OnPoint: AIA and Maori Seats
155 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
A scale model of Gate Pa was sent to England War HQ...they kept on attacking entrenched positions (frontal assault after heavy bombardment) all the way to WW1 (and beyond)...where that strategy met the machine gun.
-
Regarding Auckland Airport and its imminent closedown by the Canuck invaders, it's a real problem having all these foreign owned businesses that could shut down at any stage:
We could be left with no banks, newspapers or telephones and be forced to line up for hours at the remaining New World supermarkets and Gasoline Alley servos for food and petrol.
Could happen any moment - better stock up!
-
Che I would be far more interested in your views on soverignty as shown by the Scott Parliment but I'll follow the herring.
You're a bit too harsh on Cameron. 8 hrs artillary bombardment prior to any attack is pleanty of softening up. That Rawiri Puhirake had dug cover from it and built in concelment in the Pa itself to make the Pa their killing ground was brilliance.
In realising this was a trap he had no answer for his decision not to send in more men to die was a rational response.
The greatest defeat sure, but Cameron was simply out smarted not an idoit.
-
no worries. that cameron one is a bit of a moot point. sure, 8 hours bombardment, but a decent general would send in pickets, and not march in column into an crossfire...
sovereignty is a tricky one, mostly based on definition.
i think there's a strong argument that what the scots have is 'self-determination'. the difference being that self-determination is enjoyed *inside* the overall sovereignty of great britain.
sovereignty is effectively a zero-sum game. it's always associated with nation-state status, cannot really be shared, and is guaranteed to split a country.
self-determination within a sovereign state is something a nation like the scots, or maori, could enjoy without upsetting the apple-cart. but what makes this model possible in scotland, quebec, catalonia etc is that they have a clearly-defined territory to tie the self-determination to.
maori don't. so... political theorists aren't sure how to manage it... that said, and potential gerrymander aside, the maori seats are a start and a bit of a case-study in self-determination in comprehensively intermixed national populations.
-
Cheers for that.
We have Disrict Councils with responsibility for land use & Regional Councils with responsbility for Air & Water.
Maybe a similar structure can be created where self-determination, becomes part of this in parralell to Central Govt, operating as an overlay of geography as the Maori seats currnetly do?
-
Shared sovereignty isn't unprecedented: Andorra is such a state, albeit in the framework of a constitutional monarchy.
More appropriately, the South African constitution provides a role for traditional leaders and customary law.
Plus communities overseas often have a lot more devolved power than in NZ. We could maybe follow some of this and allow local communities to control their own policing, for instance.
-
The pa was the prototype for WWI trench systems. With that, and Rutherford laying the foundations for the atomic bomb, kiwi ingenuity killed a *lot* of people in the 20th century!
It took until 1918 for the European military to work out how to overcome entrenched positions (with battle lines stretching from the North Sea to Switzerland, outflanking them was impossible). What finally worked was the "rolling barrage" where the troops advanced just behind highly accurate artillery fire. This minimised the time the defending troops had between being attacked by the artillery and the infrantry and enabled the forces to advance again. Using this technique the Germans advanced first, but ran out of resources before the western allies did.
-
gee carefull - you'll start people thinking that mass transit is a good and useful thing, and that knocking down houses to build roads is dumb...
-
sorry that was a reply to
Rich of Observationz
From: Kelburn, Wellington
Since: Nov 2006
Posts: 539Visit website Send email
ReplyPosted at 7:12PM on 5 Mar 08. Report. Permalink.
Anyway, why doesn't the Government just bite the bullet and nationalise the airports, ports and rail network and tell us what social services are going to be cut to pay for it all? :)
The airports and ports *make* money. The rail network is in public ownership apart from the oepration of freight and tourist trains - and it's quite likely that Toll will collapse and those will need to be bailed out, as well.
Perhaps if they were nationalised, the revenue from the (air)ports could subsidise the rail network. That's pretty much how the New York subway is financed, incidentally.
-
osted at 3:49PM on 6 Mar 08. Report. Permalink.
Regarding Auckland Airport and its imminent closedown by the Canuck invaders, it's a real problem having all these foreign owned businesses that could shut down at any stage:
We could be left with no banks, newspapers or telephones and be forced to line up for hours at the remaining New World supermarkets and Gasoline Alley servos for food and petrol.
Could happen any moment - better stock up!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry don't know how to quote....yep another pearl for privatisation right there- the government or the local government or local trusts shouldn't have anything to the Auckland Savings Bank, the Westpac Trust bank, the ANZ/Postbank, The Bank of New Zealand and the others I neglected to mention....
Why when this sector has been making supernormal profit (I've got Brian Gaynor articles somewhere) and zipping it overseas quick smart, has their been no private sector New Zealand entries to the market?
