says when it says it will make New Zealand a just society in which Maori and Pakeha will be treated equally, as opposed to giving preference to one people based on race. Labour says it will do that, but its record of promoting the PC agenda speaks volumes.

So, by all means get cranky that National is honest, and Labour is dishonest. But it's not going to win you mainstream New Zealand.

[SPC]

dogsbody

How can anyone portray the position of the indigenous people, as per the three articles of a founding document, as a matter of skin colour?

Yet you did and it is you, who has since left that field.

Any arrangement between two parties is just that. Why would anyone try and bring race in to the matter? Unless it is, to justify not honouring an agreement? In that, there is perhaps some racism.

[Paul]

Dog

"should be discriminated against".

By acknowledging that Maori are the indigenous people of NZ, we are not asking to discriminate against anyone.

Why is it that the you want to (in the eugenic swagger that 'the don' verged on in several interviews) reduce the arguement to skin colour. That is totally irrelevant, they could be pink and us polka dot, that adds nothing to the debate.

[t selwyn]

Jordan et al.:
You regret the F&S Act, but.. never mind? Well at least it's something... Your acknowledgement of the injustice is a start to a remedy.

RB:
My characterisation is of course a gross generalisation, but is based on fact. The only method by which Maori do not lose their F&S rights under the Act is if navigation rights have been practiced by non-owners in the area. Therefore everything else, ie. physically touching it, is arguable. The awful day when this disgusting scene is played out in court will be upon us soon. eg. "The court finds that the applicant's rights were extinguished when the Pakeha settler-soldier, being a person under sec. 32 who is proven to have not respected the applicant group's authority over the said area, raped the applicant group's members on the foreshore, being an activity consistent with the extinguishment of rights under the Act, further, we find that the massacre of, and the establishment of an encampment to specifically terrorise and supress the applicant group constitute an enduring activity and a substantive break in the use of the area by the applicant group... "

You think this is a sick joke? It's going to be played out in Whakatohea territory when the first of the customary rights cases goes before the courts. It is a nadir of national morality for this country.

What would the common law position have been? Who knows? The clods would of looked at Canadian cases etc. and prattled on about how aboriginals thatb have done things according to their rules in a specific area... blah blah blah. But that's the point - we shouldn't have to refer to other bloody countries and "aboriginals" to work out our own problems. Ask Maori - they know - it's their's after all! Show some respect, some trust. Make some compromises. Come to an agreement.

I have said since DAY ONE (and you can find my point quoted in the original ministerial submission report) that a public right to access, or "right of traverse" as I called it, should apply across "all unfenced or otherwise unenclosed f&s" regardless of what property status the area has. Then after that we can figure out the rest of it.

Then the bastards were putting it through the select committee and I submitted that the Act should be split in two: A Rights of Public Access Act and a Maori Land Confiscation Act, so at least they can be honest about what they are doing and give all parties a chance to vote for the Access Act. But they cut short the hearings and I never got a chance to put my case. Then I got angry...

An Act would have cleared it up and let the courts off the hook - but instead we had a very bad Act passed under ugly circumstances by very desparate people appealing to all the wrong motivations in favour of themselves. The whole thing is a shameful episode that I wish to bring to an end (having failed to prevent it). I hope everyone does whatever they can to have this Act gone by lunchtime :-)

[Jordan]

IP: you live in fantasy land. Again, tell me where Maori are treated differently under the law? It's a fiction in your mind and the mind of many others. That is, it is incorrect. You can get as worked up as you want but that will not alter the facts.

[dogsbody]

Paul,

Compare and contrast these two contradictory statements of yours:

- "Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand and for that reason only they should have special significance in law"

- "By acknowledging that Maori are the indigenous people of NZ, we are not asking to discriminate against anyone."

Hmm. You're going to have to choose, Paul. Racial discrimination or no racial discrimination under law?

Let's imagine that some skin-headed thug in Britain modifies your claim accordingly, and says that "Whites are the indigenous people of Europe and for that reason only they should have special significance in law."

I suspect most people would have a problem with that. But not you, apparently.

SPC,

- "Labour's policy is premised on a multi-cultural society which also has a bi-cultural nationhood."

More racial claptrap.

New Zealand is a nation of four million individuals. End of story.

