About the Te Papa protest

Written By: - Date published: 12:32 pm, December 12th, 2023 - 183 comments
Categories: Maori Issues, Politics, treaty settlements - Tags:

Yesterday at Te Papa 12 people were arrested after a protest against its Treaty of Waitangi exhibition.

The planning was obviously sophisticated.  One of the protesters abseiled down to a large English version of the Treaty and applied paint and also used a hand grinder to alter the words on display.  The English version displayed claimed that Maori had ceded sovereignty.  This has never been accepted by Māori.

The reason for their anger was clear.  As described by Margaret Mutu the words used were from the early William Hobson draft which in its third article ceded sovereignty to the Crown but which was never agreed to by Māori.

From Jemima Houston at Radio New Zealand:

Dr Margaret Mutu who is a member of the Iwi Chairs Forum says the vandalism was a result of Te Papa not listening to pleas for the exhibition to be corrected.

She said she had contacted the museum herself on more than one occasion to try to have the exhibit removed, but to no avail.

She described it as Governor William Hobson’s draft, his “wishlist”, and most drafts ended up being ripped up.

“It was never ever what was discussed or what was agreed. Now, you do not use a draft that was not agreed to and stand it up as something that has some standing; it has no standing.

“So why is it even there? What should be there is an accurate translation of what Te Tiriti [o Waitangi] meant.”

Her statement was backed up by Victoria University’s Carwyn Jones.  Again from Radio New Zealand:

Kaihautū for Māori Laws and Philosophy at Te Wānanga o Raukawa and honorary associate professor of Māori studies at the Victoria University of Wellington, Carwyn Jones, said Te Papa’s Treaty of Waitangi exhibition needs to change.

He said there was confusion about Te Tiriti and Te Papa’s exhibition added to that.

“At the moment the exhibition at Te Papa makes it look as though there are these two equal documents and there’s some debate and discussion between them and we know that actually that’s not true.”

The protesters want the exhibition re-designed, with the large English version of the Treaty removed and a direct translation of the te reo Māori text added in.

They said the display should make it explicit that Māori never ceded sovereignty, contrary to what is in the English document which rangatira never signed.

Carwyn Jones backed those demands.

He said the te reo Māori text is the substantiative agreement and should be the basis of Te Papa’s display.

“Explain some of the history of how it’s been interpreted and explain some of the differences between what the English version is and what Te Tiriti says. But I think it’s really important for an institution like Te Papa to be really clear about centring the Te Reo text of Te Tiriti.”

And there is significant institutional support for this position.

In 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal, one of the most important judicial bodies in the country, delivered a brave yet utterly defendable report regarding the Treaty of Waitangi.  From the letter accompanying the report:

It is our view that an agreement was reached at Waitangi, Waimate, and Mangungu in February 1840. That agreement can be found in what signatory rangatira (or at least the great majority of them) were prepared to assent to, based on the proposals that William Hobson and his agents made to them by reading te Tiriti and explaining the proposed agreement verbally, and on the assurances the rangatira sought and received.

We have concluded that in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapū and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā.

The rangatira also agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown. The Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had been wrongly acquired. In our view that promise, too, was part of the agreement made in February 1840. Further, as part of the treaty agreement, the rangatira may well have consented to the Crown protecting them from foreign threats and representing them in international affairs where necessary. If so, however, the intention of signatory rangatira was that Britain would protect their independence, not that they would relinquish their sovereignty.

The evidence is that this is the arrangement that Hobson explicitly put to rangatira – both through the Māori text and through his verbal explanations – and that they then assented to after receiving assurances in respect of their equality with the governor. Though Britain intended to obtain the sole right to make and enforce law over Māori as well as Pākehā, Hobson did not explain this. Rather, in keeping with his instructions, he emphasised that Britain’s intention was to control Pākehā in order to protect Māori. The detail of how this relationship was to work in practice, especially where the Māori and Pākehā populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time. It is clear that at no stage, however, did rangatira who signed te Tiriti in February 1840 surrender ultimate authority to the British.

While some may see our conclusions as radical, they are not. In truth, our report represents continuity rather than dramatic change. Leading scholars – both Māori and Pākehā – have been expressing similar views for a generation or more. When all of the evidence is considered, including the texts as they were explained to rangatira, the debates at Waitangi and Mangungu, and the wider historical context, we cannot see how other conclusions can be reached.

The rationale is essentially quite straight forward, under article one of the English version Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, but under the Māori version of the treaty Māori ceded “kawanatanga” which is closer to governance than sovereignty.  If the English wanted to make it clear that Māori were ceding sovereignty the Treaty would have said in the Te Reo version that Māori ceded Tino Rangatiratanga, but then Māori would not have signed.

Which version should prevail?  There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear.  Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language.  The dominant foreign power should suffer from any ambiguity.  And the indigenous people should not be held to a version that they never signed.

The incident highlights the danger posed by Act’s proposed Treaty referendum.  If successful it would define the principles of the Treaty as:

1. All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties.

2. All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.

3. New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal.

If successful it would of course trample over all residuary rights that the Treaty holds.  If all citizens have the same rights then any residuary rights Māori may have had would be extinguished.

The kicker would be the discrimination principle which is clearly intended to undermine any affirmative action policy.  I always find it extraordinary that the already privileged should want to make sure that members of groups that have historically and still are doing it tough should be prevented from having the same opportunity.

Yesterday’s protest is but a teaser of what will happen when Act’s Treaty Interpretation Bill gets introduced.  National and NZ First have committed to supporting it to the select committee stage.  This will increase tensions and will ratchet up opposition.  Talk about the response resembling the Springbok tour protests are in my view not far of the mark.

This should be a respectful discussion seeking to place the Treaty in its proper context.  What Act is promising is a circus that will cause widespread dissent and anger for political purposes.  Act MPs should be ashamed of themselves.  And over the Christmas period they should start learning about the history and background of the Treaty.  It is clear that their current understanding is woefully inadequate.

183 comments on “About the Te Papa protest ”

  1. Thinker 1

    All for democracy and freedom of speech, but I think any protests need to be well-thought out and carefully managed.

    If not, the protesters risk playing into the hands of the Coalition partners who may be seeking to polarise "the average kiwi" and by taking the protests and putting a negative spin on them, they might see an opportunity to sway the opinions of said average kiwis.

    In my opinion, within the instruction to take away the Maori names of many government departments is an underlying, subtle message that “Maoridom” (I don’t think that’s the right word, but I can’t think of a better one) is getting ahead of itself in proportion to its “proper place”.

    So, in public protests, slow and steady needs to be the response. Holding onto the "moral right" in the eyes of the majority must be an essential goal.

  2. Macro 2

    A further point to note is that very few signed the English version – 39 – whereas around 540 signed the Maori version.

    Copies were subsequently taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed.[4] Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi, despite some Māori leaders cautioning against it.[5][6] Only 39 signed the English version.[7

    Of those who did sign the English version it was on the understanding that what they were signing was identical to the Maori version and at that time only the English version was made available to them.

    Rev Henry Williams who helped translate the Treaty and negotiated with Maori

    told the chiefs that the treaty “was an act of love towards them on the part of the Queen, who desired to secure to them their property, rights and privileges.”

    https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/the-treaty-today-what-went-wrong-and-what-are-we-doing-about-it/

  3. Ad 3

    Under this kind of government we are going to get a Treaty reinterpreted around property rights.

    There's strong precedent for it from the 1920s from Maori.

    "The Queen did not do anything, to take away the rights of the Maori over his lands, instead she made the ownership permanent and truly established. This is the reason dear old lady you appear before the Maori Land Court to show your rights, whether of land not yet clothed with title, or by long occupation, when you related the trails, the fern root hills, the tawhara (young shoots of kiekie) swamps or other token and relics of your ancestors.

    There are two main provisions in this article of the Treaty, they are:

    (1) The permanent establishment to the Maori of title to his land and his property
    (2) The giving of the right to the Queen to acquire Maori land.

    "

    I expect we are going to start hearing a lot more about the Sir Apirana Ngata'S interpretation of the Treaty which frames more of its interepretation of nationwide sovereignty and its governance – and its non-translatability since there hadn't been such a concept, and a much bigger focus on real estate and the Crown as the solitary broker of land title.

    https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html

    That would suit, of course, National's donor class and settler originators, NZF's landed and royalist Maori, ACT's propoerty minimalist donors, the Hobson's Choice crowd, and frankly anyone who owns a chunk of unencumbered real estate.

  4. Ad 4

    Good on the protesters for being really annoying. It was like something out of Batman.

    Same for the climate emergency people gluing themselves to the highway.

    You don't get change without really disrupting society and being rude about it as you go.

    Those thousands of farmers on their tractors sure knew how to win.

    • Populuxe1 4.1

      It's had the opposite effect on me, so good luck with that

    • weka 4.2

      Same for the climate emergency people gluing themselves to the highway.

      You don't get change without really disrupting society and being rude about it as you go.

      I agree generally. We should also be aware of what that path entails. In the UK and Australia, XR and other climate protests have led to the introduction of anti-democratic legislation.

      We're not either of those countries, but the risk is there. The trick is to do those kinds of protests and show people that there is a better way for society to operate.

  5. Muttonbird 5

    Ration the Queen’s veges.

    Now an important artwork. Profound cultural shifts happening and documented in real time.

    I hope Te Papa leaves it as is.

  6. SPC 6

    William Hobson signed both versions for Queen Victoria, the Queen of England. He did not understand Maori and had no legal training.

    He stressed that it would give the British Queen the authority to control British subjects and protect Māori and their lands.

    https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/treaty-waitangi/treaty-waitangi-close/making-treaty

    The role of the Governor as arbiter of the Treaty on behalf of the Crown came to an end with the arrival of representative government.

    After the first Premier in 1856, the role of the Governor was reduced. Only retaining control of the army and of Māori affairs for a short time afterwards.

    And so the great betrayal was afoot.

    https://gg.govt.nz/office-governor-general/history/new-zealands-governor-general-historical-perspective

    • Louis 6.1

      "The English language document that Hobson drafted is known as The Treaty of Waitangi, but it’s not the treaty that was agreed to. It was his wish list"

      "Only the Māori language document was discussed and agreed to. The English language Treaty was only ever a draft, and is irrelevant. The Waitangi Tribunal in its 2014 report He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti – The Declaration and the Treaty concluded that the rangatira did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And neither have their descendants."

      "There is no need for ‘principles’ because there are not two treaties. There is only one, Te Tiriti o Waitangi."

      https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/12/02/enhancing-the-mana-of-te-tiriti/

      • Ghostwhowalks 6.1.1

        Both versions were 'side by side' signed by Hobson.

        • Louis 6.1.1.1

          Even so, Professor Margaret Mutu did make a point that "Only the Māori language document was discussed and agreed to" and that was supported by the Waitangi Tribunal report, 2014.

          • Ghostwhowalks 6.1.1.1.1

            Both Treaty versions were signed.

            I dont know what the draft versions said that wasnt included in the final as they havent survived

            There is even some dispute at the time about what Williams was translating – both what he translated to Maori , and what he translated back to Hobson.

            Sovereignty changed hands , in words or implicitly: the 3rd article offers British citizenship as well as the 1st article's 'kawanatanga'

            The two go together

            • Louis 6.1.1.1.1.1

              The Waitangi Tribunal in its 2014 report He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti – The Declaration and the Treaty concluded that the rangatira did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And neither have their descendants."

              And there lies the difference.

              • Ghostwhowalks

                Grand 'what aboutism'….of course the Waitangi Tribunal would say that. But they have no legal standing, merely recommendations.

                So Maori havent had British/NZ citizenship all these years either. ?

                Talking about wish lists is even sillier

              • SPC

                Then the WT would hold the position that the "Crown nation state" cannot be held accountable to UNDRIP as it does not have the sovereignty, nor to be a member of the UN, or to make international treaties, or trade agreements. And thus the WT, it set up, has no legal status.

                Back to the beginning has its consequences.

                • Ghostwhowalks

                  King Tawhiao in 1884 went to London to raise some very justified grievances with Queen Victoria.

