There are a number of threads to unpick in this article. But the thread not revealed is there has never been a nation, country, constitution or whatever that has succeeded by dividing itself along racial lines. The rhetoric of Te Pāti Māori, the secretive workings of Nanaia Mahuta, Willie Jackson and the last Labour Government to promote He Puapua and the quiet but increasing pushback by kiwis, is leading us to a dangerous place. As soon as we start discussing ourselves as 'Us' and 'Them' the threads of any unity we shared will be unpicked.
We saw it in 1981. It took time to recover after that, but would we be so lucky twice?
The Maori party believes it speaks for all Maori which couldn't be further from the truth......
The only justification for a separate parliament would be if Maori were not being represented. There are currently 33 Maori MP's (27.5% of parliament) so that is not the case.
Our constitution has to ensure that we are all treated the same irrespective of your whakapapa.
You do know how well Maori have been served since 1840 under the catch cry 'one law for all' ? A cursory study of any written expose will clarify the bankrupt nature of your comment
The thing here for me Jarrod, is the question of is parliament working? Is it working for the Maori MP's as representing 'things maori'. Some could be argued as not doing that at all.
And is parliament and legislation with it being driven by minor coalition partners having a huge say and influence......is that parliament working. Is that representing as truth reflected by the gold standard of actual kiwi opinion?
I see no option other than this 'Maori' Parliament because this parliament is winding back positive moves forward for tangata whenua...............maybe tangata whenua means zero again. I know it will be buried deeply for the immigrants who come here having had reasons for leaving around no tangata whenua status where they came from........well the non white ones at least.
I hear what you are saying but if Maori make up 27.5% of the people in parliament, then my first line probably says it all. The Maori Party do not represent all Maori and the same could be said for a Maori parliament.
Its not just Maori who feel they are not represented well by parliament. Do we set up a parliament for the climate cultists as well? Do we set up a parliament for under 25's?Where would it end?
well I spose it just shows that representing most of the people is not always met by the elected. I felt Labour at least tried to. Climate cultist's??? I hope that don't mean what I think you could mean............and that would totally negate your talk around Maori. They have waited and pretty patiently in the face of land being stolen, by war or cunning , using law and dominance..........and now its being ripped away even more, those small gains........I spose even you don't have complete autonomy over your home section, your bought and paid for slice of paradise. I can't blame them for wanting to....in the light of this shite show of a government. I don't hold a lot of hope for a solution that will be good for all........just how long can you stay under the thumb......the dominant culture can't answer that question can they.
You miss the point, people who are passionate and staunch in their beliefs who believe they are not being represented could all have a case for a separate parliament especially with huge issues like the climate.
You have no argument with me on whether land was stolen, thats a given and there is a King in England who sits on a part of the pot of gold people made off that. Not my King....
I'm not sure if you can call Labours actions progress because of the way they went about it. Hepuapua by stealth was not the answer either. Nothing will last unless the goals are agreed. The biggest problem we have is that the treaty has two versions and the interpretations and intentions have been rewritten more than once, including by Maori.
I look forward to a country where Martin Luther Kings vision is achieved. I don't think I will see that in my lifetime either......
I knew that was your original point Jarrod. Cheers.
Interesting the other week with the release of the census figures. % around maori definitely showed a case for a seat at the tepu, or the continued fight for one. Interesting how Goldsmith seems to have no idea why Maori are so highly represented in youth stats, (this was on RNZ) and him pointing out the same situation in adult stats ........re crime. No idea , well nothing he would say or specualte about.......spose all those tangata whenua in parliament will change that....and hey ...wasn't Goldsmith a maori for a while....until he wasn't. Cheers.
Nup. You’re overthinking this, CT. It does seem true that decades of incremental concessions to the makers of the would-be Māori Nation State have given rise to resentment in those who have been excluded from the decision-making. But the resentment and pushback is not exclusive to non-Māori. Plenty of Māori have no truck with the nationalists’s agenda.
The nationalists’s strategy of by-passing engagement with the public to negotiate solely with the Crown has proven wildly successful. They first queered the pitch in their favour by binding the Crown to honouring highly expedient interpretations of the treaty. The Crown now has one arm up its back before it can begin to speak for the public constituency it represents. This is the daily reality for Govt agencies bound to treating iwi as quasi-constitutional partners. The result has been concessions on all fronts - often negotiated in camera - which have advanced the nationalist cause while diminishing the Crown’s authority. Kiwis are thus kept largely ignorant of the growing extent to which their birth rights and belonging here are being eroded. [Take public conservation lands, for instance. These are being progressively alienated from public ownership through confidential treaty settlements, without the Crown consulting the public.]