There is, for example, a growing asian immigrant population and every one of them is entitled to absolutely equal treatment by the state the moment they step off the plane. The idea of reserving parliamentary seats to favoured ethnic groups, for example, should be abhorant to everyone.

Therefore National is right to say that racially-oriented state privileges and programs must be abolished. Labour should be in full agreement. The only thing stopping them is cynical political opportunism.

Incidentally, it was particularly ironic to hear a member of the overtly racist Maori Party label Brash's call for equality as "racist." They are either particularly stupid or they recognise they can only maintain support by dishonestly stoking racial tension.
The only difference between the Maori Party and the National Front is the racial group they purport to champion; yet the Maori Party is treated with respect and deference, whilst the National Front gets the contempt it deserves.

[Paul]

Doggy,

your inability to distinguish between indigenous people with a rich and rewarding cultural heritage, tied to a land in which they were the inhabitors of before mass immigration, is vastly different from trying to establish some modern day groups rights.

IGod, if that is the level of analysis that you are going to bring to this table, then I am done. You can not compare the National Front to the Maori Party, it's like comparing the a business card with a lamington cake, nonsensical and pointless.

If the Maori party get into govt, it's called democracy and they are representing a cultural group of people who happen to be the INDIGENOUS people of THIS country ONLY. Whilst national front people if they ever got in is also called democracy, but they are forwarding the ideals of a philosophy, not a people.

Jesus you post is bullshit from start to finish, and until you recognise race as what it is and not a political ideology, then your post on this topic is meaningless.

Tell me, one example of HOW the MP will affect you directly. I challenge you!!!

Personally, not one single thing they do will affect me individually, but if they represent the wishes of the Maori people and bring improvements for their people, then this country will be better off.

To pretend that these people do not exist as Brash want's to do is complete and utter bullshit.

[Paul]

BTW.

the law differentiates between people at the moment anyway. We distinguish between sexes and ages of people.

But again take up Jordans challenge and show me ONE law where Maori get special treatment over YOU, further to that in anyway shape or form that affects you lot.

[Paulc]

Paul, perhaps I can help, and these examples are just a few I thought of as I read your post;

Special consultation under the RMA, ditto the Local Government Act and the provision for special representation under the same, special provision under the Rating Powers Act.

[Paulc]

The Reseves Act, Land Transport Act, Broadcasting Act ...

[Paul]

And they affect you personally by....

I want to know how they affect you.

Besides Section 179 of the Land Transport Act in which you claim Maori have special treatement, is as follows:

When preparing a regional land transport strategy, a regional council must consult—

(a)Repealed.

(b)Transit; and

(c)the Authority; and

(d)the Commissioner; and

(e)the territorial authorities in the region; and

(f)the adjoining regional councils and territorial authorities; and

(g)the Historic Places Trust of New Zealand; and

(h)land transport users and providers; and

(i)the public in the region; and

(j)the district health boards in the region; and

(k)every affected approved public organisation in the region; and

(l)affected communities; and

(m)Maori of the region; and

(n)the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Maori come in 13th on the list and after everyone else is consulted.

But I can see why are loosing sleep and treating Maori with disrespect over this, harrowing stuff.

[Paulc]

Should have been Land Transport Management Act, have a look at section 18.

How am I personally affected? Well, as I am not a member of the Maori race, I am denied special participation. That's how I am affected.

[Insolent Prick]

Wrong, Paul. Your legislative interpretation is just shoddy.

The list is not in descending order of priority. The clause does not state that the regional council must consult Transit first, and that Transit's view is of paramount importance. It lists all of the groups that a regional council must consult.

What is telling is that the legislation separates "affected communities", "the public", and "Maori of the region". Regional councils must consult with Maori, irrespective of whether Maori are affected by the transport strategy.

It is purely racially divisive, and is politically-correct nonsense that is symptomatic of Treaty clauses being placed willy-nilly.

[Paul]

Do you want/need to participate? Because you clearly can, it's called public submissions.

And section 18 clearly states:

"must do everything reasonably practicable to separately consult Maori affected by any proposed activity that affects or is likely to affect—

(a)Maori land; or

(b)land subject to any Maori claims settlement Act; or

(c)Maori historical, cultural, or spiritual interests."

The problem with that is?

When you have a claim in with the Waitangi Tribunal and some roading issues affect you, then of course you must be consulted.

If land is spiritual to someone, then they should be consulted. this consultation does not automatically deny the project etc from going forward.

