Some thoughts on Waitangi Day

147 comments on “Some thoughts on Waitangi Day ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sosoo 1

   6 February 2014 at 8:35 am

   The treaty is largely pointless – an antiquated document being asked to bear a weight it was never intended to bear. Having said that, it doesn’t require much imagination to see that according to generally accepted principles of justice Maori have good claims against the Crown for past crimes committed by the latter, and that there are good reasons to promote the Maori language, Maori broadcasting, etc.

   On the other hand, Waitangi day has its own charm. Instead of American style puffery our national day is more of an “Airing of the Grievances” where everyone complains about their lot. Good times.
   • Meg 1.1

     6 February 2014 at 12:37 pm

     At last, someone on this site who sees the treaty for what it is.
     • RedBaronCV 1.1.1

       6 February 2014 at 1:23 pm

       So the British Crown fraudulently signed documents. How fascinating! It can’t do that under it’s own rules but if it somehow manged to do so then -right back at you – unless you’re Tangata Whenua then you are an illegal immigrant. I’m sure somebody will lend you a waka so that you can enjoy Tony Abbott’s hospitality if you make it that far. You can’t validate only the bits that suit you.
       • Meg 1.1.1.1

         6 February 2014 at 1:25 pm

         Yawn, anyone here has the right to be. We are all descendants of immigrants, Maori included.
         • framu 1.1.1.1.1

           6 February 2014 at 2:08 pm

           “We are all descendants of immigrants, Maori included.”

           which is utterly irrelevant

           how maori got here matters not on iota to the fact the british crown signed an agreement with them
           • Meg 1.1.1.1.1.1

             6 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

             Actually I think you will find it is a very important fact that is ignored.
             • bad12 …

               6 February 2014 at 2:15 pm

               Explain this stupid comment Meg, it is simply ‘noise’ without clarification…
               • Meg …

                 6 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

                 If we are all descended from immigrants then no one has special claims, nor can this nonsense of first people hold water. But this fact is ignored.

                 Are you so thick you have to be spoon fed?
                 • karol …

                   6 February 2014 at 2:45 pm

                   First peoples are recognised by the UN and other organisations determining international law. They have priority as being the first people in their area.

                   They were recognised under British law in Cook’s time – such that the whole court decision around the Terra Nullus fallacy re-Aussie, resulted in the recognition of the land rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people. It also also the reason why the Brits required a treaty with Maori, because they could not, under their own law, just set up government here …. and from that all the problems with the Treay and its observance flow.

                   If the first inhabitants have no rights over their lands any more than later immigrants…. well, who has rights to any land? free for all ensues.
                   • Paul …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:51 pm

                     Wasting your time Karol.
                     Meg has been looking to derail this debate for 24 hours now.
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:52 pm

                     They were not the first here, and again let’s not pretend the Brits were not going to just take over.

                     Regardless of all the history, timid the 21st century and we are ALL New Zealanders (bingo tick and proud of it) and this separatist carry on needs to be put behind us. One nation, one law for ALL.
                   • weka …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:17 pm

                     “and again let’s not pretend the Brits were not going to just take over.”

                     Which just takes us back to the argument yesterday of might is right. You seem to be arguing that the person with the biggest stick wins. So I ask you again, who is the next legitimate owner of NZ? And will you stand aside and quietly let the next takeover happen?

                     oh that’s right, you are a lifelong Labour voter, so we know part of the answer to that already. Just as long as the new owners are someone who you approve of and who presumably give you privileges.
                   • karol …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:25 pm

                     Citations please, Meg, re who were the first inhabitants of these isles, if not Maori?
                   • Bill …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

                     we are ALL New Zealanders

                     @ meg – I’m not. And neither are thousands and thousands of other people who will live their lives out here.
                   • weka …

                     6 February 2014 at 4:05 pm

                     “Citations please, Meg, re who were the first inhabitants of these isles, if not Maori?”

