Great idealogical commentary. Fortunately our governments priority is getting our economy back onto a sound financial footing before focusing on the concerns of a few noisy racial rableraisers and addressing the whims of political idealists.
What is governance if not the representation of ideals? The sitting Government is an idealist Government with a different focus. Besides this, the issue Māori face is not a racial one. It is a cultural one. There are very real consequences for cuts put forth in this budget, and Māori are right to be concerned. Furthermore, I think you'll find that it's not *just* Māori protesting.
I highly encourage you to watch Question Time. You can make a game out of it, mark down every time the Government says "Downward pressure on rents" or "I would say", rather than answering genuine and targeted questions. 2x points for every time the Speaker flirts with Luxon.
Sadly they failing hugely on that and not only creating a recession & destroying business confidence with their austerity, but also inviting corruption in with their anti-democratic fast track bill and use of urgency
Thanks for your response Sue, I value your thoughts. Businesses facing financial hardship or pressure can expect to take at time to turn things around. It maybe a little premature to assess governments success or failure 6 months into the job and only days after releasing its first budget. The trickle down effect of changes to policy settings and associated decisions will likely take months to manifest measurable change. Until changes can be measured and substantiated, the value of commentary (positive or negative) remains opinion adding little to the outcome other than providing a platform for spectators.
Here in Australia an egregious conflict of interest of recent years has been ministers intervening to direct grants to bodies and infrastructure projects in marginal electorates to try to swing these to elect their party's candidates - often going outside proper process and criteria for fair allocation of these funds - insisting that bodies their departments have assessed as not meeting the criteria nevertheless receive the grants - in short, pork-barrelling.
I’m dint think there is a single majority view from Maori about how they want to be governed. Professor Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Whātua) is Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland is prominent in a Maori group who seek constitutional change in Aotearoa New Zealand by 2040 in time for te tiriti bicentennial.
They promote three Governing bodies.
One for just Maori. A second for non-Maori. And a third co-appointed by the first two.
The Government for Maori would govern according to ti kanga on issues that only affect Māori. Of course not much only affects one race. So this list of things would have to be defined as just affecting Māori or just affecting non-Māori. Eg what happens on Māori land or wherever customary rights are acknowledged or how crimes committed by Māori against Māori versus those against non-Maori & vice versa are dealt with).
The jointly appointed government to deal with cross-over issues would make decisions on things like who pays for what, like jointly used infrastructure, hospitals, IRD & any other jointly used Govt Depts/Agencies and how water, soul & air quality is co-undertaken.
Lots of detail is yet to be worked out.
It’s called separatism or apartheid in the West or self-determination by indigenous peoples.
I’m not sure what TPM wants but from what you have written it Durand seem to go as far as all our separatism
I'm not entirely sure what TPM's realistic goals might be either. But you may want to look up online the Sami parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland. They're subordinate to national parliaments.
"I'm not entirely sure what TPM's realistic goals might be": Like all political parties, their goal is to capture and maintain a constituency. This is not necessarily, indeed it is very rarely, the same cohort as that whose real interests each party serves, though it is necessary to occasionally 'throw a bone' to their respective electorates: For National/Act this means global corporations c.w. property owners and small-medium business people; for Labour, it's the liberal professions, public administrators and academics c.w. renters and manual workers; for the Maori Party, it's the political, academic and business institutions of Te Ao Maori c.w. Maori living and working in the wider world.
NZ is now largely a mixed-race country, and, provisional upon the minutest Maori ancestry, possibly less than 2%, which I believe most NZ'ers now have regardless of how they self identify in the census, choice rather than blood-coefficient is the deciding factor in one's identity. It seems to me that The Maori Party's self-envisaged role is doomed to become about as relevant as an attempt to re-fight the battles of the Norman Conquest on behalf of the Anglo-Saxons, who were completely expropriated at the time.
In the United Kingdom, the last vestiges of that particular imperial conquest remain in the relative status of the Anglo-Norman landowning families in the Counties and the City of London. Of course over the passage of time there's many a gentleman that's found himself in penury and many a peasant that's risen to the giddy heights. The same phenomenon is at work in NZ where scions of Pakeha farmers fall into disgrace and those of expropriated Maori rise to prominence in commerce and the professions.
Life is not, however, a meritocracy and the vestiges do remain, even after a thousand years. These vestiges manifest themselves not absolutely, but as influencing factors in the class system, and since they are obfuscated by the mists of time, are best dealt with politically as class-issues. Of course those that have vested interests in the maintenance of a ruling class, whether that be one of capital-owners, public administrators or Rangatira Maori will foster division by race to maintain and enhance that interest.
Giving full title to tribal chieftains rather than as trustees of tribal lands. Making them Lords of the United Kingdom. Bringing them to parliament in London to intermarry with and learn the decadent ways of the 'English' aristocracy, thereby disconnecting them geographically and culturally from their own kin.
What could possibly go wrong?
Or are you one of those fantasists that think the clearances were inflicted on the Scots by 'the English'?
Further to the point, it's not just any Pakeha government. It's effectively run from Remuera rather than Wellington.
Great idealogical commentary. Fortunately our governments priority is getting our economy back onto a sound financial footing before focusing on the concerns of a few noisy racial rableraisers and addressing the whims of political idealists.