It happend in Te Aro in Wellington, the local people were consulted and still shat on for the sake of a a road that will at peak traffic time save 7 minutes across town.

[Paulc]

IP you describe "special participation" well. Maori are required to be consulted regardless of whether they are actually affected by whatever requires them to be consulted.

Paul actually cites a useful example, compare sub-sections (l) and (m).

That is race based preferential treatment.

[dogsbody]

Paul,

All the indignant spluttering in the world won't dig you out of the hole you've dug for yourself, I'm afraid.

You said "your inability to distinguish between indigenous people with a rich and rewarding cultural heritage, tied to a land in which they were the inhabitors of before mass immigration, is vastly different from trying to establish some modern day groups rights."

On the contrary, your ability to tie yourself in knots contriving spurious and patronising differentiators is the issue here.

Just how does the fact that you consider Maori culture to be "rich and rewarding" lead you to conclude they they deserve special privileges over other races? I mean, where's the logic?
Due to geographical factors, it is arguably the case that the European and Asian cultural heritages are significantly richer than that of Maori. Does that mean that Europeans and Asians now get special privileges over Maori instead? You see? You're talking complete nonsense.

Your problem is that you can't see people as individuals, you only see them as racial groups or social classes or whatever. Witness:

- "Personally, not one single thing [the Maori Party] do will affect me individually, but if they represent the wishes of the Maori people and bring improvements for their people, then this country will be better off."

"Their people"? What patronising crap. I mean, it's not like Maori can't engage with political movements which are open to all-comers. No, you'd lump them all together in a single party which you believe could represent "the wishes of the Maori people." Gee, Paul, I'm sure they all appreciate you treating them like retarded children. Is it equally the case that we just need a single "Pakeha Party" to "represent the wishes" of all ethnic Europeans?

- "But again take up Jordans challenge and show me ONE law where Maori get special treatment over YOU"

You mean excluding the reserved Maori seats, the various taxpayer-funded offices and agencies specifically geared towards Maori, the Maori-specific consultation processes etc?

- "To pretend that these people do not exist as Brash want's to do is complete and utter bullshit."

No. To lump people together according to race is the utter bullshit. So please cut it out. You, the National Front, and the so-called Maori Party.

[Paulc]

Well Paul, if it is good enough for a public submission process to be available to me, then surely if we are all equal before this law, it is good enough for Maori to participate through that same process, rather than be mandated a special right of consultation.

[Insolent Prick]

No again, Paul.

The Treaty Clauses require specific consultation with Maori irrespective of whether they are directly affected. Having a "spiritual connection" to land that I do not own does not mean that I should be consulted on it. Why? Because I don't OWN that land.

And you're ignoring the consequence of consultation. It's not consultation at all. It's an excuse to engage in corrupt practises. Those who are "consulted" are often not ordinary Maori: they are an elite few who make a living out of being "consulted". For no other reason than that they happen to have Maori ancestry.

There are 4773 separate references to Maori, involving the treatment of Maori, in all New Zealand legislation. There are no references whatsoever to the separate treatment of non-Maori.

A classic example lies in the first schedule of the First Schedule of the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002, which reads:

(2)For the purposes of this section, a ``good employer'' is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment, including provisions requiring—
(d)recognition of—

(i)the aims and aspirations of Maori; and

(ii)the employment requirements of Maori; and

(iii)the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the Council; and

This is just PC claptrap. It imposes substantial costs on the organisation, and gives licence to insidiously make preferential employment decisions to Maori. The Human Rights Act already outlaws racial discrimination in the workplace; such ridiculous clauses in legislation only allow liberal bureaucrats in Wellington to push their agenda.

[Paul]

IP it is "racially divisive" because you claim it is.

I would say that it is racially inclusive, in that it seeks to consult with Maori.

I still want to know has this meant you are worse off?
Can you still get out of bed and go to work, drink beer and apparently shag chicks, or does consultation with Maori somehow stop you from doing these things.

I can't remember the last time Maori were consulted with in this country which resulted in me being hurt of accected in any way shape or form.

As for PC, give over you pretentious tosser, you're starting to sound like that old lush Winnie Peters.

have a read of this, not that you'll agree with much or anything in it.

http://www.critic.co.nz/showfeature.php?id=2882

[Paulc]

"As for PC, give over you pretentious tosser, you're starting to sound like that old lush Winnie Peters."