                     Arrrggggg… someone had to ask 😉
                 • bad12 …

                   6 February 2014 at 2:49 pm

                   Interesting, yes please spoon feed me the PROOF of Maori breaching the Treaty of Waitangi and while your at spoon feed me the proof that Maori are not the 1st people of Aotearoa,

                   Psst was there really a race of red haired white people here befor Maori, Lolz, Meg, we all are definitely immigrants, BUT, there is one thing Maori have that NO other immigrants have, it’s called the Treaty of Waitangi,

                   A Treaty Meg is simply a ‘Contract’, in the case of most contracts they usually specify a time frame for that specific contracts brevity or length of time it will be in force,

                   In the case of the Contract which is the Treaty of Waitangi there is no clause which says it will not have force forever, so, it remains a binding contract between the Crown and Maori…
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:54 pm

                     Unless a law is passed dumping it and resigning it to the past.

                     All contracts expire and this one is well past it’s use by date.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:57 pm

                     Pssst, Meg, this is what my Collins English Dictionary says about ‘Treaty’, ”a formal agreement or contract between two or more states,

                     Shall i keep on with the definition for educative purposes or is your view of the Treaty of Waitangi gained from that notable branch of intellectualism ”you thunk it therefor it is”….
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:59 pm

                     Are you saying that it is impossible to get out of a contract? Really?
                   • srylands …

                     6 February 2014 at 2:59 pm

                     “so, it remains a binding contract between the Crown and Maori…”

                     I agree that the Treaty is important. However as you are so fond of pointing out in relation to trade deals, Parliament is sovereign. The Parliament could enact to dissolve the treaty tomorrow. Just like a future Government could enact to withdraw from the TPP. There is no difference.

                     More fundamentally it does not matter much who was here first. Asian immigrants will become more numerous and influential over the next 50 years and NZ will be a very different place as a result. Economic rationalism, education, and free trade will shape the country much more than the treaty, or Maori.

                     Ultimately, New Zealand will just be one big happy place, with a population of 20 million, an Asian predominance and the treaty will increasingly be a historical artefact, albeit and important one. The average Chinese up and comer doesn’t pay much attention to the treaty, and they will rule in future, together with the market.
                   • mickysavage …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:00 pm

                     Hey Meg mind if I take your car? After we are all immigrants therefore none of us should have any property rights.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:02 pm

                     The spurious bullshit of an airhead is the total content of your latest comment Meg….
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:03 pm

                     Hey Mickey, mind living in the 21st century? Thanks.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:08 pm

                     Exactly Meg, the Treaty of Waitangi is a binding treaty that is set to run it’s course at the same time as infinity is reached,

                     There is no out-clause and i would suggest that befor any government could pass Legislation that cancelled the Treaty of Waitangi the Parliament would burn…
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:08 pm

                     😆 yes, let’s all adopt 21stC standards and turn our backs on Meg’s imperialist bigotry.
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:10 pm

                     Any government that put the treaty to bed for good would have a massive amount of support from kiwis.

                     Yes there would be a few who cannot move out of the past, but they would soon be history too.
                   • srylands …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:14 pm

                     “There is no out-clause and i would suggest that befor any government could pass Legislation that cancelled the Treaty of Waitangi the Parliament would burn…”

                     That is just dramatic nonsense from a smoker.

                     In 50 years New Zealand will be a very different place. There will probably be no need to abolish the Treaty, but as globalisation and free trade shape New Zealand as Asian immigration increases, do you really think the ttreaty will retain its current centrality? I encourage you Bad12 to get out and think laterally. Your heart supports freedom even if you have trouble overcoming your short horizons. I still maintain that within your lifetime – perhaps even in 2017 – you will be voting ACT. That just shows what is possible.

                     Kia ora.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:16 pm

                     Yawn Meg, you provide proof of nothing just a continual fucking wingnuts whine of the most boring kind,

                     Please choke upon your own bullshit, time to gt ready for the Waitangi celebration down at the local school, complete with bands, should be a good one and a far better use of my time than reading Meg’s drivel…
                   • bad12 …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:22 pm

                     Fuck off SSLands, your elongated drivel is as numb as it is dumb and you should be instead of lecturing me, proposing to the equally dead in the head Meg so you can set about breeding your superior race,(crippled both emotionally and physically inbreds),

                     Unlike you SSLands, a slave to His masters for life i am free right now, voting for the dead ACT Party,(in the same state as your inner cranium), could never make me any freer than i am ,

                     Kihi toku tiro SSLands, whangu upoko…
                   • weka …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

                     “More fundamentally it does not matter much who was here first. Asian immigrants will become more numerous and influential over the next 50 years and NZ will be a very different place as a result. Economic rationalism, education, and free trade will shape the country much more than the treaty, or Maori.”