                  So did he at the time say sovereignty wasnt ceded or did he say:

                  We your Māori people continue to hold fast to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles together with its mana. It is these principles which guide those things about which we petition, and for which we crossed the Pacific Ocean. We also request an audience with the queen so that we can renew the words of that treaty and so that neither the New Zealand government nor any action of it is able to undermine the Treaty. Greetings to the queen.
                  By Tawhiao.
                  Wi Te Wheoro.
                  Topia Turoa.
                  Hori Ropiha.
                  Patara Tuhi Maioha.'

                • Louis

                  Do you have a link to support the claim that the Waitangi Tribunal holds that position?

                  • SPC

                    You were the one who stated the WT

                    concluded that the rangatira did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And neither have their descendants."

                    I just noted the consequences of that decision on their own legal standing.

                    • Louis

                      Have you a link to the consequences that you noted? I didn't state it, The Waitangi Tribunal did. I just quoted it.

      • SPC 6.1.2

        You've swallowed a pill, decided on a singular truth.

        The English version was what the Crown wanted, the Maori version is what the iwi could accept.

        The reconciliation was the work of the neutral arbiter between the settlers and indigenous people, the Crown as represented by the Governor – thus co-existence with the matter unresolved.

        Once his role was superseded by settler government taking over Maori affairs and the army, the impasse would be resolved by force as of course then occurred.

        The issue of which version should be seen as having authority is determined by law, domestic or international, or by force/conquest.

        The fact that the English version recognises property rights is the Maori hope of redress, via advocacy for justice and then through the courts, as per domestic law.

        It began with Bastion Point (kohanga reo, tu tangata) and then Labour bringing the Treaty back into law. Then with neo-liberalism (and a future of growing inequality post egalitarian Enzed) came respect for Maori property rights – the iwi settlements.

        We are now at an interesting stage of multi-verse, a virtual confabulation of competing singularities, somewhat representative of the break-up of a mainstream media (as per a narrative/consensus most accept).

        Some Maori advocate for sovereignty, but with no plan for actualising it with democratic mandate.

        Some working within the English version of the Treaty within law framework have been preparing our position on UNDRIP (short of a separate Maori parliament is how Ardern portrayed it). UNDRIP is based on a sovereign nation acting in accord with its principles.

        • Louis 6.1.2.1

          "You've swallowed a pill, decided on a singular truth." have I, really? or have I taken the words of an expert, Professor Margaret Mutu into consideration?

          • SPC 6.1.2.1.1

            You've decided to agree with a school of thought on the issue, one Mutu is part of.

            The fact that "the draft" was signed as the English version is not reconcilable with that school.

            Facts, being inconvenient to those who swallow pills.

  7. John 7

    The actions of the protesters will harden the attitude of more people than it will attract support.

    • Incognito 7.1

      Have you ever been taught how to express yourself clearly, e.g., say what you mean and based on what?

      If not, now would be a good start to seek some remedial lessons and refrain from your troll MO as per your commenting history on this site.

      If yes, now would be a good time to put it into practice and start to engage in genuine debate.

      Can you do that?

    • bwaghorn 7.2

      Na it won't the haters already hate,

  8. Molly 8

    Coming up to two centuries after the Treaty was signed, those who consider their interpretation to be the correct one – and there have been a host of those, all with differing views – have an opportunity to have a public discussion about the whys and wherefores of their views.

    We can also – as grown adults – attempt to have a open conversation about whether any interpretation is fit for purpose, and how putting such emphasis on a contested document delivers for modern New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori alike.

    If it is still relevant now, will it be relevant in perpetuity or is there a time or condition limit to its relevance? For example, most Māori have mixed ancestry, that integration was both sought and a foreseeable occurrence for a relatively young country, is that given due recognition in conversations about using ethnicity for groups that are unable to be clearly defined, or assumed to be in agreement?

    Do Māori have access to the health, education, infrastructure services etc available to non-Māori? Can those services and access be improved?

    Can those who support Te Pati Māori in their stated intentions, foresee a time when there is no longer a need to identify yourself as any ethnicity, because you know you live in a secular, democratic country where access to services is available to all without bias?

    Isn't a democratic society with state separated from church (or any other belief) the best we can aim for, with each NZer holding the equivalent of one vote in elections?

    If you are someone who thinks there are better goals to aim for, I'd like to know what they are specifically, and how long you expect them to be required, and what will be the long-term outcome you expect.

    • weka 8.1

      Can those who support Te Pati Māori in their stated intentions, foresee a time when there is no longer a need to identify yourself as any ethnicity, because you know you live in a secular, democratic country where access to services is available to all without bias?

      Ethnicity has value in its own right, irrespective of social justice issues. Same with feminism. There will always be a need for women's culture even if women gained 'equality'. There will always be women's groups, there will always be marae. There are positive, healthy things.

      The reason we are so focused on things like access to health care is because the inequity issues affect some groups of people more than others, quite badly and for a very long time. And because some groups of people have particular needs for service delivery that a secular, democractic country that is blind to ethnicity cannot meet.

      I think the problem is more that the systems we use to manage society are just broken. Hence the left pushing through change without bringing people along and thinking we can force others to think like us or have the same values.

      I put some of that down to late stage capitalism fear around social decay, climate change etc. But the ball is in the left's court and we are fumbling it badly.

      • Molly 8.1.1

        Māori ethnicity – which is unable to be defined accurately, (and has no shared experience, need or provision), with those concerned about women's rights and provisions – is a poor comparator, weka.

        Even those who advocated for preferential treatment for Māori in healthcare, did not do so because institutional racism was identified. The issues around access to healthcare are usually income based, or geographic not ethnicity.

        If Māori had retained complete sovereignty over NZ, what would you say the modern Māori citizen would expect in terms of delivery of fundamental services, and the ability to choose your representation in whatever form of governance would exist?

        As far as I am concerned, our imperfect democracy is as yet the best system that has been designed, and implemented successfully.

        But happy to hear about your take on what you believe would have been delivered by Māori, if the country and the culture had not been interrupted by integration, the signing of the Treaty, immigration and the global influence, wars and achievements that have taken place in the last two centuries or so.

        • weka 8.1.1.1

          Māori ethnicity – which is unable to be defined accurately, (and has no shared experience, need or provision), with those concerned about women's rights and provisions – is a poor comparator, weka.

          why is it a poor comparator? There are whole raging arguments about what a woman is 😉 I'm reminded here of Jane Clare Jones pointing out that fuzzy edges don't mean a category doesn't exist. That there are Māori who don't know their whakapapa, doesn't mean that Māori ethnicity (or ethnicities) don't exist.

          I know who my people are, where they come from, the confluence of culture and genealogy and how that has played out over centuries, including down to the present time. Ime and estimation this has value. One of the reasons it's valuable is that understanding ourselves ethnically (culture and bloodlines) produces diversity that creates a more resilient and creative and stable society.

          Another is that it gives people a sense of belonging. While some, probably many, New Zealanders get a sense of belonging from being a New Zealander, for many Māori being Māori does too. What's the point of suppressing that?

          Even those who advocated for preferential treatment for Māori in healthcare, did not do so because institutional racism was identified. The issues around access to healthcare are usually income based, or geographic not ethnicity.

          Afaik this is wholly untrue. I don't have the spoons to go look stuff up, but if you are interested, Irihapeti and others' work in the 90s (and probably earlier) on cultural safety in healthcare described the issues being observed and analysed as cultural. Obviously socioeconomics intersects with that, but please don't let the neoliberal bastardisation of intersectionality make you shy away from that.

          Ramsden's work was talking about the nature of the health system, dominated by Pāhekā values, and how that impacted on Māori (and other cultures) with different needs. For instance, for Māori and Pasifica (generally, #notallPolynesians etc), having family with them when they went into a hospital setting was important for their experience and their health outcomes.

          It's also very obvious from talking with Māori that this is true.

          Equally obvious is that Māori and Pākehā, generally, #notallP, have different cultural values, mores and behaviours in relationship to family.

          Not one better than the other, different. And when one gets to say how things will be done, it presents problems for the other. Just like when men design systems that don't work for women (think the exclusion of breastfeeding from so many places).

          The diversity that comes from culture benefits us all. I see many things that Māori do that would be great for me as a Pākehā, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearings.

          • Molly 8.1.1.1.1

            "why is it a poor comparator? "

            A woman is a adult human who inhabits a female body. That female body has impact in many ways, and requires specific provisions. Those provisions are female specific and neither required or shared with males.

            "That there are Māori who don't know their whakapapa, doesn't mean that Māori ethnicity (or ethnicities) don't exist."

            Really, weka… the "not existing" argument?

            Māori as an ethnicity can be recognised. But it requires no special provisions, has no special requirements – that are not shared with non-Māori.

            "Ramsden's work was talking about the nature of the health system, dominated by Pāhekā values, and how that impacted on Māori (and other cultures) with different needs. For instance, for Māori and Pasifica (generally, #notallPolynesians etc), having family with them when they went into a hospital setting was important for their experience and their health outcomes."

            I want efficiency and effectiveness values to be prioritised with the health system. Whether you call that Pāhekā or Māori values, I wouldn't give much thought too, but from experience those who use those term are not focused on prioritising universal health values and are often distracted from doing so.

            The Māori Healthy Authority did not define any great measurable outcomes, and AFAIK had a dismal return on investment – a recent example of what this kind of focus on ethnicity often delivers:

            https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/230505i-hmac-report-final.pdf

            "It's also very obvious from talking with Māori that this is true."

            The constant reference to Māori as a singular entity is so fundamentally racist, I'm just going to note you are doing it here without further comment, other than saying "some Māori" might be saying so but – that is not an argument in its own right.

            "Equally obvious is that Māori and Pākehā, generally, #notallP, have different cultural values, mores and behaviours in relationship to family."

            So? This can be true. No-one needs to claim superiority or not, as your following paragraphs suggest.

            However, what is the relevance to this in terms of legislation, representation etc?

            • roblogic 8.1.1.1.1.1

              The constant reference to Māori as a singular entity is so fundamentally racist

              Act love to whitewash NZ's history of suppressing Maori culture and taking their land by saying people are 'racist' for acknowledging the ethnic roots of disadvantage. Fucken bullshit

          • Molly 8.1.1.1.2

            This particular sentence strikes me as useful to discuss further:

            "Equally obvious is that Māori and Pākehā, generally, #notallP, have different cultural values, mores and behaviours in relationship to family."

            What do you see as obvious Māori family values?

            What do you see as obvious Pākehā family values?

            Are Māori that don't hold those "obvious Māori family values" still Māori?

            Are Pākehā that do hold those "obvious Māori family values" actually Māori?

            Are Pākehā that don't hold obvious Pākehā family values allowed to remain Pākehā?

            Is the use of a predetermined set of values a strange way to define a modern culture? I think it is.

            "The diversity that comes from culture benefits us all. I see many things that Māori do that would be great for me as a Pākehā, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearings."

            Why does this closing sentence of yours not work in reverse?

            "The diversity that comes from culture benefits us all. I see many things that Pākehā do that would be great for me as a Māori, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearing."

            And if it does, then why make that distinction for perpetuity?

            • weka 8.1.1.1.2.1

              This particular sentence strikes me as useful to discuss further:

              "Equally obvious is that Māori and Pākehā, generally, #notallP, have different cultural values, mores and behaviours in relationship to family."

              What do you see as obvious Māori family values?

              What do you see as obvious Pākehā family values?'

              See, this looks like a set up. You take the position that people, including myself, talking about Māori generally are somehow speaking about/for all Māori and that this is wrong. I'm not doing that, but you respond as if I am despite my repeatedly stating that I am not.

              Please explain to me why you are doing that.

              If you don't know what the obvious differences are between any cultures, I can only suggest doing some reading and listening. But I suspect you do know and are trying to make a point. Correct me if I am wrong.

              Are Māori that don't hold those "obvious Māori family values" still Māori?

              Of course.

              Are Pākehā that do hold those "obvious Māori family values" actually Māori?

              No. These are actually quite silly questions that suggest you don't really understand what ethnicity, and culture are.

              Are Pākehā that don't hold obvious Pākehā family values allowed to remain Pākehā?

              Of course.

              Is the use of a predetermined set of values a strange way to define a modern culture? I think it is.