Are you beginning to loose the arguement Paul?

[Insolent Prick]

Again, you're wrong, Paul, and coming up with silly arguments.

Legislation requiring consultation with the public already includes Maori. Maori are a sub-set of the public. Maori are not aliens; they are not a different species; they are not animals. They are members of the public. Requiring consultation with the public does not exclude consultation with Maori.

But where there are clauses requiring specific consultation to Maori, in addition to consultation with the public, that suggests that Maori have a special right of consultation. Requiring the Council of the Chartered Professional Engineers to pay specific regard to Maori over and above the needs of the public is a sham.

How does it affect me? Because I pay for this consultation in my taxes. I pay for it as a consumer, when development projects are held up merely because a local Maori hasn't been paid off in the guise of "consultation". I pay for it because it promotes a society in which one group of people are deemed to be more worthy simply because of their ethnicity. I pay for it by living in a racially divided society, created principally by a group of white, middle-aged PC liberals who pander to the interests of a few elite Maori, at the expense of ordinary Maori and other New Zealanders.

And by the way, Paul, I pay for it when my family members, who confess to their Maori heritage, face a society that assumes--in some cases correctly--that the qualifications and opportunities made available to them were based exclusively on their Maori heritage. Those "opportunities" debase the effort required to attain those qualifications, and debase all Maori who access special treatment.

[Paulc]

"I can't remember the last time Maori were consulted with in this country which resulted in me being hurt of accected in any way shape or form."

From that suspect that you have never experienced the cost and frustration caused by that special consultation as a Resource Consent applicant. I have.

[Paulc]

So there you have it Paul. In answer to your original question, racial preference under legislation that exists in this country HAS affected me personally.

Racial preference exists, and it has been soundly demonstrated in this thread that the rest of us are indeed not equal with Maori under law in New Zealand.

And the odd thing is that the arguement of racial inclusiveness has been advanced as an arguement in support of special privilige based on race.

If racial inclusiveness is so desirable, can anyone point out a specific provision in a general Public Act that mandates consultation with Asians, Africans, Polynesians or any other race for that matter?

[Paulc]

Leaving those groups out of special participation is a bit ... err well ... racist isn't it?

[Paul]

With regard to our racist discussion and the personal harm that you have come to as a result of having to readard Maori.

It is ridiclious to say that there are no references to non Maori in legislation. The point of all of our legislation is to dictate how non maori are treated.

For example your most contentious RMA is all about references to non maori, where non maori are presumed to be the norm, hence not named.

Where laws do refer to Maori or Te Tiriti is due to recognition that the norms of non Maori society should not be imposed on Maori.

The real test is how the courts interpret references to Maori and Te Tiriti - overwhelmingly the courts still find in favour of non Maori values and norms.

With reference to your consultation process and the RMA, this statistically puts you in the round about 1% of consents which are affected by consultation with Maori (as upheld by the courts).

(to that I haven't been effect by Maori through the RMA, but stupid bureaucracies - white men in ties and short sleves, that puts me in the 99% of other cases).

Generally speaking, the test of an effective democracy is how well it protects minorities from the tyrany of the majority. What the Gnats are trying to achieve by outvoting a minority takes us back to policies of the 1960's, where assimilation was rampant and NZ was divided racially.

The Maori protests of the 1970s are evidenced of this and the Gnats would like us to go back down this road, as evident by Labour running amock over Maori with FS&SB recently.

[Paul]

IP

with regard to you paying for it with your hard earned taxes.

My family pays tax, and we disagree with much of what our tax dollar is spent on, yet that is the price you pay for living in a SOCIETY and democracy.

[Paulc]

"With reference to your consultation process and the RMA, this statistically puts you in the round about 1% of consents which are affected by consultation with Maori"

Utter bollocks, and just where do you get 1% from? Making up stuff doesn't assist with your arguement. Local authorities are required to turn their minds to these "issues" with every single Resource Consent application. It may be that no issues arise with many, but the fact is that they must turn their minds to cultural and spritiual issues as they relate to Maori every single time. Why else do Councils employ Iwi liasion officers.

But Paul, you have missed the point, these requirements exist and they have an effect on non-Maori, they are privileges not legislated for in favour of anyone othr than Maori, therefore they confer greater rights under New Zealand law upon Maori.