What is governance if not the representation of ideals? The sitting Government is an idealist Government with a different focus. Besides this, the issue Māori face is not a racial one. It is a cultural one. There are very real consequences for cuts put forth in this budget, and Māori are right to be concerned. Furthermore, I think you'll find that it's not *just* Māori protesting.
I highly encourage you to watch Question Time. You can make a game out of it, mark down every time the Government says "Downward pressure on rents" or "I would say", rather than answering genuine and targeted questions. 2x points for every time the Speaker flirts with Luxon.
Sadly they failing hugely on that and not only creating a recession & destroying business confidence with their austerity, but also inviting corruption in with their anti-democratic fast track bill and use of urgency
Oops- That was replying to Keith Smith
Thanks for your response Sue, I value your thoughts. Businesses facing financial hardship or pressure can expect to take at time to turn things around. It maybe a little premature to assess governments success or failure 6 months into the job and only days after releasing its first budget. The trickle down effect of changes to policy settings and associated decisions will likely take months to manifest measurable change. Until changes can be measured and substantiated, the value of commentary (positive or negative) remains opinion adding little to the outcome other than providing a platform for spectators.
Speaking of trickle-down...
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-undeserving-rich
Here in Australia an egregious conflict of interest of recent years has been ministers intervening to direct grants to bodies and infrastructure projects in marginal electorates to try to swing these to elect their party's candidates - often going outside proper process and criteria for fair allocation of these funds - insisting that bodies their departments have assessed as not meeting the criteria nevertheless receive the grants - in short, pork-barrelling.
A single-member district system breeds that behaviour!
I’m dint think there is a single majority view from Maori about how they want to be governed. Professor Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Whātua) is Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland is prominent in a Maori group who seek constitutional change in Aotearoa New Zealand by 2040 in time for te tiriti bicentennial.
They promote three Governing bodies.
One for just Maori. A second for non-Maori. And a third co-appointed by the first two.
The Government for Maori would govern according to ti kanga on issues that only affect Māori. Of course not much only affects one race. So this list of things would have to be defined as just affecting Māori or just affecting non-Māori. Eg what happens on Māori land or wherever customary rights are acknowledged or how crimes committed by Māori against Māori versus those against non-Maori & vice versa are dealt with).
The jointly appointed government to deal with cross-over issues would make decisions on things like who pays for what, like jointly used infrastructure, hospitals, IRD & any other jointly used Govt Depts/Agencies and how water, soul & air quality is co-undertaken.
Lots of detail is yet to be worked out.
It’s called separatism or apartheid in the West or self-determination by indigenous peoples.
I’m not sure what TPM wants but from what you have written it Durand seem to go as far as all our separatism
I'm not entirely sure what TPM's realistic goals might be either. But you may want to look up online the Sami parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland. They're subordinate to national parliaments.
Yes. I’ve been there and enquired about them. They seem to work well.
And of course there are examples in Canada too. Not to mention the Scottish parliament.
"I'm not entirely sure what TPM's realistic goals might be": Like all political parties, their goal is to capture and maintain a constituency. This is not necessarily, indeed it is very rarely, the same cohort as that whose real interests each party serves, though it is necessary to occasionally 'throw a bone' to their respective electorates: For National/Act this means global corporations c.w. property owners and small-medium business people; for Labour, it's the liberal professions, public administrators and academics c.w. renters and manual workers; for the Maori Party, it's the political, academic and business institutions of Te Ao Maori c.w. Maori living and working in the wider world.
NZ is now largely a mixed-race country, and, provisional upon the minutest Maori ancestry, possibly less than 2%, which I believe most NZ'ers now have regardless of how they self identify in the census, choice rather than blood-coefficient is the deciding factor in one's identity. It seems to me that The Maori Party's self-envisaged role is doomed to become about as relevant as an attempt to re-fight the battles of the Norman Conquest on behalf of the Anglo-Saxons, who were completely expropriated at the time.
In the United Kingdom, the last vestiges of that particular imperial conquest remain in the relative status of the Anglo-Norman landowning families in the Counties and the City of London. Of course over the passage of time there's many a gentleman that's found himself in penury and many a peasant that's risen to the giddy heights. The same phenomenon is at work in NZ where scions of Pakeha farmers fall into disgrace and those of expropriated Maori rise to prominence in commerce and the professions.
Life is not, however, a meritocracy and the vestiges do remain, even after a thousand years. These vestiges manifest themselves not absolutely, but as influencing factors in the class system, and since they are obfuscated by the mists of time, are best dealt with politically as class-issues. Of course those that have vested interests in the maintenance of a ruling class, whether that be one of capital-owners, public administrators or Rangatira Maori will foster division by race to maintain and enhance that interest.
Thanks, Kevin. Any thoughts about the Highland Clearances?
Yes.
Giving full title to tribal chieftains rather than as trustees of tribal lands. Making them Lords of the United Kingdom. Bringing them to parliament in London to intermarry with and learn the decadent ways of the 'English' aristocracy, thereby disconnecting them geographically and culturally from their own kin.
What could possibly go wrong?
Or are you one of those fantasists that think the clearances were inflicted on the Scots by 'the English'?
Thanks, I was just wondering what you thought, that's all.
Sweet! Thought it was an 'invitation to fight' lol! Glad it wasn't. Sorry about the 'fantasist' jibe.