              You keep making these declarative statements (use of a predetermined set of values is a strange way to define a modern culture), but you almost never explain your thinking or why.

              It's not a predetermined set of values, it's an observed set of values. Whatever your ethnicity and culture, you are still free to have your own values etc. I don't understand why you don't get this. Cultural values in this context aren't compulsory.

              "The diversity that comes from culture benefits us all. I see many things that Māori do that would be great for me as a Pākehā, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearings."

              Why does this closing sentence of yours not work in reverse?

              But it does work in reverse. Of course it does, why wouldn't it? Seriously, you are so off base here.

              All cultures bring great things to the table, and all bring problematic things.

              "The diversity that comes from culture benefits us all. I see many things that Pākehā do that would be great for me as a Māori, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearing."

              And if it does, then why make that distinction for perpetuity?

              What distinction? Naming different cultures? Are you suggesting we just assimilate into one big melting pot? That we solve some basic inequity issues and then we don't need cultural diversity any more? Wut?

              • Nic the NZer

                I think what Molly's questions (and your answers to them) highlight is that cultural values have little to do with being or not being Maori (or Pakeha) because membership of that category doesn't follow from your cultural values. (It seems to follow from your genealogy as long as you recognize it).

                That says a lot about the generalization of calling some particular cultural values Maori or Pakeha.

                "Equally obvious is that Māori and Pākehā, generally, #notallP, have different cultural values, mores and behaviours in relationship to family."

                In particular these cultural values, mores and behaviours are obviously going to change over time and going into the future implying that there can later be no recognizable difference between Maori and Pakeha versions of these. Maybe more relevantly if we encourage the good and remove the bad values from both Maori and Pakeha cultures going forward then at some point either or both would likely become no longer recognizable as Maori or Pakeha cultures. So I don't think we should consider the notion of cultures as anything more solid than a particular generalization which often doesn't hold much meaning, and I don't think we should elevate the value of that to highly in our politics.

                • weka

                  I guess that's the conclusion people reach when they use a mechanistic frame to think about culture.

                  When Europeans arrived in NZ and first observed Māori family life, they noted how differently Māori treated their children compared to the British of the time.

                  On the otherside, Māori still afaik practiced cannibalism, whereas the Brits didn't except in rare cases and at sea.

                  I'm talking about cultures as groups of people that evolve values, mores, practices over time, and those arise out of place and circumstance. People living in the tropics have different customs than people living near the Arctic circle.

                  I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

                  People don't have a membership to Māoridom or being of Scots descent, it's not a club. Mostly in NZ in this context, it's not compulsory to work with a set of collective values, one can pick and choose or abandon them. Others are likewise free to point out the shortcomings of this.

                  That says a lot about the generalization of calling some particular cultural values Maori or Pakeha.

                  What does that even mean? If the values are cultural then by definition they belong to a culture. Not exclusively, obviously. But that Māori, generally, value extended family in a different way than British descendent NZers, is true as is where those values have merged. Southern hospitality being an example, imo a merging of Māori and Scots values.

                  These are good things, and good to be aware of. What's the problem here?

                  • Nic the NZer

                    The generalization of cultures is about defining some how what is or is not part of that culture, its values. Clearly your defining that to be starting from a collection of individuals with their behaviors and values and then basing that characterization on a few representative (maybe imaginary) people who fit that culture. The important point is that in the construction of this category an assumption is made about the representatives being representative of the group (a generalization).

                    Speaking of Scots, this is of course related to the "No, true scotsman fallacy".

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

                    The point is everything rides on who is selected as representative. Maybe I pick Simon Bridges, David Seymour and Winston Peters as representative of Maori NZs politics. Based on these three there is obviously no difference between Maori and Pakeha politics in NZ.

                    This seems to be what Molly's questions are highlighting about the categories of Maori and Pakeha culture. The categories seem neither broad enough to clearly include all the members nor distinct enough to demonstrate they are actually different.

                    • weka

                      The generalization of cultures is about defining some how what is or is not part of that culture, its values.

                      No, it's not. Talking about culture is a natural thing that arises out of observation and experience.

                      Clearly your defining that to be starting from a collection of individuals with their behaviors and values and then basing that characterization on a few representative (maybe imaginary) people who fit that culture

                      again, nope.

                      Sorry, I don't have time today to go further with. Both you and Molly bring interesting perspectives to this debate, but I cannot spend all this time correcting your impressions of what I am saying when neither of you are making the effort to seek clarification.

                      This btw is a microcosm of what is being played out in NZ. Lots of people talking past each other, not much active listening.

              • Molly

                "It's not a predetermined set of values, it's an observed set of values. Whatever your ethnicity and culture, you are still free to have your own values etc. I don't understand why you don't get this. Cultural values in this context aren't compulsory."

                An observed set of values – can be made of those who attend a protestant church. Yet we don't assume all Christians hold protestant values.

                We have divided church and state in NZ for democratic reasons.

                Are you now referring to Māori as a demographic of people, or as a set of values and cultural signifiers?

                "That we solve some basic inequity issues and then we don't need cultural diversity any more? Wut?

                This referral to inequity – implies that it is solely related to ethnicity – as opposed to other factors. That has not been proven.

                • weka

                  An observed set of values – can be made of those who attend a protestant church. Yet we don't assume all Christians hold protestant values.

                  Please just stop. You are arguing against something I am not saying. I don't believe all Māori hold 'Māori values'. If you say or imply that I do again, I will be moderating and expecting very specific examples.

                  Until we get this straight, there's not much point in talking about the other things.

                  I think you are fixated on this idea that people are saying all Māori and you are projecting that on to me. It has to stop.

                  Also, I just said both you and Nic bring important perspective to this debate, but I cannot engage with such now willfull misinterpretation of my position and arguments.

                  I am always open to clarifying if what I am saying doesn't make sense.

                  This referral to inequity – implies that it is solely related to ethnicity – as opposed to other factors. That has not been proven.

                  I have never said that inequity comes from solely ethnicity. No-one I know says this.

                  QED.

                  • Molly

                    Hi weka,

                    I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I'm trying to extract from your comments – what it is you mean.

                    For example:

                    "I see many things that Māori do that would be great for me as a Pākehā, and it doesn't diminish my own ethnicity or cultural bearings."

                    What are some of the many things?

                    • weka

                      yes

                      I saved this in a tab but haven't had the time to do justice to an answer. Maybe over the holidays, or we pick it up again next time.

                      Way better for me if you can ask for clarification rather than making arguments based on assumptions about what I am saying, cheers.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      All good weka. yes

                      The conversation has moved on, and I am happy to do so as well.

                      Merry Christmas.

                    • weka []

                      Merry Christmas to you too Molly.

        • weka 8.1.1.2

          If Māori had retained complete sovereignty over NZ, what would you say the modern Māori citizen would expect in terms of delivery of fundamental services, and the ability to choose your representation in whatever form of governance would exist?

          As far as I am concerned, our imperfect democracy is as yet the best system that has been designed, and implemented successfully.

          But happy to hear about your take on what you believe would have been delivered by Māori, if the country and the culture had not been interrupted by integration, the signing of the Treaty, immigration and the global influence, wars and achievements that have taken place in the last two centuries or so.

          Not quite sure what you are asking here tbh. Are you suggesting that Māori wouldn't have adopted democracy? I think this is unlikely. More likely is they would have taken democracy and adapted it with their own practices to make something better.

          I don't know if what we have currently is the best system yet, but it's both heading in the right direction and certainly a poor form of democracy relative to what we could have.

          It wasn't designed, it evolved. Part of that evolution was giving women the right to vote. That can be taken away again, because it's the overarching system that controls what happens, and that overarching system is not democratic, it tolerates democracy at this point in history. Plenty of historical examples for how we lose rights we think are somehow cemented in because of democracy.

          • Molly 8.1.1.2.1

            "Not quite sure what you are asking here tbh. Are you suggesting that Māori wouldn't have adopted democracy? I think this is unlikely. More likely is they would have taken democracy and adapted it with their own practices to make something better."

            That's a start, interesting to hear that you think democracy would be the result. What form do you think "their own practices" and the "something better" would take?

            "It wasn't designed, it evolved. Part of that evolution was giving women the right to vote. That can be taken away again, because it's the overarching system that controls what happens, and that overarching system is not democratic, it tolerates democracy at this point in history. Plenty of historical examples for how we lose rights we think are somehow cemented in because of democracy."

            One way to lose democratic rights, is to fail to protect the one person, one vote imperative implicit in a true democracy.

            • roblogic 8.1.1.2.1.1

              That argument might have merit if you ignore history and culture and legal precedent and existing needs of actual humans that aren't all equal atomic individuals

              • Molly

                No it retains merit.

                What you need when you propose diminishing that focus, is to provide the evidenced argument to deviate from that protection. It has to be significant and proven.

                I am frustrated at the number of people who pre-emptively tell Māori – particularly children and young people – that expectations for their achievements are already low because of their ancestry, despite their current access to the same levers of improvement as everyone else.

                This is a particularly harmful approach despite the good intentions behind it.

      • Anne 8.1.2

        "… the left pushing through change without bringing people along…"

        To put a positive spin on it: 'the left' try to do what is the right thing to do. That is, create an actual equitable society for all NZers regardless of race or creed. It means change… a change in attitudes and the means by which that change is achieved.

        But the moment a government commences such changes, the dinosaurs and their loopy conspiratorial offspring start whinging/wailing and people listen to them. A good example was the 3 waters legislation. The right wing frothed and raged and I know people who fell hook, line and sinker for their views – especially the "mowrees are stealing our water" crap.

        You can't blame the government when they are up against that kind of thing. Also there are occasions when the need is so great they can't wait until the doozeys catch up.

        • Pat 8.1.2.1

          "That is, create an actual equitable society for all NZers regardless of race or creed."

          equitable

          /ˈɛkwɪtəbl/

          adjective

          1. 1.

            fair and impartial.

        • weka 8.1.2.2

          your comment would be an example of the point I was making.

          The left: we're right, people who disagree are reactionary/racist/idiots/frothers.

          And then we wonder why we are losing ground.

          I don't blame government, I blame voters 😈

          But the government was responsible for comms on 3 Waters and they blew it on a number of levels. Rather than dumping on Labour for that, I see it as a consequence of the pandemic, and of the left/centre left just not understanding the milieu in which we are now living and how change happens in that milieu.

          What surprises me is that the left doesn't see this stuff coming even when it's in our faces. It's been equally so with the gender/sex wars, with the liberal left trying to make out it's a fight between progressives and conservatives, ignoring the very large number of feminists and women generally who had objections to removing femaleness as a political concern, and then after a decade or so, when the conservatives have actually taken power of the narrative, the feminists and class leftists are sitting over there rolling their eyes saying 'we told you so'. And the left still doesn't get it. Or maybe it's starting too now that it's seen how 'what is a woman? actually plays out.

          But it's exactly the same dynamic. Liberals saying we know what's best and you are all a bunch of bigots. Wrong on both counts.

        • Molly 8.1.2.3

          "To put a positive spin on it: 'the left' try to do what is the right thing to do. That is, create an actual equitable society for all NZers regardless of race or creed. It means change… a change in attitudes and the means by which that change is achieved."

          How is that outcome achieved, when the proposed solution embeds a non-equitable process based on ethnicity?

          • Populuxe1 8.1.2.3.1

            Sigh.
            Illustrating Equality VS Equity : Interaction Institute for Social Change

            • Molly 8.1.2.3.1.1

              Your racism is showing.

              Or perhaps it is my own assumption of your racism.

              (But I am assuming you are equating being Māori with being the person in the purple – or red – shirt.)

              Am I correct?

              • Populuxe1

                The only racism showing is yours, because at this point I can't just dismiss it as ignorance.

                • Molly

                  Yeah, on a site that promotes robust discussion the proffering of insults is increasingly the result when thinking is challenged:

                  https://kevinkelly-61383.medium.com/the-problem-with-equity-fa208c9db7f

                  "Both intentionally and accidentally, the equity-based system of affirmative action is fundamentally unfair even towards the disadvantaged people it aims to serve. The intentional factor is what specifically makes it an example of systemic racism, because within that system is an established practice of racially discriminating."