You have moved from denying that this state of affairs exists, to unwittingly furnishing an example of it, to justifying it as some form of "inclusion" (implying Maori were otherwise excluded) to marginalising it by saying it only adversely affects a few.

It exists, it madates greater rights to Maori giving rise to inequality based on race.

National is quite rightly advocating an equality before the law.

What on earth is racist about that?

[Insolent Prick]

Paul, I haven't yet reached a verdict on whether you are downright dishonest, or outrageously stupid.

The argument you put forward was not about how tax dollars are spent. You asked me to specify how I am negatively affected, personally, because of extra costs imposed by Treaty clauses in legislation. I made it clear that I pay extra tax as a result of additional costs on Government, and that those additional costs directly affect me.

Oh, and while you're harping on about tests of democracy, here's a point you might want to consider once you've broken out of your ideological box, Paul. High income earners are a minority who pay through the nose, the vast majority of tax dollars. What are you doing to advocate their protection?

Or are you quite happy to discriminate against hard-working, high-income earning New Zealanders to the point that they bugger off overseas where they get better treatment?

[SPC]

I don't know why having Maori ancestry is something one "confesses" IP.

The reason for consultation of Maori in "the process", is because the indigenous people had certain (resource) rights recognised which went beyond property ownership. Because of the likelihood of indigenous people interest, it is appropriate to specify a role in "the process".

These rights are not based on race, but on promises to iwi and to the indigenous Maori people in general in 1840.

The language and culture can be seen as things belonging to this people and which directly relate to their survival as a people. To regard support for the survival and well being as racial favour, is questionable enough. But to use the claim of racism to justify an undermining of the Treaty is what's called majoritarian cynicism.

Maori have rights under the three articles of the Treaty. Thus the position of the indigenous people, as per the three articles of a founding document, is not one of race but of place.

Any arrangement between two parties is just that. Why would anyone try and bring race in to the matter? Unless it is, to justify not honouring an agreement? In that, there is perhaps some racism.

dogsbody, I don't know of any Asian immigrant who resents the place of Maori as indigenous people here. There may come to have views on what Treaty rights Maori have, or the best way for Maori to progress here, but generally it's Pakeha who seek to use majority power to assert some authority over Maori.

Immigrants would prefer a multi-cultural society, as Pakeha once did a bi-cultural society. Today most support a multi-cultural society. The question is over whether we still regard our nationhood as bi-cultural.

We aspire to integrate migrants into our culture. Well, our culture is based on our nationhood. And our nationhood, is one in relationship to the indigenous people. Thus any attempt, to assimilate Maori into multi-cultural society, is of an attempt to full and final settlement subvert the first two articles of the Treaty.

I doubt that many immigrants, support being used by "mainstream" Pakeha to this end.

[SPC]

I wonder what will happen, when delivery of health and education services to Maori by providers is called racist. Will parochial schools and religious charities, then lose government finance. They are also, not "mainstream" delivery.

Delivery of services through Maori providers (which they could otherwise have received through mainstream providers), is no more special treatment than funding for integrated schools, or part subsidy for private schools.

Resentment against anything, which delivers services to Maori, reflects a tone of intolerance for any sense of privilege to Maori.

The so called privilege, was merely an attempt at redress for the impact on Maori of dispossession of land and breakup of iwi chieftainship.

Delivery of services through urban trusts and regional Maori networks was/is a valid way to integrate Maori into mainstream Pakeha/Crown society. Investment in resourcing and upskilling Maori establishes the background for generational progress.

The decline in unemployment amongst Maori and improved educational attainment, with a cultural revival, business training and development capability and iwi trust fund (land loss compensation) investment resourcing enables them a better future. Given demographic factors, the success of this strategy is important for our economic future.

Concern that the indigenous people are getting help to achieve this, then that this is somehow a race based favouritism, is a litle uncharitable and shortsighted. It's a failure of nerve, by those who somehow fear a resurgent Maori, will acquire some future first class status here others would not have. This is somewhat unlikely and the only real prospect of racial division, comes from those who are making a big deal of offering Maori a hand-up, being of some sort of racism.

The racism was when people lost land because they were Maori, when there was no redress because they were Maori, when there were attempts to assimilate Maori and suppress their culture. Most of us were alive, when this was still happening.