But back to the proposed Māori parliament… Given nationalist claims that co-governance was only a waypoint to asserting full sovereignty over the country, is it unreasonable to fear an arm-wrestle for sovereignty with the Crown should there be two parliaments? There cannot be two suns in the sky, surely, without one striving to out-muscle the other. Today’s divisive decolonising and indigenising rhetoric certainly foretells such a stand-off. So too do nationalist claims to ownership of all things Kiwi (natural heritage, seabed and foreshore, fisheries, water, air, electro-magnetic waves, minerals, whale-watching, pounamu, hydrogen…. ). No wonder Kiwis are growing increasingly wary of treaty politics and their main players, to the point of becoming less easily persuaded of any merit.
Chris Trotter is quick to dismiss anything he disagrees with as misinformation or disinformation, yet includes here the unattributed quote of boomer cracker settlers, a phrase to be found in a recent column by Martin Bradbury on the Daily Blog.
Agree or disagree, the moves in Te Ao Maori for constitutional justice are NOT about race and never have been. It is about finding the constitutional space for the expression of a different world view and the values, principles and human aspirations of that world view.
Well, I think news men, whatever their flavour, need to start being more specific when referring to Maori and Pakeha. Name the stirrers, movers and shakers within those two categories for a start. It would be helpful to those of us who need to target them in order to sort them out. New Zealanders in general, at large, Pakeha and Maori - really aren't the problem here.
Again as is my/our Gaelic speakers traditions, we would say 'turn a story', 'spin a song' so we learn with another human or experience. In Chris's eloquent account I hear enough of the old ways remain to remind us how everything, every one is connected - there there is that renewed form of energy, of power which works neither over or under another, rather calls me to learn with another, while understanding the boundaried of my beliefs. I sense Chris does acknowledge that Maori have not been well served, rather desimated by the current Parliament system, and seek remembering better socially equitable political systems. If we work forward within a democractic system motivated by the people, this requires courageous conversations such as Chris offers; rethinking democractic participation, representation, the acknowledgment of things Maori, a Maori world, and those multiple legacies of others here. To engage those dominant and resistant to learn to share power, ideas, even explore and question how we/others understand and identify here.
First, let's forget the notion that we have a constitution.
The UN Raconteur attending this year's constitutional conference warned that our country is constitutionally precarious. As we have already seen, our indigenous peoples are indeed mobilising.
A challenge was put to the Supreme Court to establish an authority for Hobson to gazette his proclamation of the British Monarch's sovereignty to govern our nation, already declared independent. They failed to do so. They cannot rely on a treaty because we produced proof it is a broken contract.
Therefore, Maori wields total control of our governance and judicial arrangements.
A constitution has already been drafted and circulated, but the media have chosen to ignore it.
I am only replying to your comment, Mike, in hopes that before contributing further you will take just a little time to read the post. At present your contributions to this site appear to be little more than pretexts for expressing your personal animosity towards the writer and his beliefs. Ironically, your refusal to actually debate the constitutional ideas contained in He Puapua and Matike Mai offers TDP's readers a rather neat proof of the post's central argument. Try addressing the post, Mike, rather than its author. Prove you can do more than mouth slogans and hurl insults.
I know I'm doing just that Chris. And I won't stop calling out writers who present an imbalanced narrative of how Maori have been and continue to be treated since 1840. Is there any wonder that Maori would seek redress of the appalling way they have been and continue to be treated. He Puapua and Mataki Mai are understandable ideas as Maori seek an independent voice in there journey towards equal status under the law and constitution. My ire of posts such as yours is that they are click bait for an already suspicious and in my view frightened public, who are never offered the context or history which has lead Te Pati Maori and other activist groups to seek a more dramatic and permanent solution to their grievances
All that you are exposing, Mike, is your ignorance of the writing I have contributed over four decades on this very subject. At the core of that analysis is the need for Maori and Pakeha to arrive at a common understanding of what happened in this country in the years following contact with Europeans.
That common understanding, a pre-requisite to forging a common future grounded in justice and equality, cannot be forged in the absence of open-ended inquiry and dialogue. The more Maori nationalists hurl tendentious alternative histories at Pakeha, the more Pakeha will hurl them back.
As I noted in the post, revolution from the top has been tried, and it has failed. Maori cannot make a revolution in secret, on their own. Nor can it be imposed by an ideologically-driven Judiciary. Constitutions that are not the product of a democratically-elected constituent assembly, and which remain unratified by referendum, have a very poor record of survival.
As for TPM's "more dramatic and permanent solution" - Spell. It. Out. (If you dare.)
There are a number of threads to unpick in this article. But the thread not revealed is there has never been a nation, country, constitution or whatever that has succeeded by dividing itself along racial lines. The rhetoric of Te Pāti Māori, the secretive workings of Nanaia Mahuta, Willie Jackson and the last Labour Government to promote He Puapua and the quiet but increasing pushback by kiwis, is leading us to a dangerous place. As soon as we start discussing ourselves as 'Us' and 'Them' the threads of any unity we shared will be unpicked.