      • Populuxe1 8.1.3

        Māori ethnicity – which is unable to be defined accurately, (and has no shared experience, need or provision), with those concerned about women's rights and provisions – is a poor comparator

        As far as I'm aware it's accurately defined as having whakapapa and it's a shared experience among other Māori, and more broadly by colonised indigenous peoples.

        Even those who advocated for preferential treatment for Māori in healthcare, did not do so because institutional racism was identified. The issues around access to healthcare are usually income based, or geographic not ethnicity.

        How is it preferential? It would have been the same healthcare as anyone else gets, just through a different agency addressing a clear demographic inequity. It was literally advocated for because institutional racism was identified – health inequities arising from social and income inequalities.

        If Māori had retained complete sovereignty over NZ, what would you say the modern Māori citizen would expect in terms of delivery of fundamental services, and the ability to choose your representation in whatever form of governance would exist?

        What if all the world was paper and all the sea was ink, and how many red herrings grow in the wood? I'd avoid having a naked flame anywhere near that straw man.

        As far as I am concerned, our imperfect democracy is as yet the best system that has been designed, and implemented successfully.

        Are you suggesting that precludes making it better? Especially when we can identify clear problems?

        But happy to hear about your take on what you believe would have been delivered by Māori, if the country and the culture had not been interrupted by integration, the signing of the Treaty, immigration and the global influence, wars and achievements that have taken place in the last two centuries or so.

        Oh just put on your white hood already. Your whataboutery is entirely disingenuous.

        • Molly 8.1.3.1

          "Oh just put on your white hood already. Your whataboutery is entirely disingenuous."

          Well, that escalated pretty quickly, when you found yourself unable to answer a couple of straightforward questions.

          I have a couple more, since you are unwilling or unable to answer the others.l, but they'll have to wait until I change devices – having trouble posting on this one.

          • Populuxe1 8.1.3.1.1

            If the hood fits…

            • Molly 8.1.3.1.1.1

              "If the hood fits…"

              Low bar in terms of commentary.

              Doubling down does not raise the quality, but it does give a good expectation of what to expect.

              • Populuxe1

                Well willful obtuseness and silly straw man questions only lead to so many conclusions. While you're looking things up, add "concern trolling" to the list.

                • Molly

                  I'm not someone who has to look up definitions of words I use, or is unable to provide them.

                  Don't resort to this form of discussion.

                  It's a poor example of addressing contentious issues as a grown adult.

                  • Populuxe1

                    Well if it's not ignorance, I can only conclude it's racism

                    • Molly

                      Another alternative is that your argument is not persuasive – or particularly informed in regards to wider Māori perspectives.

                      I'm going with that…laugh

        • Molly 8.1.3.2

          "As far as I'm aware it's accurately defined as having whakapapa and it's a shared experience among other Māori, and more broadly by colonised indigenous peoples."

          What does this mean exactly? Given NZ's unique history in terms of human settlement – very recent in global terms, and the few hundred years of sole Māori occupation has been followed by integration with others for more than that time, we have a definition of Māori provided by you that includes many other ethnicities alongside that whakapapa.

          To be identified as Māori, do we collectively ignore those other contributing ethnicities?

          What "shared experiences" do modern Māori share? If you can whakapapa your Māori ancestry but have not experienced those "shared experiences" – what does that mean?

          Even when all that is answered, what is the relevance? Many sailors have a shared experience of being out in a storm. Does that have to be legislated for? Provide the argument for why it needs to be recognised by legislation or policy.

          "How is it preferential? It would have been the same healthcare as anyone else gets, just through a different agency addressing a clear demographic inequity. It was literally advocated for because institutional racism was identified – health inequities arising from social and income inequalities."

          Institutional racism was looked for – but not found. Despite that, access to screening programmes, medications etc were adjusted to allow those who claim Māori ethnicity a different, often earlier, pathway to care.

          "Are you suggesting that precludes making it better? Especially when we can identify clear problems?"

          No, of course not. But what are you proposing that makes it better?

          • Populuxe1 8.1.3.2.1

            You're being willfully obtuse.

            Māori is defined by whakapapa / genealogy.

            No one is collectively ignoring those other contributing ethnicities. Within Te Tiriti they are covered by the Crown. Nor were they the indigenous peoples of this land who had sovereignty and autonomy largely usurped by a colonial power leading to generations of alienation, disenfranchisement and trauma.

            Modern Māori share the experience of being modern Māori. They know what it means. I can figure out what it means. Why can't you?

            Institutional racism was looked for – but not found.

            Maybe go and familiarise yourself with the definition of "institutional racism" – it refers to the intrinsic nature of the system, not the people involved.

            • Belladonna 8.1.3.2.1.1

              Modern Māori share the experience of being modern Māori. They know what it means. I can figure out what it means. Why can't you?

              Based on this argument, Winston Peters, David Seymour and Shane Jones have just as much credibility to claim to speak for Maori as Debbie Ngarewa-Packer or Marama Davidson.

              • Populuxe1

                No, that wasn't the question, and Winston Peters, David Seymour and Shane Jones have just as much credibility to claim to speak for Māori who voted for them as Debbie Ngarewa-Packer or Marama Davidson. Māori aren't some kind of Borg hive mind. But not agreeing politically doesn't negate collective experiences in relation to language, culture, land, history and identity, even if they are negative ones. Peters, Seymour and Jones are still Māori even if they're against everything that potentially stands for.

                • Belladonna

                  I agree that Maori are not some kind of 'hive mind' – although it's a distinction that seems to escape many who claim to speak for Maori.

                  Claiming that "Peters, Seymour and Jones are still Māori even if they're against everything that potentially stands for." – implies that only the politically activist TMP and left wing politicians truly speak for Maori. There are different political perspectives – and not all (or even the majority) of Maori agree with the one espoused by TPM.

                  Many people with Maori whakapapa have little or no shared 'collective experiences' – any more than they do with people who share their Irish or German (for example) elements of their ancestry. Indeed, many have only discovered this whakapapa relatively late in life. Those who embrace Maori identity politics might deplore this. But it is a reality.

                  • Populuxe1

                    Claiming that "Peters, Seymour and Jones are still Māori even if they're against everything that potentially stands for." – implies that only the politically activist TMP and left wing politicians truly speak for Maori.

                    Logic mustn't be your strong point then. No one truly speaks for anyone by that definition. That's why they have all those hui on the marae. That said, most Māori can agree on points of tikanga.

                    any more than they do with people who share their Irish or German (for example) elements of their ancestry.

                    Hoo boy, those would have to be the two worst examples you could have chosen. I'd love to see you explain that to some New Zealanders of Irish descent on St Patrick's Day. You may be completely alienated from whatever cultural heritage you supposedly spring from, but that's not how it works for most of us, not historically, and not least because there isn't a generic "New Zealand" identity to easily assimilate into.

                    • Molly

                      " That said, most Māori can agree on points of tikanga."

                      Even if that is true – which I suspect it is not – what is the relevance to modern day legislation and policy?

                    • Populuxe1

                      Even if that is true – which I suspect it is not – what is the relevance to modern day legislation and policy?

                      The acknowledgement of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the respect of the culture and customary rights.

                    • Molly

                      "The acknowledgement of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the respect of the culture and customary rights."

                      Where do you see this not occurring?

                    • Belladonna

                      It must be news to TPM politicians that they don't speak for 'Maori'. I've yet to read one of them qualifying their statements as representing only their own electorate.

                      https://archive.ph/hWILi

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/te-pati-maori-co-leader-debbie-ngarewa-packer-says-smokefree-reversal-is-systemic-genocide/QZ7K7LHPGJDXLHH3LPEZSKOW5Y/

                      I have many friends who have some Irish ancestry – who don't particularly identify as 'Irish Kiwis'. And those who do identify – are much more at the level of wearing green on St Patrick's Day, rather than being embedded in the 'Irishness' of their ancestry. They probably know little about why their ancestors left Ireland, and less about what Ireland is like today, and have little cultural context (and *certainly* aren't motivated to learn Gaelic).

                      Which culture do you identify with when you have ancestors from Ireland, Scotland, England Germany and Samoa? Most of them would regard themselves as culturally 'Kiwi'. They might cheer for Ireland (or England or Scotland or Samoa) if NZ isn't playing in the rugby final – but that's as far as it goes.

                      You may not believe that there is a Kiwi cultural identity – but most of the rest of us do. Especially those of us who have travelled or lived overseas – and found out just how much we have in common with other Kiwis.

                    • Pat

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Paddy

                      As a Kiwi with Irish grandparents who has been to Ireland I can confidently say I have no insight into Irish culture….and as I have other ancestry, some known, some not, I ascribe little importance to it…..having said that, I have enjoyed the odd St Patricks Day session or two.

                      As you do.

                    • Pat

                      And P.S.

                      Certainly no insight into Irish culture 130 years ago when my grandfather left Ireland as a 16 year old.

                      The past is a foreign country.

                    • Muttonbird

                      Well, it looks like the left does represent Māori:

                      Despite National, ACT and NZ First returning to Parliament with significantly larger parties, their success at the election was not thanks to Māori voters.

                      Analysis of voter turnout and the election results show Māori voters backed parties on the Left – Labour, the Greens, and te Pāti Māori – at October’s election.

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/133423630/who-in-parliament-has-the-mandate-to-represent-mori

            • Molly 8.1.3.2.1.2

              "Modern Māori share the experience of being modern Māori. They know what it means. I can figure out what it means. Why can't you?"

              What I don't know is what it means to you, and why you consider this circular definition to be relevant to questions of policy and government.

              Can you elaborate?

              “Institutional racism was looked for – but not found.

              Maybe go and familiarise yourself with the definition of “institutional racism” – it refers to the intrinsic nature of the system, not the people involved.”

              That’s not a reasoned response. Looking up the definition still doesn’t mean it existed in terms of access to services in NZ. Racism has not been shown to exist at institutional levels.

              • Populuxe1

                That’s not a reasoned response. Looking up the definition still doesn’t mean it existed in terms of access to services in NZ. Racism has not been shown to exist at institutional levels.

                I gave you the answer. Five minutes reading a couple of definitions of "institutional racism" as a concept would have done it. It's structural, not premeditated. If you refuse to engage with that at this point, you're doing so deliberately, and that can only reasonably attributed to you refusing to interrogate your own biases.

                • Molly

                  No, populuxe1.

                  You are the one claiming "institutional/structural racism".

                  You should be able to provide examples of it.

                  Can you do so?

                  • Populuxe1

                    Oh ffs, it's like arguing with a Dalek.

                    Pākehā institutions reflect Pākehā cultural norms, assumptions and biases. You know, like yours.

                    • Molly

                      @Populuxe1

                      "Pākehā institutions reflect Pākehā cultural norms, assumptions and biases. You know, like yours."

                      I'm not the one who is making assumptions here…

                      What makes them Pākehā institutions, as opposed to a current iteration of the usual officious institutions that result from a democratic society? Do they retain the belief of women as property, or have they let go of some of the more outdated perspectives as years have gone by?

                      What would make them Māori institutions? Would it be a set of curated cultural traditions that most Māori do not themselves follow?

                    • Pat

                      Care to define pakeha cultural norms?

                      I know my pakeha cultural norms dont necessarily match those of many other pakeha, nevermind the multitude of other cultures in this fair land.

                  • Incognito

                    If you know what you’re looking for it is too easy to find. If not, use Google:

                    Across organisations and society

                    Institutional or structural racism is when government, organisations, education, and wider society use laws, policies and practices that create unfair advantage for some groups, and disadvantage for others. It builds over time and though not always intentional, drives inequality and disempowerment.

                    Examples:

                    • Media reports that stereotype ethnic groups.
                    • Certain ethnic groups being imprisoned disproportionately more and for longer compared with the majority.
                    • Treating people applying for jobs and promotions, and setting their pay rates, in a way that values those with European-centred knowledge, experience and qualifications more highly.
                    • Only teaching European-centred histories, leaving indigenous and ethnic experiences invisible and silent.

                    https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/national-action-plan-against-racism/

  9. James Simpson 9

    This is a profoundly difficult issue to both understand and reach a resolution on. I genuinely fear what will happen in the coming years as we work through these issues.