Any "affirmative action", is in one of the most moderate forms anywhere. It is simply
a means of restitution and has been part of our rapproachment. There has actually been little extra help in the delivery of services and support to Maori. Government has focused on the empowerment of their inclusion in the means of advancement. The only check being to ensure equivalent outcomes and to improve mainstream performance in service delivery to Maori
in tandem with this.

As for the land loss compensation - this has been of minor extent when balanced against the true value of the assets lost (and even then only based on land in public ownership and not any of it now in private ownership).

The claims we have paid big time for the actions of long ago (we were still confiscating Maori land in the 1950's /1960's), are farcial. We have got off with a pittance.

I think the whole thing is a laughable over-reaction to a few Maori radicals who talk about Maori sovereignty and writing the Treaty into a constitutional place - and now they have some retreating into some Pakeha mainstream assimilation model of the 1960's. Albeit with greater tolerance, for Maori speaking Maori and continued respect for the tourist dollars, that a little bit of indigenous culture can bring here.

The approach taken has prevented, so far, court litigation in the matters of service delivery to all in accord with iwi/Maori self government terms under the Treaty. Those arguing for an assimilationaist mainstream model, will come up against a judicial roadblock, if they dry up Maori goodwill.

[Paul]

PaulC, sorry buddie but you are wrong. I know for a fact that 1% is the ture and accrate figure.

"Utter bollocks, and just where do you get 1% from?"

All of the published data that is available done by researcher in the field.

A real bugger that you can't be bothered arguing the points of fact.

I guess we'll just have to levave it there, or else all I am doing is arguing with you opinions, and you are allowed them, that fine (we'll never shift each other on them no problem), but facts are facts and for sake of being boring, 1% ONLY of all RMA decisions that are upheld by complaintants are due to Maori.

[Paul]

IP,

Thanks for your kind words, you are of course unable to distinguish between race and economics, which is like comparing apples to NASCAR racing, completely non sensical and meanningless.

Maori are the Indigenous people of this land, a partnership (yes that right a freaking partnership) was signed in the form of Te Tiriti, and ever since we have been breaking that partnership to suit our own needs.

All along Maori have the right as the NATIVE people of this land to consultation and provisions.

I can't answer your attempts to compare rights guaranteed for Maori under Te Tiriti with targetd tax rates, as the answer would go something like this.

Noddy woke up to find an earthquake had eaten his breakfast while the bank bought lamingtons.

[ZenTiger]

Paul, good stirring defence of racist policies. As long as its for the best possible reasons, its all well and good.

Defending racism as a means to an ends, and also capitalism as the way of affording those means reveals a new side to you I hadn't considered.

In the words of Maori Party Party finance spokeman, Monte Ohia, "What we are is Maori. You could describe us as being capitalists with a social conscience - that's who we are in a nustshell"

Well, aren't we all?

[Insolent Prick]

No, Paul.

The Treaty was not a partnership. It was not considered a partnership at the time, and it is fraudulent to consider it a partnership now.

The Treaty was signed to establish several things: British sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840--in order to prevent inevitable annexation by another foreign power; the rights of Maori to have the same privileges of citizenship as British subjects; and the authority and control over both non-Maori and Maori in a country that was falling into increasing disorder. Maori were separated into tribal groupings that had little common interest--non-Maori were settling in New Zealand anyway, and there was no capacity in New Zeaeland prior to the Treaty to control the process of settlement. Why? Because nobody had the legal authority to control that process.

That is the authority that the Treaty established. If a Treaty had not been agreed, then Britain would have annexed New Zealand anyway. It was, at best, a soft means of achieving greater Maori cooperation in gaining British sovereignty over New Zealand.

That is why the Treaty was an important historical document, but has absolutely no relevance to modern-day New Zealand. Attempts by the liberal left to use it to explain away their guilt complexes, by giving greater privileges to Maori than non-Maori, is an abuse, and a disgrace.

And before you claim that Maori were not treated as British subjects, and were discriminated against post-1840, I will agree with you. That did happen. Injustices did occur. They were not, however, breaches of the Treaty, but breaches of British law guaranteeing equal rights to Maori.

Which is why the Treaty settlements process is appropriate, to an extent. Attempts to extend the Treaty Settlements process by imposing Treaty clauses in new legislation are not appropriate.