We saw it in 1981. It took time to recover after that, but would we be so lucky twice?
The Maori party believes it speaks for all Maori which couldn't be further from the truth......
The only justification for a separate parliament would be if Maori were not being represented. There are currently 33 Maori MP's (27.5% of parliament) so that is not the case.
Our constitution has to ensure that we are all treated the same irrespective of your whakapapa.
You do know how well Maori have been served since 1840 under the catch cry 'one law for all' ? A cursory study of any written expose will clarify the bankrupt nature of your comment
The thing here for me Jarrod, is the question of is parliament working? Is it working for the Maori MP's as representing 'things maori'. Some could be argued as not doing that at all.
And is parliament and legislation with it being driven by minor coalition partners having a huge say and influence......is that parliament working. Is that representing as truth reflected by the gold standard of actual kiwi opinion?
I see no option other than this 'Maori' Parliament because this parliament is winding back positive moves forward for tangata whenua...............maybe tangata whenua means zero again. I know it will be buried deeply for the immigrants who come here having had reasons for leaving around no tangata whenua status where they came from........well the non white ones at least.
I hear what you are saying but if Maori make up 27.5% of the people in parliament, then my first line probably says it all. The Maori Party do not represent all Maori and the same could be said for a Maori parliament.
Its not just Maori who feel they are not represented well by parliament. Do we set up a parliament for the climate cultists as well? Do we set up a parliament for under 25's?Where would it end?
well I spose it just shows that representing most of the people is not always met by the elected. I felt Labour at least tried to. Climate cultist's??? I hope that don't mean what I think you could mean............and that would totally negate your talk around Maori. They have waited and pretty patiently in the face of land being stolen, by war or cunning , using law and dominance..........and now its being ripped away even more, those small gains........I spose even you don't have complete autonomy over your home section, your bought and paid for slice of paradise. I can't blame them for wanting to....in the light of this shite show of a government. I don't hold a lot of hope for a solution that will be good for all........just how long can you stay under the thumb......the dominant culture can't answer that question can they.
You miss the point, people who are passionate and staunch in their beliefs who believe they are not being represented could all have a case for a separate parliament especially with huge issues like the climate.
You have no argument with me on whether land was stolen, thats a given and there is a King in England who sits on a part of the pot of gold people made off that. Not my King....
I'm not sure if you can call Labours actions progress because of the way they went about it. Hepuapua by stealth was not the answer either. Nothing will last unless the goals are agreed. The biggest problem we have is that the treaty has two versions and the interpretations and intentions have been rewritten more than once, including by Maori.
I look forward to a country where Martin Luther Kings vision is achieved. I don't think I will see that in my lifetime either......
I knew that was your original point Jarrod. Cheers.
Interesting the other week with the release of the census figures. % around maori definitely showed a case for a seat at the tepu, or the continued fight for one. Interesting how Goldsmith seems to have no idea why Maori are so highly represented in youth stats, (this was on RNZ) and him pointing out the same situation in adult stats ........re crime. No idea , well nothing he would say or specualte about.......spose all those tangata whenua in parliament will change that....and hey ...wasn't Goldsmith a maori for a while....until he wasn't. Cheers.
Nup. You’re overthinking this, CT. It does seem true that decades of incremental concessions to the makers of the would-be Māori Nation State have given rise to resentment in those who have been excluded from the decision-making. But the resentment and pushback is not exclusive to non-Māori. Plenty of Māori have no truck with the nationalists’s agenda.
The nationalists’s strategy of by-passing engagement with the public to negotiate solely with the Crown has proven wildly successful. They first queered the pitch in their favour by binding the Crown to honouring highly expedient interpretations of the treaty. The Crown now has one arm up its back before it can begin to speak for the public constituency it represents. This is the daily reality for Govt agencies bound to treating iwi as quasi-constitutional partners. The result has been concessions on all fronts - often negotiated in camera - which have advanced the nationalist cause while diminishing the Crown’s authority. Kiwis are thus kept largely ignorant of the growing extent to which their birth rights and belonging here are being eroded. [Take public conservation lands, for instance. These are being progressively alienated from public ownership through confidential treaty settlements, without the Crown consulting the public.]