    I understand the interpretation issues. But regardless of what side of that argument you sit, it will be difficult for us to all move on if one interpretation is held out to the exclusion of the other. This election result was in my view the outcome of doing exactly that.

    There needs to be some form of compromise for us to move forward, as a 180 year old document that is open to interpretation is not for for purpose.

  10. weka 10

    Given how long Te Papa has had to change this display, the protest seems reasonable and proportionate.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/11-12-2023/a-brief-history-of-complaints-about-te-papas-te-tiriti-exhibit

    Afaik there are three versions: te reo Māori version, English translation of that, and the English version. Māori and scholars have been talking about this for many decades, including that internationally it's considered proper to work with the native language version of treaties.

    It blows my mind that it's 2023 and we're still not much futher ahead on understanding this.

    Also, Te Papa, wtaf. Why not have the three versions and explanation? MSM is saying that Te Papa is saying that they did have explanations along with the English and Te Reo versions, but that's not really good enough is it.

    • Chess Player 10.1

      No, it's not good enough.

      What's needed is a single, unifying document that people do agree on.

      Clearly that's the only way forward if we want lasting peace.

      Unfortunately, with all the vested interests on all sides, I don't think that's possible.

      Best to just get on and effect your own change within your own sphere of influence.

      • weka 10.1.1

        What's needed is a single, unifying document that people do agree on.

        how would that come about in a way that is fair to Māori who are a minority of the population?

        There's nothing wrong with the Treaty and honouring it. The work that has been done building case law and knowledge about the Treaty is fine. The problem atm is the political messaging is off, and we are now in a time of Trumpian politics with active promotion of reactionary positions. Most people aren't into that, we should be working with those people on finding a way forward.

        • Molly 10.1.1.1

          "…how would that come about in a way that is fair to Māori who are a minority of the population?"

          What do you see as "fair to Māori"?

          At present, all NZers – including Māori – have the same protections, access to services and provisions and individual rights.

          What do you see as unfair?

          (Is it to do with actual whakapapa in terms of ancestry, or are you recognising a particular set of values that you label Māori – because these are fundamentally two distinctly different categories).

          • Populuxe1 10.1.1.1.1

            I'm sorry, are currently experiencing colonisation? Just in case you thought it was a historical thing, it isn't. It's ongoing, and this coalition is a pretty good example of that.

            • Molly 10.1.1.1.1.1

              That's a whole lot of words thrown together with no specific point or meaning.

              What is happening in terms of "colonisation" in NZ at present that needs addressing?

                • Molly

                  Most Māori – who completed the survey at specifically selected Māori events and locations, which contained various degrees of racism definitions – experience racism.

                  "How did we find people to do the Survey?

                  Stalls were set up at 22 events across Aotearoa. These events were selected because they were likely to draw significant numbers and be safe places for Māori. The largest gathering was Te Matatini Kapa Haka Festival in Wellington, where over 500 participants took the Survey. We attended the most events in Whanganui (11), reaching over 430 participants."

                  I acknowledge the experience of racism, but in order to make institutional changes that racism should be identified at institutional level. It is not.

                  Full report here:

                  https://whakatika.teatawhai.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Whakatika-Report-March-2021.pdf

              • Populuxe1

                Yes, I threw them together into sentences to explain that colonisation is an ongoing reality for indigenous peoples, not a done and dusted historical artefact.

                What is happening in terms of "colonisation" in NZ at present that needs addressing?

                I think I may have hurt myself rolling my eyes then. Let's start with Māori being at the bottom of nearly every metric. Theoretically Māori may have access to the same rights as everyone else, but they have a lot more historically to overcome in order to access that. You don't just force someone to the margins for a century and half and then just magically expect them to pull themselves together – it doesn't work that way.

                • Molly

                  "I think I may have hurt myself rolling my eyes then."

                  Forget your eyes, and engage your brain.

                  "You don't just force someone to the margins for a century and half and then just magically expect them to pull themselves together – it doesn't work that way."

                  Māori made up a big proportion of the working class, and similar to other members of the working class in New Zealand are paying for the shift in the 80s to a neo-liberal economy.

                  You seem to think that Māori are the bottom of metrics due to "colonisation". But you fail to give any specifics over what modern Māori have in the way of impediments in terms of those markers. Because if it is not equitable access, or equal provision then those other factors need to be identified to be addressed effectively.

                  I've had this conversation on here many times, so I'm loathe to repeat it again with someone who has implied – not only that I'm racist – but aligned with the Ku Klux Klan.

                  So, I'll link to one:

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-06-2023/#comment-1956492

                  And another:

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1924284

                  • Populuxe1

                    It's like trying to talk to a particularly ignorant and stubborn brick wall.

                    Forget your eyes, and engage your brain.

                    You first.

                    You seem to think that Māori are the bottom of metrics due to "colonisation". But you fail to give any specifics over what modern Māori have in the way of impediments in terms of those markers. Because if it is not equitable access, or equal provision then those other factors need to be identified to be addressed effectively.

                    Which part of alienation from tradition rights and lands, and constantly experiencing racism (unless they happen to look sufficiently Pākehā) when it comes to employment, financial institutions, distrust of education and health systems after generations of abuse, demonstrably disproportionate incarceration rates, Waitiangi settlement reparations are only a tiny fraction of the value of lands that were stolen, and a host of other factors not penetrating that skull, eh?

                    I've had this conversation on here many times

                    I wonder why? Could it be because you refuse to take on any of the information provided to you even when it should be obvious?

                    • Molly

                      Most modern Māori (not all – but most) are generations removed from past injustices and atrocities committed over a century ago. Bastion Point is a notable recent injustice.

                      To claim direct individual harm, when connections are tenuous, and injustices are no longer institutional – to me is disrespectful to current autonomy and also to those who lived and died without those reparations.

                      We do have an existing process via the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with identified injustices and reparation.

                      Most modern Māori are urban and not connected in meaningful ways with ancestral land or maraes, sometimes by the distance of time and generational relocation, often by choice.

                      Why are traditional cultural values assumed to be the only panacea for any Māori who is currently struggling?

                      This is similar to telling people to join the church for a sense of community, personal well-being and purpose.

                      It is not the role of a secular state to make this recommendation, nor to adopt those beliefs into governance.

  11. Tricledrown 11

    Seymour garnering support by dog whistling anti Maori rhetoric. Ironic from him being of a certain ethnicity even recently cleaning racist tagging near a synagog saying antisemitism is not OK while pursuing an anti Maori agenda attacking while trying to attact white supremacy support.That is OK for someone whose race has been harassed for centuries.If Maori could gain the same amount of compensation Jewish people got from Germany US$70 billion about $200 billion in today's money. Plus a homeland on mainly someone else's land without compensating them.

    Seymour is a hypocrit of the highest order who is deliberately trying to divide the country the slippery little 2 faced narcissist.

  12. Muttonbird 12

    Very interesting Encyclopedia.com entry on Ethnocide, which a couple of people on this thread really should read. This section addresses means of prevention:

    Polices of multiculturalism, similar to those that have been officially adopted in countries such as Australia and Canada, promote the value of cultural diversity within states by various means: the promotion of multicultural and multilinguistic media, the provision of at least some government services in minority languages, the recognition of religious and other important holidays celebrated by all communities in a state, and the provision of education, at least at the primary school level and in the communities most affected, in a mother language. Including the representatives of many cultures in official and other public ceremonies, and representatives of all groups in public committees and other official activities, also raises awareness of these groups and their contribution to the culture of the state as a whole.

    The previous government did a lot of work in these areas. The current government is actively and very quickly unwinding that work, the means of prevention of Ethnocide.

    • Molly 12.1

      "…the means of prevention of Ethnocide"

      Good grief.

      The prevailing universal factor in most official policies, occasions and documents is pomposity and boredom. This unfortunately exists in most cultures, regardless of which one you choose.

      Systems developed to deliver are just that. Often they are inefficient and require improvement, but defining them as non-indigenous is an indulgence in NZ. (And probably irrelevant in most other Western countries. That perspective provides no specific reference to quality of service or delivery.)

      • Muttonbird 12.1.1

        Was this reply to a different comment, because I have no idea wtf you are babbling on about.

        Btw, you are one of the people who should read that encyclopedia entry.

  13. Tiger Mountain 13

    As is often the case imho, Micky Sav nails it.

    Some provincials and whiteys will get all wound up, but the fact is the demographics are changing…Māori and Pasifika birth rates are at replacement level, pākehā and other tauwiwi are at 1.6%. New gens will outnumber boomers for the 2026 General Election, and the political tasks associated with that are rather obvious.

    • Belladonna 13.1

      Most Maori and Pasifika births are also Pakeha births. Ancestors come from a wide variety of ethnicities.

      • Molly 13.1.1

        New Zealand is fairly unique in that regard.

        Given the relatively late human settlement, (especially compared to our Australian neighbour) and the early and continual integration of Maori with others in terms of familial relationships, we have a distinctly different situation from those in other countries.

      • weka 13.1.2

        TM was referring to the cultural part of ethnicity. Birth rate of groups is largely determined by socioeconomics, and cultural values.

        If one's grandparents were Polynesian and Anglo, the chances of having a larger family are greater than if they were all Anglo.

        At some point in the future, Polynesians will make up the majority of NZers.

  14. Gosman 14

    "There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear. "

    It is not a principle of international law. The legal concept being used is called Contra proferentem. It's application is focused on Contract law and has only been applied to international treaties in Common law jurisdictions and (as far as I know) have only been applied elsewhere in matters involving commercial elements of treaties not on matters of sovereignty.

    There is a commonly accepted way of interpreting international Treaties that are written in more than one language. It is set out in Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the :Law of Treaties.

    • James Simpson 14.1

      Yes I was going to question this clear principle of international law, but you have answered that for me. Thank you

  15. Populuxe1 15

    There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear. Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language. The dominant foreign power should suffer from any ambiguity. And the indigenous people should not be held to a version that they never signed.

    I'd like to see chapter and verse on that, because as others have pointed out, what Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties actually says is:

    1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.

    2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.

    3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

    4. Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.

  16. Corey 16

    If the left actually for one millisecond believed that the vast majority of nz supported the Maori translation the left wouldnt be frightened or outraged about a Referendum on the treaty of waitangi.

    Now as a gay man from a mixed race Ngati Mutunga family, do we need Maori at the table absolutely, but implementing the Maori translation of the treaty is not serious politics, it's student politics at its worst.

    I for one totally agree that Iwi should be involved in housing and immigration policy, since unstable and unhealthy housing is a root cause of poverty, expensive physical and mental health problems, low productivity, bad education rates. Why shouldn't Maori be involved in housing policy?

    Middle class Liberal pakeha may think it's OK to import 100,000 people into nz everywhere (higher rates than during colonization) while building a paltry 25,000 houses a year and scoffing at the idea of increasing the percentage of state housing to overall housing stock

    But mass immigration which is supported by Labour, Greens, National and Act is mutilating the lives of Maori and poor pakeha renters who cannot find anywhere to live.

    How racist is it that Labour and National are disproportionately throwing Maori into motels because they cannot afford to even rent a home in their own homeland?

    Labour are like the party they replaced, the United party during the great depression. Fiddling while Rome burnt.

    The last time housing was this bad the savage govt was elected and they embarked on the greatest social credit and keynesian infrastructure build in nz history.

    Labour instead threw poor people in motels and gave the market some crown land and begged them to do something lol.

    The damage mass immigration is inflicting on Maori in housing, health, education and productivity is gargantuan.

    You cannot be on the side of the environment, labour, Maori or the poor and be in favor of mass immigration, ask kirk or savage the leaders modern Labour pretends it has anything in common with…

    Mass immigration is a self fufilling prophecy, young people aren't having enough kids or getting the skills they need to do jobs we need because education and housing is too expensive, so we import people which makes housing and education more expensive so the children of the immigrants can't accord to have kids, so we import more.

    If the left want to actually support Maori and the poor, then the only thing the left should be talking about for the next 3 years is housing and immigration because everything else is a waste of time.

    All we care about is housing. That's it.

    And no liberal pakeha, we're not talking about f***ing ownership. That ship sailed long ago.

    Until Labour and the greens both have policies that bring state housing to 10%+ if total housing stock don't even pretend to care about the poor. It's all theater.