At Waitangi on February 6, 1840, more than two hundred Maori chiefs signed the Treaty, and each said after signing the document: "We are now one people." Special processes designed to distinguish Maori rights from non-Maori rights run absolutely contrary to the intentions that Maori chiefs had when they signed the Treaty.

[Paul]

Zen, we are almost meeting in the middle somewhere, nice debate buddie.

IP

"absolutely no relevance to modern-day New Zealand"

this is where we will never meet, the day I hear Maori saying that the treat has no significance to them today, then I will agree with both them and you.

But as they are the ones aggrieved and continually aggrieved, they have the right to say whether it is significant to them.

[dogsbody]

Paul,

You are embarrassing everyone, including yourself, with your continued portrayal of Maori in terms little short of the Victorian romantic idea of the noble savage. I'd lay off the Rider Haggard if I were you.

Being a member of a country's indigenous ethnic group does not bestow any privileges. Thus, as I have tried to make clear to you, being an Asian or Black person living in England does not make you a second-class citizen. And please stop those cringe-making efforts to invent qualifiers on the fly, such that these privileges can be asserted for some racial groups but not for others.

A significant cause of tensions today over land is that large areas of it are not owned by individuals but, ostensibly, by ethnic groups (an entirely meaningless concept).

I suggest that all such land become the property of joint stock companies, with ownership of same being distributed amongst the members of the relevant tribes.

Under such a scenario, individual Maori receive the benefit directly of the land ownership and may, if they so choose, sell their shares to whoever they wish. No more nonsense about land being owned by a certain race.

[The Whalerider]

I'm interested in the implied definition of racism that appears in IP's posts. Am I being fair when I interpret your definition as being discrimination based on "race"? I thought that the notion of "race" was slightly out-of-date, and that ethnicity was a more accurate term, taking into account all the shared social and cultural characteristics that make up an ethnic group. As far as I know, "race" implies a catergorisation based on racial phenotype, which is not far away from the charts used in the Deep South last century to identify the superiority of the "White Nation".

Racism, to me, is a combination of ethnic stereotyping and a stuctural power imbalance. I would suggest that Maori are very seldom in the more powerful position.

[SPC]

IP, it is the specific failure of mainstream government, to respect the property rights of all New Zealanders in the case of Maori, which continues the relevance of articles prior to "article 3".

On reading the entire Treaty again, in this light, it is clear that Maori had the right to assert their peoples self preservation against such discrimination. The full Treaty says, we are not one people "unless Maori rights are maintained".

This means that their well-being - in their continunace as the indigenous people with some modicum of contuinued ownership of their property, customs and their self government - is part of their being of our one citizenship. Thus there is a bi-cultural, two peoples in one land of sovereignty, aspect to our nationhood.

As the PM puts it, when we have dealt with past injustice and when Maori consent, then can the Maori seats be discontinued. Until then, they and various means of delivering services to Maori (urban trusts and regional iwi networks) are well within Treaty language criteria. If they deliver a better means to give Maori a hand up, then this means has an added benefit.

Subjecting the Treaty to article 3 meaning is of, orewa your vote ashore mainstream majority politics. This is a means to deny one group their rights, not to defend them.

[SPC]

dogsbody, iwi ownership of land is no different to family ownership of a business or a family trust fund.

To call iwi ownership of assets racist (ignoring the arguement between race and ethnicity in iwi membership based on having some iwi "ancestry"), is as nonsensical as calling inter-generational family trusts racist.

Your advocacy of the public company vehicle as the ideal methodology for asset holding is mere capitalist apologetics. But having said that, expect to hear more of it from Americans demanding our farmer co-ops be formed on a public company basis - this so that foreigners can turn us into tenant famers (as a price for free trade).

If iwi want to establish share ownership forms for ownership for some of their assets, they are free to do so. But I doubt whether they would ever seek to reduce the iwi itself into such a form of being.

[Insolent Prick]

I'm not referring to the settlement of historical injustice, SPC. There is a specific process in place to address genuine historical grievances.

Provision of separate services, and preferential treatment of Maori, is not provided through the official historical grievance settlement process. It is provided by liberal bureaucrats and politicians who are operating to a particular agenda. That has nothing to do with historical settlements, but relieving what are mainly middle-class white liberals of their guilt complexes, and providing a position of privilege to an elite group of Maori, while the majority of Maori receive no benefit whatsoever.

My taxes should not have to pay for the effects of the psychological problems of white liberals.