                     Actually I think you will find that within 50 years the population in NZ will be predominantly Polynesian. That’s from stats on birth, death and reproduction rates and patterns in NZ. I agree that Asian cultures will have influence here too, but to suggest that the Treaty or Māori will be insignificant is just daft.
                   • Meg …

                     6 February 2014 at 3:28 pm

                     Off you trot bad, go have fun. Take an umbrella, the weather is not that great out.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 February 2014 at 4:13 pm

                     In 50 years New Zealand will be a very different place.

                     Yes it will; only a few people will have regular access to liquid fuels, and air travel will be a luxury that only the elites can afford. We will also be facing major climate change stressors on a monthly basis.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 February 2014 at 4:15 pm

                     Any government that put the treaty to bed for good would have a massive amount of support from kiwis.

                     LOL
             • framu …

               7 February 2014 at 8:00 am

               your mixing history and a legal document up

               if i turn up at your house, make a little camp in the back yard and we reach an agreement that its cool for me to stay as long as i respect your stuff does it matter if anyone was there before you or where you come from?

               it doesnt
2. Will@Welly 2

   6 February 2014 at 8:42 am

   Sir, you are a champion. That photo, of Norman Kirk and the young Maori boy, who has since been identified, but whose name alludes me, is one for the generations.

   What I have found disturbing today though, is to learn that John Key led a prayer on the Marae this morning. No problem about the leader of the nation offering a prayer, but John Key is an atheist. That is on public record.
   He is leading a prayer to “God”, but he doesn’t believe in one.
   Other members of different faiths going into different religious “houses” and offering prayers is different as they “come” with their own faith and customs, but they also come offering respect and inturn are offered mutual respect and tolerance, and religious understanding.
   John Key cannot offer anything, because he doesn’t believe in anything. By doing what he has done, leading a prayer – a worship to God – he proves to be what he is – a f**ken hypocrite.

   Disclaimer: Will@Welly is not overtly religious, just hates f**ken hypocrites and liars.
   • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 2.1

     6 February 2014 at 3:52 pm

     I bet he sings the national anthem as well, addressing God directly, what a hypocrite.

     Hell, I bet he even wishes people Merry Christmas! The hypocrisy of the man!
   • MaxFletcher 2.2

     7 February 2014 at 12:14 pm

     It’s not all that bad considering that all MP’s also start the house with a prayer to god.Not to mention an atheist can respect believe without being a believer
     • Will@Welly 2.2.1

       7 February 2014 at 8:34 pm

       Yes, but Key led the prayer – that means he is putting himself at the front, leading.
       You can’t lead, if you don’t believe.
       If you lead, without believing, then you’re either a hypocrite or a liar.
   • martin 2.3

     8 February 2014 at 10:10 am

     Key does not even reach the top of Big Norm’s shoe soles!
     I remember Norm and standing in the grounds of parliament with many genuinely upset adults when he was carried down the steps. We stood in the rain as the hearse went past after his funeral.

     If Key died before November I can bet there would not be the out pouring of grief like what I saw back in ’74.

     Come back Norm!
     • Will@Welly 2.3.1

       8 February 2014 at 5:27 pm

       It’s even sad that Key gets to sit in the same Parliament as “big Norm” did. He’d wipe him off the floor before he even opened his mouth. Norm was a man you respected.

       I can remember where I was when I heard the news “big Norm” had died. Like you, and so many others, I stood in the rain, for a glimpse as this man passed by. No words were spoken, just prayers.

       Down south, in Waimate, is his grave. Perhaps the time has come for us, this nation, to revisit it.
       Had he lived, his legacy would have been immense. Instead the media played the nation with a tyrant and a buffoon called Muldoon.
3. Pasupial 3

   6 February 2014 at 8:51 am

   I’d say that the treaty would never have happened if not for the preceding 1835 Declaration of Independence (He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga). Which being recognised by Busby in an official capacity (and hence the crown) necessitated a further document to assist the Wakefield landgrab.