But back to the proposed Māori parliament… Given nationalist claims that co-governance was only a waypoint to asserting full sovereignty over the country, is it unreasonable to fear an arm-wrestle for sovereignty with the Crown should there be two parliaments? There cannot be two suns in the sky, surely, without one striving to out-muscle the other. Today’s divisive decolonising and indigenising rhetoric certainly foretells such a stand-off. So too do nationalist claims to ownership of all things Kiwi (natural heritage, seabed and foreshore, fisheries, water, air, electro-magnetic waves, minerals, whale-watching, pounamu, hydrogen…. ). No wonder Kiwis are growing increasingly wary of treaty politics and their main players, to the point of becoming less easily persuaded of any merit.
Chris Trotter is quick to dismiss anything he disagrees with as misinformation or disinformation, yet includes here the unattributed quote of boomer cracker settlers, a phrase to be found in a recent column by Martin Bradbury on the Daily Blog.
Agree or disagree, the moves in Te Ao Maori for constitutional justice are NOT about race and never have been. It is about finding the constitutional space for the expression of a different world view and the values, principles and human aspirations of that world view.
The data suggests the younger generation are more right wing than their parents perhaps in reaction to woke truths being forced on them
The 230000 immigrants that came here last year are certainly not going to tolerate their kids and grandkids being offered 2nd class citizenship
Well, I think news men, whatever their flavour, need to start being more specific when referring to Maori and Pakeha. Name the stirrers, movers and shakers within those two categories for a start. It would be helpful to those of us who need to target them in order to sort them out. New Zealanders in general, at large, Pakeha and Maori - really aren't the problem here.
Again as is my/our Gaelic speakers traditions, we would say 'turn a story', 'spin a song' so we learn with another human or experience. In Chris's eloquent account I hear enough of the old ways remain to remind us how everything, every one is connected - there there is that renewed form of energy, of power which works neither over or under another, rather calls me to learn with another, while understanding the boundaried of my beliefs. I sense Chris does acknowledge that Maori have not been well served, rather desimated by the current Parliament system, and seek remembering better socially equitable political systems. If we work forward within a democractic system motivated by the people, this requires courageous conversations such as Chris offers; rethinking democractic participation, representation, the acknowledgment of things Maori, a Maori world, and those multiple legacies of others here. To engage those dominant and resistant to learn to share power, ideas, even explore and question how we/others understand and identify here.
Run a find on 'Māori' and replace with 'Seymour', how does it read now
First, let's forget the notion that we have a constitution.
The UN Raconteur attending this year's constitutional conference warned that our country is constitutionally precarious. As we have already seen, our indigenous peoples are indeed mobilising.
A challenge was put to the Supreme Court to establish an authority for Hobson to gazette his proclamation of the British Monarch's sovereignty to govern our nation, already declared independent. They failed to do so. They cannot rely on a treaty because we produced proof it is a broken contract.
Therefore, Maori wields total control of our governance and judicial arrangements.
A constitution has already been drafted and circulated, but the media have chosen to ignore it.
This column reminds me of Blackadder's manservant Baldrick's strategic thinking:
"I am going to lure them into a false sense of confidence by giving them exactly what they are asking for..."
Aye, and ‘I have a cunning plan. First we let them kill us…’
I am only replying to your comment, Mike, in hopes that before contributing further you will take just a little time to read the post. At present your contributions to this site appear to be little more than pretexts for expressing your personal animosity towards the writer and his beliefs. Ironically, your refusal to actually debate the constitutional ideas contained in He Puapua and Matike Mai offers TDP's readers a rather neat proof of the post's central argument. Try addressing the post, Mike, rather than its author. Prove you can do more than mouth slogans and hurl insults.
I know I'm doing just that Chris. And I won't stop calling out writers who present an imbalanced narrative of how Maori have been and continue to be treated since 1840. Is there any wonder that Maori would seek redress of the appalling way they have been and continue to be treated. He Puapua and Mataki Mai are understandable ideas as Maori seek an independent voice in there journey towards equal status under the law and constitution. My ire of posts such as yours is that they are click bait for an already suspicious and in my view frightened public, who are never offered the context or history which has lead Te Pati Maori and other activist groups to seek a more dramatic and permanent solution to their grievances
All that you are exposing, Mike, is your ignorance of the writing I have contributed over four decades on this very subject. At the core of that analysis is the need for Maori and Pakeha to arrive at a common understanding of what happened in this country in the years following contact with Europeans.
That common understanding, a pre-requisite to forging a common future grounded in justice and equality, cannot be forged in the absence of open-ended inquiry and dialogue. The more Maori nationalists hurl tendentious alternative histories at Pakeha, the more Pakeha will hurl them back.
As I noted in the post, revolution from the top has been tried, and it has failed. Maori cannot make a revolution in secret, on their own. Nor can it be imposed by an ideologically-driven Judiciary. Constitutions that are not the product of a democratically-elected constituent assembly, and which remain unratified by referendum, have a very poor record of survival.
As for TPM's "more dramatic and permanent solution" - Spell. It. Out. (If you dare.)