Discussion: Regarding Auckland

318 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 13 Newer→ Last

  • Matthew Poole,

    This is why it is crucial that when people make Aotearoa their home they are educated on bi-culturalism and the role of Te Tiriti in our society.

    You mean like the fourth-generation kids from the Chinese workers who came here at the start of the 20th Century? Or the third-generation Tongans whose parents survived the dawn raids? The children of Navtej Singh, maybe?

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    Matthew: how about that because they have been here longer than anyone else (as you reminded us) that it is rudely rebellious of the subsequent arrivals to force their governmance structure onto Maori, and should, really, count ourselves lucky to be consulted by Maori on anything at all?

    Which is not so much about history, so much as simply acknowledging the order in which things happen.

    And also: Maori governmance can - at its best - accommodate a much wider diversity and subtlety of opinion than the honky version.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    Giovanni and Roger

    What legal obligation do TLAs have to honour the treaty? Untold moral obligations. But legal?

    Arguably, the more influence central government exerts on TLAs, the stronger the obligation becomes?

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    At some point, "history" stops being an adequate answer. 170 years is a long time.

    It's really, really not.

    I'm getting a very weird whiff of something at the moment. Something like... Orewa.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    James, it's not bringing in Maori governance, though. It was also not an either/or proposition to vote for the Maori seats or for the at-large seats. It was both. Making voters on the Maori roll (which is only about 60% of eligible voters) more equal than everyone else, who would only get to vote on the at-large councillors plus their local candidate.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Roger,

    James...

    Local Government Act 2002
    4 Treaty of Waitangi - In order to recognise and respect the Crown's responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Maori in local authority decision-making processes.

    So councils have a legal responsibility to respect the GOVERNMENT'S obligations, take account of Treaty principles and include Maori in decision making process. As well as a raft of other obligations flowing from other law.

    But beyond all that we are two partners in an agreement and we all have a moral obligation to respect it, in all that we do.

    Hamilton • Since Jun 2007 • 179 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    The Mighty Helen has just left The House. I need a hanky scuse me...sniff sniff

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Heather Hapeta,

    if auckland becomes a super city and all the power that follows, will it end up with the elected mayor not only controlling that area but all of nz .
    will the auckland tail wag the New Zealand dog? hope not as 3/4 of nzers dont live there!

    New Zealand • Since Mar 2009 • 9 posts Report Reply

  • Heather Hapeta,

    i agree she did a great job in NZ and will do NZ proud overseas too

    New Zealand • Since Mar 2009 • 9 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I'm glad others have picked up the point that Maori representation is about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, not about "ethnicity".

    Asians, Niueans and everyone else are catered for via the Crown side of Te Tiriti. i.e. the Crown is their representative, but the Crown can not represent Maori - Maori need to do that themselves, hence the requirement for appropriate levels of representation in all levels of government.

    I'm open to correction by those more consitutionally aware, but my understanding is that Maori are actually represented on both sides of the deal once it was signed - which accounts for some like Mr Littlewood feeling like Maori are getting two bites at the cherry.

    Given the widespread welching on the Treaty by my Pakeha forebears, it seems more than a bit churlish to whinge about token governance arrangements that recognise what they actually signed up to. Especially in Auckland where iwi have been very generous hosts over the years.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    You mean like the fourth-generation kids from the Chinese workers who came here at the start of the 20th Century? Or the third-generation Tongans whose parents survived the dawn raids? The children of Navtej Singh, maybe?

    Yep, everyone in fact.

    Look, we've done monocultural governance to death . It has delivered Maori to the bottom rank in a raft of negative stats, and to say that the answer is more monoculturalism* is either at variance with reality, or disingenuous.

    How about we try bi-culturalism for, say 170 years, and then see what we think ?

    * While our society is multiethnic, our governance institutions are rooted in a monoculture (that of Britain). Representatives from different ethnic backgrounds does not change the structures, so does not equate to multiculturalism

    Bi-culturalism attempts to bring both Maori and British governance cultures together. From this perspective, we aren't multicultural (but we are multiethnic). And we can't get to multiculturalism (even if this was possible or desired) without first implementing bi-culturalism.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Off to fund a Mikaere Curtis fangroup on Facebook. Be back later.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Sorry, meant Mr Poole.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    This article sums up more clearly why I'm so uneasy about the Maori seats as they were proposed, including things of which I was only peripherally aware.

    The biggest problem with the entire proposal is that it's geared toward getting rich people into power. That's no less applicable to the proposed Maori seats, which could easily be hijacked by a person of the "correct" political leanings, riding on the same ticket as the rest of the anointed persons. The only seat that would be immune would've been the Mana Whenua seat, and 1/23 may as well not exist at all for all the good it'd do in advancing Maori concerns. Am I that cynical about the process? In a word, yes.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Actually I meant both. Tired.

    Matthew, thanks for the link. I think the Aussie author may not be familiar with the Treaty layer which goes beyond the general indigenous rights he mentions.

    I'm not claiming for a second that the proposed arrangements were as good as they could be, but just removing them as our pale pollies did yesterday is inexcusable.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    The biggest problem with the entire proposal is that it's geared toward getting rich people into power.

    I think that too Matthew. It was noted in Parliament tonight also.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Mikaere, if we want a bi-cultural governance structure (and I know only enough about traditional Maori models to know that it's something we should at least try) it's not going to be achieved by dumping three Maori into a sea of, very likely, white men. They'll be tied into the same processes and failed mechanisms that we've been using for the last 170 years. Worse, they'll be co-opted, with the old boys pointing to their token non-honky colleagues and talking about how Maori are included in the process.

    The lack of consultation on how to do the governance model sucks, it really does. It's a "jobs for the boys" system, and the boys will be quite happy to ignore dissenting voices. Dropping the Maori seats ain't changing a thing about the outcomes, much as the outrage from the Maori Party and others pretends otherwise.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    I think the Aussie author may not be familiar with the Treaty layer which goes beyond the general indigenous rights he mentions.

    The Aussie author is Ngāti Kahu, actually. Born and bred and educated in Aotearoa.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Oh. Then he's ignoring one of the key arguments, surely.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Oh. Then he's ignoring one of the key arguments, surely.

    I wouldn't say 'ignoring', actually. He's making a pretty sophisticated case for the right to representation being tied to manua whenua status as opposed to race, a point which has been raised in this very thread. He's not saying that there shouldn't be guaranteed Maori representation, on the contrary, he just has issue with the particular modalities that the royal commission has suggested.

    O'Sullivan is working on a book to be entitled From Bi-Culturalism to Self Determination. Ought to be an interesting read.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I'm just saying the right to representation comes directly from the Treaty without needing to make any sophisticated arguments. Same not so true in Australia, Canada, etc.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I don't disagree with Mr O'Sullivan's conclusions about the way the three seats were constituted, but I'd be interested in hearing what Ngati Whatua, Tainui, and other mana whenua had to say.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Don't know if anyone already linked to this at Scoop, but here's John Key today betraying his impoverished understanding of both governance and the Treaty relationship. Not the best audio, and it's a few minutes long.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Jan Farr,

    re Don Christie's changing Auck. shoreline map - it seems to me that it turns from a rottweiler to a very silly poodle?

    Carterton • Since Apr 2008 • 395 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    To put it in more corporate terms that Key might understand, there's a big difference between being a member of an advisory board, being a director elected at large, and being a director nominated to protect the interest of a major shareholder. Those shareholders don't rely on at-large election to make sure they have a voice at the table.

    Of course he'd have to start thinking of Maori as co-owners rather than just beneficiaries of our nation's founding MoU.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 13 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.