   “It is notable that the Treaty of Waitangi was made between the British Crown and “the chiefs of the United Tribes of New Zealand” in recognition of their independent sovereignty which continued after 1840″
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_New_Zealand
4. Will@Welly 4

   6 February 2014 at 8:55 am

   We all know the Pakeha version is a fraud, but the “right” love it, and roll it out time and again.
   I just wish some of the Government’s subsides were “full and final”, but watch John Key et al roll them out everytime some multi-national wants a handout.
5. RedBaronCV 5

   6 February 2014 at 9:05 am

   No treaty is pointless nor has an expiry date that suits only one party. So what if the language is antiquated, (it usually is) the concepts are not.

   There are treaties in Europe that are still “current” in that they rule the conduct of both parties and any current negotiations taking place. The treaty of Utrecht 1713 that handed Gibralter to Britain , the treaty of Windsor 1386 between Portugal and England making them allies

   And all of us should be overwhelmingly proud that a treaty was signed and that there was not a “clearance” as so often happened.
   And yes, I do enjoy the Waitangi Day discussions.
   • Pascal's bookie 5.1

     6 February 2014 at 9:28 am

     Well said.
6. Saarbo 6

   6 February 2014 at 9:06 am

   Thanks Micky.

   Apparently Nga Puhi are asking for a $600m cash settlement (according to a Patrick Gower tweet a few moments ago). This to me still sounds too low. Land is what was confiscated from maori, not a lot of land can be purchased with the cash settlements been settled and offered by the crown, in my view. I can’t help but feel that maori appear to being ripped off, again.

   Disclaimer: I am not of Maori descent…although my 2 children are.
   • mickysavage 6.1

     6 February 2014 at 9:23 am

     The settlements are usually at the rate of about 3% of the value of what has been lost. Maori deserve our gratitude and not our ridicule.

     Hone Harawira has an interesting column in this morning’s herald where he is saying the same thing as you Saarbo.

     His article includes this:

     In the 1877 case of Wi Parata versus the Bishop of Wellington, Chief Justice Prendergast said that because the Treaty of Waitangi had been signed “between a civilised nation and a group of savages” and had no formal status in domestic law, it was essentially “null and void”.

     Outrageous though that may sound, the reality is that Treaty settlements are being signed off for less than 3 per cent of their value, and the phrase “null and void” is simply being replaced by another … “full and final”.

     And as fate would have it, Ngapuhi’s place in the whole Treaty saga is about to come full circle for, just as Ngapuhi was the birthplace of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, so too does Ngapuhi provide the basis for our future understanding of Te Tiriti.

     The Government already has “full and final” deals with most other iwi, and in particular the big players like Tainui, Ngai Tahu and Ngati Porou, but they can’t effectively claim to have settled the Treaty until they can bring the biggest tribe in the country to the table.

     Once Ngapuhi’s signature is on the Deed of Settlement, the Crown will have achieved “full and final” settlement of all major iwi claims, at which point the Treaty will have finally achieved the status conferred upon it by Chief Justice Prendergast in 1877 … it will to all intents and purposes finally be “null and void”.

     And I doubt that any of our tupuna who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi back in 1840 would have even contemplated let alone agreed to either scenario.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11197284
     • marty mars 6.1.1

       6 February 2014 at 10:23 am

       Great article by Hone – I think the following excerpt is very important and must always be remembered.

       But, even in the best of times, any honest Maori would admit that the Treaty settlement process allows for only one real winner – the Crown.

       Government alone laid down the parameters of the debate, set up the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims, defined the powers of the tribunal, decides who can sit on the tribunal, specified the terms of the hearings process, says which lands are available for claim and which ones aren't, set a 3 per cent ceiling on all claims, outlined the requirements claimants must meet before negotiations start, included a "full and final" clause in all settlements with no right of appeal, and established a process that pitted hapu and iwi against one another, creating disputes that may take generations to resolve.

       It is not a level playing field and the dice is stacked (to mix the metaphors up a bit) – tangata whenua continue to work in good faith – even though the likely result is at best a pittance.