-
My brother works for one of these Aussie owned banks, and he says it's the Kiwi profits that have been propping up their share price for years.
(Which FYI have dropped significantly in past 2 months due to exposure to US Sub prime fiasco.)If NZ ever had a golden goose it would sell it at a handsome profit because it costs a lot to feed a goose you know. Better to let that chap from overseas buy the goose and then feeding it is his problem. Now we can use all that money to buy Plasma TV's for everyone!!
-
i for one am sick of being an international investor's cash cow... i'm putting all i can into kiwisaver.
re: sovereignty. it is possible. the main hurdle is mainstream fear that maori self-determination is a step towards "separatism".
when you explain that in practice it takes the form of radical ideas like "maori wardens", and, "marae committees" they wonder where the self-determination went, and why all the fuss is being made.
-
Interesting thread. Why does Infratil not seem interested in AIA? They have been investing in similar size airports all over the world. Perhaps the returns on capital are not there.
I can get through Heathrow just as quick as AIA, not sure what everyone is complaining about. It takes a fe minutes to get through security but that is cos nobody wants to pay more not to wait. If you want shit try LAX.
There is n good reason for the govt to go anti foriegn investment, but there is also no good reason for taxpayer funds to be invested outside the country. Domestic investment has a higher total return to New Zealanders because of the GDP multiplier effect.
Based on the shit state and almost complete lack of New Zealand motorways compared to say Hungary there is an awful lot of infrastructure investment required. Auckland to Rotorua/Hamilton motorways followed by Auckland Wellington for starters
-
maori don't. so... political theorists aren't sure how to manage it... that said, and potential gerrymander aside, the maori seats are a start and a bit of a case-study in self-determination in comprehensively intermixed national populations.
Do you think they're a case study in self-determination Che? I think they're interesting, but surely self-determination would mean... I dunno. A separate house which the Maori MPs sat in and which all legislation went through. Or, Maori MPs having control over a Ministry of Maori affairs and its own budget. Or controlling all taxes from Maori and respending it back out for Maori (similar to how some students associations have split it around NZ).
Surely the current Maori seats aren't self-determination, they're just representation?
-
Why does Infratil not seem interested in AIA?
Here's who owns AIA. hmmm
The Top 20 investors own 71% of AIA and of those 20 the Govt and 2 councils own 53% with the other 17 (of the Top 20) owning 18%. So I'd woulda thought there was a fat chance of the deal going through anyway. More so now that the Govt has switched the goal posts.
I'm opposed to foreign ownership/control of key NZ assets, but I'm leaning towards Key's idea that you can sell up to 40%. But that presumes he means 40% in total - I don't want Megacorp International Llc setting up Megacorp NZ Ltd and each owning 40%.
-
thats' the thing. a separate house would be just, too, "big". if you had territorial separation it would work, but new zealand is too interwoven for the scots-style self-determination to work. the intermediating agencies and subsequent issues between the two houses would bloat under bureaucracy, you'd have petty empire-building, blah blah blah.
a freaking nightmare.
plus, it runs contrary to the treaty. because,
article one = "one sovereign". check.
article two = "maori take care of their own". check.
article three = "equal rights under the sovereign" . check.the trouble is determining what interests maori have, how to ensure they are able to exercise their rights over those interests, and how to ensure this doesn't impinge on the rights of the majority as guaranteed under article three.
my own opinion is that smaller is better. things like distinct and targeted maori health care are ideal. they're something owed to everyone (all new zealanders have the right to decent health care), but can be delivered in a "maori way" to maori. self-determination.
then you also need maori education (which we have), a maori economy (which we have, and is growing annually), etc.
it's self-determination without the expensive travel budgets and bloated egos.
the seats fit in because they are the places most likely to return maori representatives to assist in the construction of the agencies.
-
article one = "one sovereign". check.
article two = "maori take care of their own". check.
article three = "equal rights under the sovereign" . check.I think your 3 is a little misleading their Che. Equal rights implies that everyone has the same rights - no more, no less.
That's not what the treaty says - at least the English one, my Maori isn't good enough to work with the Maori one. Article 3 says:
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects
They have all the rights and privileges of British subjects, but the article doesn't limit them to having more rights than that. It doesn't say - you have the equal rights, it says you have all these rights.
Indeed, I would argue that article 2 extends that, offering more rights than those which are given to the rest of us British subjects (hasn't necessarily worked out that way, but anyway).