    Maori see immigration as : pakeha as house guests who have thrown a massive street party in Maoris house and locked the doors so Maori can't enter their own property and now Maori are stuck out side with a bunch of the pakehas pakeha mates who they no longer care about because the pakeha now has new cooler friends.

    • Robert Guyton 16.1

      "The damage mass immigration is inflicting on Maori in housing, health, education and productivity is gargantuan."

      Are you talking about the arrival of European colonists in the 1800's?

      • Gosman 16.1.1

        Which was agreed to in the Treaty. It is mentioned explicitly in the preamble.

        • adam 16.1.1.1

          Expert now are we Gossy? Like your members in the debate in the house on the repeal of the Far Pay Act 2022 employment law.

        • weka 16.1.1.2

          how about you link to the version you are referencing so we can all see the whole preamble and the articles.

          • Gosman 16.1.1.2.1

            https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/translation-of-te-reo-maori-text/

            "…to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands4 and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come."

            That is the English translation of the Te Reo version of part of the preamble to the Treaty of Waitangi. This seems to be quite clear that British people would be immigrating to NZ.

            • weka 16.1.1.2.1.1

              thanks Gosman, context always improves teh debate.

              The context in this subthread is the mass immigration that damaged Māori society, not immigration per se. It's not unreasonable to assume that Māori signing the treaty didn't fully understand what was about to happen, in terms of the numbers of immigrants, but also how the Crown both fundamentally reneged on the treaty and used law and force to take what it wanted and do what it wanted.

              • Gosman

                Even if we take the (for many people) quite radical position that the Treaty only gave the Crown ultimate authority over British or non-Maori people living in NZ it did not give Maori authority to stop mass immigration by British people into the country. If the Crown is responsible for the British then they are also responsible for controlling the flow of British immigrants. There is nothing in the Treaty that gave Maori the authority to interfere in that.

                • weka

                  who is it that you think claimed the Māori had the authority to stop mass immigration?

                  Arising from Corey's post, and Robert's response, there are a number issues.

                  After the Treaty was signed the Crown took various actions that allowed mass migration here, including taking Māori land. Without that land, and without decimating Māori culture and political power, immigration would have been very very different.

                  • Gosman

                    Not at all. Access to land was never much of a hinderance to settlement in NZ outside the Waikato and possibly Taranaki. The South Island alone had more than enough available land and also a tiny Maori population that was willing to sell most of it.

                    The most the conflict between the Crown and Maori altered in terms of settlement is that the hinterland of Auckland was opened up which obviously benefitted the development of that area. It is arguable whether that woulkd have restricted immigration significantly if it hadn't occured.

                    • weka

                      Māori in the South Island had large amounts of land taken too.

                      Pressures to sell came in various forms, it wasn't an even playing field, which is why it's still an issue 180 years later.

                      Māori held 80% of the land in the NI in 1860. Are you telling me the Crown, the settler companies and the settlers were going to be content with 20%? Tui award.

                      https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/maori-land-1860-2000

                    • Gosman

                      There was less than 10,000 Maori in the entire South Island in 1840 (I've seen some estimates at around 5,000). There was a reason that buying land in the South Island was easy for the Crown. Of course there was sale conditions that weren't kept and hence why there has been Treaty settlements but ultimately the vast majority of the land in the South Island was purchased legitimately.

                    • weka []

                      And even less non-Māori. You’re making my argument for me Gosman. Taking land and then mass immigration happened because of the geography, the politics, culture clash and because Māori were powerless to stop it. The conversation started by being about how that damaged Māori.

                      I’m quoting this at length, because it shows the problems with colonisation and how the Crown did badly by Māori,

                      The Canterbury Purchase, commonly referred to as Kemp’s Deed, was signed by a group of Ngāi Tahu chiefs on board the HM Sloop Fly in Akaroa Harbour on 12 June, 1848. It was the largest of all the Crown purchases from Ngāi Tahu and the least carefully transacted.

                      In 1848, Henry Tacy Kemp, acting on behalf of the Crown, purchased 13,551,400 acres of land for £2,000. The boundaries were not well defined at the time, and the exact area purchased by the Crown has always been a contentious issue for Ngāi Tahu. In any event, it is important to note that out of that massive acreage, the area that the Crown set aside for Ngāi Tahu was a meagre 6,359 acres. This was despite a directive from the Crown to Kemp to “reserve to the natives ample portions of land for their present and prospective wants”.

                      At the time Ngāi Tahu signed the deed of sale they were under considerable pressure to do so. The previous year the Crown had “purchased” a large area of Ngāi Tahu land from Ngāti Toa under the Wairau Deed. As a consequence of that action, Ngāi Tahu felt compelled to sign Kemp’s Deed in order to confirm their mana over the remaining land.

                      Under the terms of the deed of sale, as well as receiving an undertaking that adequate reserves would be set aside “for their present and future wants” and the provision of schools and hospitals, the Crown promised that all of the Ngāi Tahu mahinga kai areas would be set aside for them.

                      Not only did the Crown fail to set aside adequate reserves for Ngāi Tahu (the average area being 10 acres per person), but the Crown also determined that mahinga kai sites were restricted to those areas currently under cultivation as gardens, or the places where there were fixed structures such as eel weirs. As a result, Ngāi Tahu lost ownership and control of, and access to, all of their traditional mahinga kai.

                      https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/connect-2/connect/news-and-stories/kemps-deed-1848/

                      There’s no legitimacy in that from a treaty perspective, which is why we needed the Tribunal and why it’s still being worked out 180 years later.

                    • Gosman

                      Noone is disputing there weren't flaws in the purchase of much of the South Island but what is clear is that Nga Tahu was not utilising the vast majority of the land that they sold (given they numbered less than 5000 people) and even if they had retained all of their traditional mahinga kai areas the South Island would have been opened up for mass settlement by the British.

                    • weka []

                      Name me three areas in Canterbury, Southland and/or Otago that you believe Māori hapū didn’t traditionally use pre-contact with Europeans. Not restricted to Kāi Tahu.

                    • lprent []

                      You appear to have a mistaken idea about what constitute ‘property rights’ and ‘contract law’. You are massively ignorant. I got this in the first page of a google.

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104100739/treaty-of-waitangi-what-was-lost#:~:text=For%20the%20most%20part%2C%20land,most%20of%20the%20South%20Island.

                      Between 1848 and 1864, Ngāi Tahu sold most of the South Island to the Crown for 15,000 pounds – a sum that equated to a fraction of a penny per acre.

                      In return, the Crown promised to build schools and hospitals for the iwi and to set aside 10 per cent of the land for their occupation.

                      The schools and hospitals never materialised and Ngāi Tahu received only 37,000 acres of the purchased land – one-thousandth as opposed to one-tenth.

                      In the years that followed, the iwi fell into subsistence poverty and by the turn of the century there were just 2000 Ngāi Tahu left in their traditional lands.

                      Basically the crown was buying on the basis of preemption, made contractual arrangements that they never even attempted to fufill.

                      Consequently the contract should have been voided under any legitimate legal system.

                  • Pat

                    Have you considered the circumstances at the time?

                    Faced with an influx of migrants with apparent technological ability to overwhelm your culture (and in this case 2 competing super powers, England and France) you may decide it is better to sign an agreement that at least provides some protection as opposed to the prospect of conflict?

                    I dont imagine the Maori leaders of the time didnt understand their options and chose accordingly (as many cultures have done through history).

                    What is required now is a workable solution that acknowledges both the (obvious ) historical injustices and provides for a pragmatic future in a resources constrained democratic nation.

                    If we dont wish a democratic nation then we'd better work out PDQ what alternative we can all agree upon.

    • weka 16.2

      If the left want to actually support Maori and the poor, then the only thing the left should be talking about for the next 3 years is housing and immigration because everything else is a waste of time.

      Completely agree with what you are saying about immigration here. I would add we should contextualise housing and immigration in the environment, because climate is going to hit really fucking hard if we don't all act, and the environment teaches us primarily about teh limits of growth, denial of which is the base problem here.

      Seeing Robert's comment reminds me of my puzzlement at the left's antipathy towards colonisation in the 1800s but the prohibition to talk about the current colonisation. We're stuck in the same old binary thinking, where the left think and critique or analysis of immigration is bigotry.

      I do however disagree with this,

      If the left actually for one millisecond believed that the vast majority of nz supported the Maori translation the left wouldnt be frightened or outraged about a Referendum on the treaty of waitangi.

      The biggest problem is largely one of ignorance. It's not about whether most NZers would support te reo version, it's about how many NZers don't understand our history and the issues. That's what's scary about a referndum: it would flat out be a propaganda machine to rark up racism in NZ, and it would succeed.

      The left's failure here is in thinking we can force people to adopt our values. We can't. And we're starting to feel the pinch of the push back of that approach. What we can do is talk reconciliation instead of outright war. This doesn't mean no protest, nor a weak, middle way. It means if we cannot convince our neighbours and work mates and cousins, we cannot win.

      • Robert Guyton 16.2.1

        It may not be possible to convince those folk, given the bad actors determined to convince those folk otherwise.

        In that case, the best and most honourable thing to do would be to hold to and profess, the truth of the matter.

        The Te Papa protest does that.

        • weka 16.2.1.1

          I completely support actions like the Te Papa protest. It's essential, and on its own it's not enough. You know Joanna Macy's three pillars, right?

          1. Holding actions
          2. Structural change
          3. Shifts in consciousness

          Atm the left seems to be doing 1, attempting 2, without thought for 3.

          It may not be possible to convince those folk, given the bad actors determined to convince those folk otherwise.

          Which folk? There are always people who can be swayed on way or the other. We haven't given people a compelling narrative yet.

          • Gosman 16.2.1.1.1

            You certainly won't be getting 3 if the activists continue with 1.

            • Populuxe1 16.2.1.1.1.1

              I'm pretty sure a lot of people who otherwise agree with the right to protest and the issue being protested, have, like me, a visceral reaction to masked people smashing things in museums.

            • Incognito 16.2.1.1.1.2

              That’s the most self-referential comment of yours on this site so far and you don’t even realise it.

            • weka 16.2.1.1.1.3

              You certainly won't be getting 3 if the activists continue with 1.

              already been done, many times. Exhibit A, XR completely changed the consciousness about climate action by direct action and civil disobedience.

              Let me know if you want other examples.

              (probably not quite what Macy meant, but still meaningful)

              • Robert Guyton

                Your citing of XR and their "changing of consciousness" kinda conflicts with your,

                "Atm the left seems to be doing 1, attempting 2, without thought for 3."

                That said, I support the direction you are taking and the narrative you are espousing – always (mostly 🙂 have, probably always will 🙂

                • weka

                  🙂

                  I don't consider UK XR to be the left 😉 (but an overlapping Venn diagram for sure).

                  And I was referring to the NZ political left (centre left/left).

                  Did you know Gail Bradbrook used psychedelics in her activism process? I'm sure there are NZ lefties likewise, but it's not really a feature of our leaders.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    "Did you know Gail Bradbrook used psychedelics in her activism process? I'm sure there are NZ lefties likewise, but it's not really a feature of our leaders. "

                    No, what? They …what??

                    🙂

                    • weka

                      Although most psychedelics are illegal in the West, it’s in the tradition of many indigenous cultures to have a relationship and dialogue with the natural world that is partly mediated through plants like Ayahuasca (a psychedelic tea made using an Amazonian vine) and Peyote (a psychedelic cactus). I don’t make decisions to fly readily these days, but I decided to travel to Costa Rica where in the space of two weeks I ingested a flood dose of Iboga (a type of tree bark), worked with Kambo (the frog medicine) and had three experiences with Ayahuasca. I was terrified, but the reason why I pushed my consciousness to such extreme wasn’t just to do the inner work on myself – I wanted answers to how I could bring about social change. What was I missing? What am I not doing? It was a specific prayer for what I called the “codes for social change.”

                      https://www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/psychedelics-and-social-change

                    • weka

                      then,

                      When I arrived back to the UK I was introduced to Roger Hallam and together we began to create the movement that would become Extinction Rebellion. Roger is an academic who specialises in radical campaign design and at the end of our first meeting, which involved the sharing of lots of ideas, information and data, he joked that he had just given me “the codes for social changes”. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Thanks, weka – I've read the link now – very interesting indeed!

                    But not surprising 🙂

  17. roblogic 17

    Disappointing but not surprising to see how desperately muddle nu zillund clings to its colonial myths and lost ideals.

    We aren’t a workers paradise, everyone doesn’t have equal opportunity, the dominion of New Zealand was founded on blood and theft not democracy and peaceful trade. Although that’s the history we want to believe it is self serving and wallpapers over the truth.

    And increasingly I am disgusted by people that deny it or worse, claim that Māori are privileged and affirmative action policies intended to redress a disgraceful history of persecution and neglect are somehow racist.

    If we want justice then we must acknowledge the truth about this land.

    • Molly 17.1

      We can acknowledge historical injustices, without assuming those conditions for injustice exist today for modern NZers.

      Reasonable arguments do not claim that Māori are privileged, they advise against any policies being enacted which privileges one ethnicity over another. The very approach most historical injustices relied upon.

      Only a small proportion of Māori voters voted for TPM. Many have no affiliation with their stance.

      Here is one that may explain it better than I seem to be doing:

      https://twitter.com/ECA_Beast/status/1734690436827304106

      • roblogic 17.1.1

        Does this guy speak for all Maori? & with more authority than the numerous studies into health and welfare and education outcomes? that speak to a pakeha-oriented society that systemically disadvantages tangata whenua

        • Molly 17.1.1.1

          The point is: no-one speaks for all Māori. But a lot of people speak as if they know what all Māori think, experience and want.

          There is a lot of references to racism, yet no evidence of it in play. Outcomes have been connected to other factors such as poverty, not racism.

          Your link is not evidence of institutional racism, it is an assumption of it.

          • roblogic 17.1.1.1.1

            That reply demonstrates that you’re not worth wasting time on. Dismissing expert studies with a wave of the hand puts you in the cooker category. Bye

            • Molly 17.1.1.1.1.1

              Your links – one survey of 430 people, and a medical policy that doesn't provide a link to the racism it assumes are not quality sources.

              I know you are aware of official documentation put out containing absolute nonsense about gender ideology. Self-referencing nonsense that is built on assumption after fallacy.

              So, the importance of looking at and for sources should not escape you.

              This discomfort people have on being asked to provide quality links, definitions or argument is familiar.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 17.1.1.1.2

            Institutional racism in Aotearoa NZ is a historical reality, at least by today's standards – it would be remarkable if we were (somehow) the odd country out.

            Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori: Beaten for speaking their native tongue, and the generations that suffered [14 Sept 2020]

            Imho, it's highly likely such racism had inter-generational effects that persist to this day. If such effects persist, then that persistence will vary – for some individuals the effects may be negligible, and for others they may be profound.
            Also, being informed about profound effects assuages my "coloniser guilt" wink

            Racialized Surveillance in New Zealand: From the Tūhoe Raids to the Extralegal Photographing of Indigenous Youth [13 Dec 2021]

            A Fair Chance for All: Breaking the cycle of persistent disadvantage
            [June 2023]
            The drivers of disadvantage are systemic.
            We identified four barriers as underlying drivers of disadvantage:

            • Discrimination and the ongoing impact of colonisation – people of European descent became the ethnic majority and instituted assimilation and land alienation policies that continue to disadvantage Māori. Institutional racism and discrimination against other groups is also prevalent, including towards Pacific peoples, women, migrants, LGBTQ+ communities, sole parents and people with disabilities.
            • Short-termism – our systems are too focused on the immediate issues of the day, at the expense of addressing long-term challenges or anticipating what might lie around the corner.

            "Short-term thinking is the enemy of a resilient system." – perhaps not strictly relevant, but it's a bugbear of mine.

            The solution to institutional racism is 163 years old [21 Sept 2023]
            New Zealand is simply better at meeting the needs of Pākehā than Māori and the consequences for Māori health are predictable, unfair and unjust. But they are not inevitable.

            Kevin Hague (an Englishman by birth) is entitled to his opinion, but is he seeing straight? Perhaps his is yet another opinion tainted by pernicious ‘coloniser guilt’.

            • Molly 17.1.1.1.2.1

              My mother experienced the physical abuse at school for speaking Māori. Along with her many siblings.

              That experience has not left indelible traces on them, or compromised their involvement with their marae or their culture which persists through relationships and personal choice.

              They have also healed from disciplinary beatings at home, and sexual assaults that were never brought to the attention of authorities, with perpetrators never brought to task.

              The lives this generation offered my siblings and my cousin's is mostly one of balance, achievement and joy. Of the many relatives of my generation, there is the usual mix of property owners, overseas emigrants, criminals – superlative, good , bad and neglectful parenting.

              Māori culture when healthy sustained my mother's generation, but when unhealthy, harmed – just as any community can do when dysfunctional.

              The diversity of choices people have in front of them – including Māori – should not be ignored.

              My admiration for the old people and resilience and achievement in spite of hardship and deprivation, is not given to current Maori leadership because their appropriation of those past injustices for their modern lives, seems completely disrespectful to me.

              Other Māori will have other family stories that make them more receptive to TPM. Indeed, my own family will include supporters as well as the detractors I know of.

              That diversity of experience, reaction and perspective does not seem to be able to be expressed.

              Usually, most stridently challenged by those who are not Māori, negating any recollection or view that does not meet their “informed” understanding.

              • Drowsy M. Kram

                The diversity of choices people have in front of them – including Māori – should not be ignored.

                For some individuals, the (on-going) effects of historical institutional racism may be negligible, and for others they may be profound – just my opinion.
                Who is ignoring the qualitative and quantitative diversity of experiences, choices/reactions, and outcomes of institutional racism, in your opinion?

                That diversity of experience, reaction and perspective does not seem to be able to be expressed.

                That would be regrettable, although it seems your comment @17.1.1.1.2.1 is an excellent expression of such diversity, as is the Herald article on Māori children being beaten for speaking their native tongue, and deputy PM-to-be Seymour's ideas about what’s best for Māori, going forward.

                Seymour wants Māori seats abolished [12 August 2018]

                Imho, if there's one thing we're not short of in wider Kiwi society, it's diversity of opinion – so many slippery slopes.

                Invercargill mayor Nobby Clark called out for creating 'massive racial divide' with his anti-Māori comments [26 June 2023]

                • Molly

                  "For some individuals, the (on-going) effects of historical institutional racism may be negligible, and for others they may be profound – just my opinion."

                  Very similar to my opinion which I've previously expressed.

                  My concern, is that many have resorted to automatically assuming historical institutional harm AND the inability of people to heal and recover.

                  Notwithstanding those dealing with recent harms (as mentioned Bastion Point and Tuhoe raids), I have little patience for those who claim a warped inheritance of pain, and use it to excuse their behaviour or as a substitute for good reasoning in terms of introducing policies based on ethnicity.

                  Personal autonomy also comes into play. My family is large, reflective of my mother's very large family. As children we spent many holidays together, and even as a child it was easy to see those who had retained the corporal punishment approach in their own parenting and those that had not. Those who took measures to protect their children, and those that did not.

                  If institutional racism is found, it should be eliminated. But I do not believe that replacing it with ethnicity based policies is the answer. That is just an alternate form of institutional racism, one that has good intentions, but is not the answer.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram

                    I have little patience for those who claim a warped inheritance of pain, and use it to excuse their behaviour or as a substitute for good reasoning in terms of introducing policies based on ethnicity.

                    Certainly, "those who claim a warped inheritance of pain", and worse "use it to excuse their behaviour" and their supposed "inability… to heal and recover", should receive short shrift – they sound simply dreadful; duplicitous and weak as.

                    If institutional racism is found, it should be eliminated.

                    Yes – but how? Identifying contributory racist behaviours/systems is one thing (provided a definition of racism is agreed), but wouldn't 'elimination' require open minds and skilful (re-)education?

                    Pending elimination, on-going positive discrimination might be a path to improving statistical outcomes. Imho, not everyone who believes that positive discrimination (education quotas, allocation of public health services, financial incentives and the like) can make a positive difference is racist.

                    Banning bonuses for te reo speakers will meet strong resistance [13 Dec 2023]
                    There is a flip side to this and that is the argument that paying bonuses to employees who speak or are learning te reo discriminates against other groups. However, the Human Rights Act also allows an employer to implement measures for the purpose of assisting or advancing groups against whom discrimination is unlawful if it may reasonably be supposed that the group need this assistance in order to achieve an equal place in society. This effectively allows for “positive discrimination” if this is necessary to support a marginalised group to achieve equality.

                    Just because some members of a group don't believe that group is marginalised doesn't mean the group as a whole isn't marginalised, and vice versa – it pays to keep an open mind. Maybe Peters and Seymour will surprise – they each know something about marginalisation.

                    • Molly

                      "Just because some members of a group don't believe that group is marginalised doesn't mean the group as a whole isn't marginalised, and vice versa – it pays to keep an open mind. Maybe Peters and Seymour will surprise – they each know something about marginalisation."

                      Yes. That's why quality evidence is required when making this assertion.

                      There also has to be quality reasoning behind the reasons to address it, what outcomes are expected, and how long these protocols will be required for. Else what is proposed is not a solution, just a responsive policy.

                      I asked my mother about her ongoing effects from quite a hard upbringing in rural Northland in the early 40s.

                      Her response reiterated the resilience I spoke of earlier. The one I witnessed from most relatives I have of her generation.

                      What is your experience in your family of those who have dealt with trauma? Is it assumed to be intergenerational and all-pervasive or a life-obstacle?

                  • Drowsy M. Kram

                    Yes. That's why quality evidence is required when making this assertion.

                    Sometimes Often, no amount of quality evidence can shift a deeply held belief.

                    Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it. Finally suppose he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong. What will happen? The individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even show a new fervor for converting other people to his view.Brooke Gladstone

                    Individual and collective resilience are highly variable and desirable attributes, to be fostered, and ideally are about more than being tough as nails. Kudos to those who triumph over adversity through their own efforts, always remembering that not everyone can, and sometimes through no fault of their own – there but for the grace of God go I.

                    What is your experience in your family of those who have dealt with trauma?

                    My family is small – 2 siblings, 2 first cousins, and 7 in the next generation with no children of their own. Our ensemble 'traumas' (first world problems) seem very run-of-the-mill compared to previous generations – Mum used to recount the efforts of her primary school teacher to 'correct' sinister left-handed 'habits', until her mother (a former primary school teacher) intervened.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people#Forced_use_of_the_right_hand

                    She was strong-willed, my Grandma – I have a half-memory of a story that there was a chain outside a rural schoolhouse, where she taught, used to restrain a 'wild' Māori boy for the purposes of safety and attendance – funny what sticks in one's mind.

                    Is it assumed to be intergenerational and all-pervasive or a life-obstacle?

                    Don't know about "all-pervasive", but no more than it is assumed trauma cannot be intergenerational, and 'life-stunting', particularly in unsupportive social environments. "Just harden up" is not for me.

                    A quantitative analysis of disadvantage and how it persists in Aotearoa New Zealand [July 2023; PDF]
                    In addition to these three domains, we also consider mauri noho or disadvantage as having a temporal dimension – that is, disadvantage may be temporary, persistent, or intergenerational.

                    I believe state support for the persistently disadvantaged is preferable to no state support. Certainly, being dealt a relatively poor hand isn't always the kiss of death, but those who choose to give greater weight to personal experiences and/or anecdotal accounts than to statistical outcome-based quality evidence have something else going on, imho.

                    Breaking the inequity loop [28 Feb 2023]
                    If a change in government occurs later this year, there are strong indications from the current leading opposition party that Te Aka Whai Ora would be swiftly disestablished, and Māori health disparities instead addressed within a single health authority – despite these disparities being intransigent to change for over 100 years within the previous single health authority.

                    Dismantling Te Aka Whai Ora would reverse hard work – Lady Tureiti Moxon [15 Dec 2023]

                    https://amnesty.org.nz/data-highlight-harm-to-maori

            • Molly 17.1.1.1.2.2

              Meant to also comment on the recent Tuhoe raids. That incident was strongly and rightly criticised at the time by many.

              It was not disconnected from the expansion of GCSB, and SIS powers which occurred around the same time IIRC.