-
we'd be better bringing a lawyer of some sort into this discussion, but i'm pretty sure than a offer and guarantee of enjoyment of the rights you already enjoy, and also the rights guaranteed as a subject of the crown doesn't mean "more rights than the current subjects of the crown".
article two only extends the right to continuing enjoyment of the rights in that article. article three offers the additional rights of a subject of the crown. they're quite distinct.
but a subject of the crown not enjoying the article two rights doesn't mean they have fewer rights. it just means that they can't remove the rights of maori to their language, property, treasures etc.
as an example. i have dual new zealand and australian citizenship. this means i can enjoy the rights of both jurisdictions. but if you don't have australian citizenship it doesn't mean you're worse off than me.
-
as an example. i have dual new zealand and australian citizenship. this means i can enjoy the rights of both jurisdictions. but if you don't have australian citizenship it doesn't mean you're worse off than me.
Well no, it would make me way better off, as no one could point at me and call me an Aussie and harass me about underarm bowling.
But, to be more sensible, you would have the right to vote in Australia, I wouldn't. So you would have more rights than me.
-
i'm pretty sure than a offer and guarantee of enjoyment of the rights you already enjoy, and also the rights guaranteed as a subject of the crown doesn't mean "more rights than the current subjects of the crown".
I personally wouldn't claim to be sure. But if we have as a baseline, article 3 - Maori and non-Maori have those rights.
If there's anything in article 2 guaranteed to Maori, which isn't covered by article 3 - let's say - undisturbed rights over forests and fisheries.
If that isn't given to them by article 3, and isn't a right of any non-Maori subject of the crown, then surely it must be 'more'? I would have thought that the Treaty process would agree - a lot of treaty claims are surely based in part on part 2, not part 3?
-
HThe Top 20 investors own 71% of AIA and of those 20 the Govt and 2 councils own 53% with the other 17 (of the Top 20) owning 18%
The Govt? Sorry, where did you calculate that from? The New Zealand Central Securities Depository is not the Govt, if that's what you're saying. It's a clearing house - the beneficial owners of AIA are listed below that and mainly made up of foreign funds (e.g. National Nominees is a National Bank of Australia fund and between their direct holding and the NZCSD holding own more than Auckland City Council)
-
Is this a test on who paid attention in 7th form history?
yeh my understanding is that the TRANSLATION DIFFERENCES between Maori and English were a crucial part of the problem. And under international law the valid version of the treaty is the one in the Native language.
however, as I'm sure you are aware the treaty was for a long time considered a 'legal nullity' and English law was applied from a date when Hobson extended a claim over NZ from Sydney. ( I think from memory. Is there anyone who has listened to Jane Kelsey more recently than me??)
It's quite a grey area.
Most of what we refer to as the treaty today is something a little different to a literal interpretation of the words, mostly worked out in common law during the 80s and 90s. Is this correct?
I.E. Winston's favourite the 'principles of the Treaty of Waitangi' which seem to be something like partnership, 'being one tribe' or some such.
-
wot Gareth said, above
</sheepish> Gulp, thanks for clearing that up. Yes, I did jump to a conclusion. But I did pickup on some of the smaller 0.35% shareholdings being for effectively the same companies, which (I hope) validates the second part of my comment:
I'm leaning towards Key's idea that you can sell up to 40%. But that presumes he means 40% in total - I don't want Megacorp International Llc setting up Megacorp NZ Ltd and each owning 40%.
Having said that, I would still prefer KIWISAVER bought 40% of AIA than the Canadian Pension Fund (or Dubai or whomever). And having said that, I'm still foggy on what 'Overseas Investment' brings to the table. Presumably they're just buying existing shares off existing shareholders, it's not like they're issuing new shares to increas capital. It's the existing shareholders who profit, not the actual airport? Or NZ?
-
If that isn't given to them by article 3, and isn't a right of any non-Maori subject of the crown, then surely it must be 'more'?
yeah, i'm still not sure about "more".
if someone owns property, they have a right to unmolested enjoyment of that property. you could say that is "more" rights that you have, because they have something you don't. but it's not "more", it's just their rights.
so maori have rights to "their fisheries", "their forests". this doesn't take anything from you, it just recognises that they have.
again, rights aren't zero-sum. me having, for example, a right to free speech on my part doesn't mean you have less right to one. it's not a pie we're dividing up, it's this airey-fairey defence of what we each own.
-
I'm keen on a second house or some sort of constitutional hold over our elected dictatorship that exists under FPP or a majority MMP Government.
Paul under international law there is not an issue of translation. The Maori version is superior due to the fact it is in the language of the land it was written in.
To me the "legal nullity" and the "principles of TOW" are on a continum as is much of the Treaty discourse of Seattler Govts dealing with Maori. Any payment or return of stolen land is only ever 1-10% of the value of the original loss. This is only setting up future generations to do better than was done now.
Really appreciate the conversation - Cheers guys
Can anyone answer where landcorp land came from?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.