              The impact on the community was harmful and significant.

              This overreach by spooks has taken place with many movements in NZ, but the involvement and detention of children and many others not directly linked to concerns makes Operation 8 stand out as particularly vicious.

      • joe90 17.1.2

        Here is one that may explain it better than I seem to be doing:

        The only thing that particular comment from a random account full to the brim with RWNJ's hateful, racist reckons and cooker claptrap explains is just how fucking far down you are in that racist, hate-filled rabbit hole.

        //

        • Molly 17.1.2.1

          People commenting on this site often speak as if Maori are the equivalent of members of a political party, all agreeing with every party policy.

          Despite referring to Māori worldview and values, they don't get specific because specifics will fall apart at the first query.

          I linked to a random tweet because many commenters on here refer to Māori as if they have no autonomy or individual perspectives.

          Fair enough that you didn't like it, but it proves the point. People should stop referencing Māori as if they hold all the same views, perspectives and expectations. It's a fundamentally racist perspective.

          Māori should be recognised as holding as diverse views as others.

          No-one assumes all Pakeha vote or support National party policies. They are allowed to express their voting intentions for other parties, or political viewpoints without anyone blinking… or resorting to name calling.

  18. SPC 18

    There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear. Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language. The dominant foreign power should suffer from any ambiguity. And the indigenous people should not be held to a version that they never signed.

    The past, since New Zealand became self-governing, there has been no foreign power to hold to account.

    The future – UNDRIP's standards applies to nation states – which the UN recognises as sovereign. Thus obligations to the indigenous people indicate tacit recognition of a sovereign body, not that of the indigenous people.

    https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1

  19. Ghostwhowalks 19

    "They said the display should make it explicit that Māori never ceded sovereignty, contrary to what is in the English document which rangatira never signed."

    Never ? 39 Chiefs did sign the english version. Some major chiefs never signed at all.

    The original drafts of the English and Māori texts have been lost

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill passes first reading
    The Coalition Government’s Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which will improve tenancy laws and help increase the supply of rental properties, has passed its first reading in Parliament says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “The Bill proposes much-needed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that will remove barriers to increasing private ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Montecassino Commemorative Address, Cassino War Cemetery
    Standing here in Cassino War Cemetery, among the graves looking up at the beautiful Abbey of Montecassino, it is hard to imagine the utter devastation left behind by the battles which ended here in May 1944. Hundreds of thousands of shells and bombs of every description left nothing but piled ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • First Reading – Repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
    I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill Mr. Speaker, I move that the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the Bill. Thank you, Mr. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    14 hours ago
  • First reading of 7AA’s repeal: progress for children
    The Bill to repeal Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has had its first reading in Parliament today. The Bill reaffirms the Coalition Government’s commitment to the care and safety of children in care, says Minister for Children Karen Chhour.  “When I became the Minister for Children, I made ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    15 hours ago
  • China Business Summit 2024
    Kia ora koutou, good morning, and zao shang hao. Thank you Fran for the opportunity to speak at the 2024 China Business Summit – it’s great to be here today. I’d also like to acknowledge: Simon Bridges - CEO of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. His Excellency Ambassador - Wang ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Assisted depatures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.    “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    23 hours ago
  • Assisted departures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.  “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing them ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    23 hours ago
  • Government to rollout roadside drug testing
    The Coalition Government will introduce legislation this year that will enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Minister responds to review of Kāinga Ora
    The Government has announced a series of immediate actions in response to the independent review of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “Kāinga Ora is a large and important Crown entity, with assets of $45 billion and over $2.5 billion of expenditure each year. It ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pseudoephedrine back on shelves
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour is pleased that Pseudoephedrine can now be purchased by the general public to protect them from winter illness, after the coalition government worked swiftly to change the law and oversaw a fast approval process by Medsafe. “Pharmacies are now putting the medicines back on their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New Zealand-China Business Summit
    Tēnā koutou katoa. Da jia hao.  Good morning everyone.   Prime Minister Luxon, your excellency, a great friend of New Zealand and my friend Ambassador Wang, Mayor of what he tells me is the best city in New Zealand, Wayne Brown, the highly respected Fran O’Sullivan, Champion of the Auckland business ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New measures to protect powerlines from trees
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced that the Government will make it easier for lines firms to take action to remove vegetation from obstructing local powerlines. The change will ensure greater security of electricity supply in local communities, particularly during severe weather events.  “Trees or parts of trees falling on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani win top Māori dairy farming award
    Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani were the top winners at this year’s Ahuwhenua Trophy awards recognising the best in Māori dairy farming. Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka announced the winners and congratulated runners-up, Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board, at an awards celebration also attended by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • DJ Fred Again – Assurance report received
    "On the 27th of March, I sought assurances from the Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs, that the Department’s correct processes and policies had been followed in regards to a passport application which received media attention,” says Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.  “I raised my concerns after being ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • District Court Judges appointed
    Attorney-General Judith Collins has announced the appointment of three new District Court Judges, to replace Judges who have recently retired. Peter James Davey of Auckland has been appointed a District Court Judge with a jury jurisdiction to be based at Whangarei. Mr Davey initially started work as a law clerk/solicitor with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Unions should put learning ahead of ideology
    Associate Education Minister David Seymour is calling on the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) to put ideology to the side and focus on students’ learning, in reaction to the union holding paid teacher meetings across New Zealand about charter schools.     “The PPTA is disrupting schools up and down the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Craig Stobo appointed as chair of FMA
    Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly today announced the appointment of Craig Stobo as the new chair of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). Mr Stobo takes over from Mark Todd, whose term expired at the end of April. Mr Stobo’s appointment is for a five-year term. “The FMA plays ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Budget 2024 invests in lifeguards and coastguard
    Surf Life Saving New Zealand and Coastguard New Zealand will continue to be able to keep people safe in, on, and around the water following a funding boost of $63.644 million over four years, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Associate Transport Minister Matt Doocey say. “Heading to the beach for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Zealand and Tuvalu reaffirm close relationship
    New Zealand and Tuvalu have reaffirmed their close relationship, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says.  “New Zealand is committed to working with Tuvalu on a shared vision of resilience, prosperity and security, in close concert with Australia,” says Mr Peters, who last visited Tuvalu in 2019.  “It is my pleasure ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand calls for calm, constructive dialogue in New Caledonia
    New Zealand is gravely concerned about the situation in New Caledonia, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.  “The escalating situation and violent protests in Nouméa are of serious concern across the Pacific Islands region,” Mr Peters says.  “The immediate priority must be for all sides to take steps to de-escalate the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand welcomes Samoa Head of State
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met today with Samoa’s O le Ao o le Malo, Afioga Tuimalealiifano Vaaletoa Sualauvi II, who is making a State Visit to New Zealand. “His Highness and I reflected on our two countries’ extensive community links, with Samoan–New Zealanders contributing to all areas of our national ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Island Direct eligible for SuperGold Card funding
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has announced that he has approved Waiheke Island ferry operator Island Direct to be eligible for SuperGold Card funding, paving the way for a commercial agreement to bring the operator into the scheme. “Island Direct started operating in November 2023, offering an additional option for people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Further sanctions against Russia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters today announced further sanctions on 28 individuals and 14 entities providing military and strategic support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  “Russia is directly supported by its military-industrial complex in its illegal aggression against Ukraine, attacking its sovereignty and territorial integrity. New Zealand condemns all entities and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • One year on from Loafers Lodge
    A year on from the tragedy at Loafers Lodge, the Government is working hard to improve building fire safety, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “I want to share my sincere condolences with the families and friends of the victims on the anniversary of the tragic fire at Loafers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Pre-Budget speech to Auckland Business Chamber
    Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Kia ora and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for having me here in the lead up to my Government’s first Budget. Before I get started can I acknowledge: Simon Bridges – Auckland Business Chamber CEO. Steve Jurkovich – Kiwibank CEO. Kids born ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New Zealand and Vanuatu to deepen collaboration
    New Zealand and Vanuatu will enhance collaboration on issues of mutual interest, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “It is important to return to Port Vila this week with a broad, high-level political delegation which demonstrates our deep commitment to New Zealand’s relationship with Vanuatu,” Mr Peters says.    “This ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Penk travels to Peru for trade meetings
    Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk will travel to Peru this week to represent New Zealand at a meeting of trade ministers from the Asia-Pacific region on behalf of Trade Minister Todd McClay. The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting will be held on 17-18 May ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Minister attends global education conferences
    Minister of Education Erica Stanford will head to the United Kingdom this week to participate in the 22nd Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (CCEM) and the 2024 Education World Forum (EWF). “I am looking forward to sharing this Government’s education priorities, such as introducing a knowledge-rich curriculum, implementing an evidence-based ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Education Minister thanks outgoing NZQA Chair
    Minister of Education Erica Stanford has today thanked outgoing New Zealand Qualifications Authority Chair, Hon Tracey Martin. “Tracey Martin tendered her resignation late last month in order to take up a new role,” Ms Stanford says. Ms Martin will relinquish the role of Chair on 10 May and current Deputy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Joint statement of Christopher Luxon and Emmanuel Macron: Launch of the Christchurch Call Foundation
    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and President Emmanuel Macron of France today announced a new non-governmental organisation, the Christchurch Call Foundation, to coordinate the Christchurch Call’s work to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.   This change gives effect to the outcomes of the November 2023 Call Leaders’ Summit, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Panel announced for review into disability services
    Distinguished public servant and former diplomat Sir Maarten Wevers will lead the independent review into the disability support services administered by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. The review was announced by Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston a fortnight ago to examine what could be done to strengthen the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister welcomes Police gang unit
    Today’s announcement by Police Commissioner Andrew Coster of a National Gang Unit and district Gang Disruption Units will help deliver on the coalition Government’s pledge to restore law and order and crack down on criminal gangs, Police Minister Mark Mitchell says. “The National Gang Unit and Gang Disruption Units will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand expresses regret at North Korea’s aggressive rhetoric
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today expressed regret at North Korea’s aggressive rhetoric towards New Zealand and its international partners.  “New Zealand proudly stands with the international community in upholding the rules-based order through its monitoring and surveillance deployments, which it has been regularly doing alongside partners since 2018,” Mr ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Chief of Defence Force appointed
    Air Vice-Marshal Tony Davies MNZM is the new Chief of Defence Force, Defence Minister Judith Collins announced today. The Chief of Defence Force commands the Navy, Army and Air Force and is the principal military advisor to the Defence Minister and other Ministers with relevant portfolio responsibilities in the defence ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government puts children first by repealing 7AA
    Legislation to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has been introduced to Parliament. The Bill’s introduction reaffirms the Coalition Government’s commitment to the safety of children in care, says Minister for Children, Karen Chhour. “While section 7AA was introduced with good intentions, it creates a conflict for Oranga ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Defence Minister to meet counterparts in UK, Italy
    Defence Minister Judith Collins will this week travel to the UK and Italy to meet with her defence counterparts, and to attend Battles of Cassino commemorations. “I am humbled to be able to represent the New Zealand Government in Italy at the commemorations for the 80th anniversary of what was ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Charter schools to lift educational outcomes
    The upcoming Budget will include funding for up to 50 charter schools to help lift declining educational performance, Associate Education Minister David Seymour announced today. $153 million in new funding will be provided over four years to establish and operate up to 15 new charter schools and convert 35 state ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • COVID-19 Inquiry terms of reference consultation results received
    “The results of the public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has now been received, with results indicating over 13,000 submissions were made from members of the public,” Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says. “We heard feedback about the extended lockdowns in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • The Pacific family of nations – the changing security outlook
    Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, other Members of Parliament Acting Chief of Defence Force, Secretary of Defence Distinguished Guests  Defence and Diplomatic Colleagues  Ladies and Gentlemen,  Good afternoon, tēna koutou, apinun tru    It’s a pleasure to be back in Port Moresby today, and to speak here at the Kumul Leadership ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • NZ and Papua New Guinea to work more closely together
    Health, infrastructure, renewable energy, and stability are among the themes of the current visit to Papua New Guinea by a New Zealand political delegation, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “Papua New Guinea carries serious weight in the Pacific, and New Zealand deeply values our relationship with it,” Mr Peters ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-05-21T22:19:47+00:00