       [Fixed – MS]
   • RedBaronCV 6.2

     6 February 2014 at 9:23 am

     Only $600m? Nowhere near enough I’d have thought. Nga Puhi are a major tribe covering a lot of land around the Bay of Islands and other Northland land hot spots – it wouldn’t go far if they wanted to buy bits of it back. Is that all the tribe or just some sub tribes? Is it a result of the early colonisation fragmenting the tribal structures?
     Disclaimer. Grandmother had some action in the Maori Land Courts over Maori land interests in the area.
7. Tiger Mountain 7

   6 February 2014 at 9:11 am

   Pity Big Norm had not lived longer. One can imagine the type of place this country might have been.

   Just as this atheist is happy to take Xmas day and Easter breaks so are the dark kiwis and ‘naki men’ to have Waitangi day off. The difference is while the holidays in name of ancient christian writings don’t have a significant real world effect these days apart from boxing day sales, our post colonial fall out is still most trenchant.

   What the racist and the hordes of just lazy thinking kiwis miss is that how can we be one nation or people when particular sections of us are worse off in every way imaginable. Would you put up with one member of your family hungry, ill, unhappy, no shoes while the rest of the kids have ipads and hair straighteners and gleaming smiles?

   A promise was made to Māori in 1840. But when the numbers of British imperialists were sufficient several decades on, a brutal land grab was unleashed. History of indigenous societies the world over show the inevitable outcome. Until justice is done and we are damn near the top of most equal societies in all respects Waitangi day will continue to serve as a call to action.
   • martin 7.1

     8 February 2014 at 10:11 am

     No Muldoon, No 1981 Springbok tour!
     enough said.
8. BM 8

   6 February 2014 at 9:21 am

   The treaty was between Maori and the representatives of the British crown

   After we became the Dominion of New Zealand in 1907 the treaty became null and void.

   Dominion day is what we should be celebrating as a nation not this ridiculous treaty nonsense.
   • mickysavage 8.1

     6 February 2014 at 9:26 am

     Why is that BM? If there was a transfer from one “Crown” to another “Crown” then the second entity took all the assets as well as the liabilities.
     • BM 8.1.1

       6 February 2014 at 9:34 am

       Was the treaty even given a thought or was it considered no longer needed?

       In reality the treaty was nothing more than just a document to get the ball rolling and get every one agreeing to some basic principles.

       Once we became our own country it wasn’t needed anymore and therefore confined to the dust bin of history
       • mickysavage 8.1.1.1

         6 February 2014 at 9:41 am

         What about article II BM, the one that promised Maori tino rangatiratanga (full authority) over taonga (precious things). Surely that means something.

         The landed gentry in the UK have their property rights respected and protected even though these rights are centuries old. Why shouldn’t Iwi enjoy the same protection?
         • BM 8.1.1.1.1

           6 February 2014 at 9:58 am

           Are New Zealanders still British subjects, according to this we are not.

           New Zealand no longer defined the status of British subject when the Citizenship Act 1977 replaced the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 on 1 January 1978. However, s. 2 (Interpretation) of the Act still contains a reference in the definition of Alien to “…Commonwealth citizen (British subject)…”

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

           One of the reasons the Maori signed the treaty was because they got to be British citizens and got all the good stuff that went along with it, if we’re no longer British citizens how can the treaty still be valid?.
           • mickysavage 8.1.1.1.1.1

             6 February 2014 at 10:08 am

             Straw man argument. The state promised Iwi preservation of certain rights. If the state has changed the new state inherited the old state’s obligations, ergo Treaty rights continue. You might want to tell National of your theory BM because even they believe that compensation for breaches of the treaty are appropriate.
           • RedBaronCV 8.1.1.1.1.2

             6 February 2014 at 10:27 am

             Reversing that argument on you BM you are now an illegal immigrant and will need to apply to your local iwi to see if you can stay.

             Perhaps they will run you out of town.

             Actually any negating of the Treaty leaves all people other than Tangata Whenua as illegal immigrants both here and in Australia.
             • BM …

               6 February 2014 at 2:38 pm

               I’m Tangata whenua bro, I get to stay.

               Seriously though no ones leaving or will leave, still doesn’t change the fact that the treaty has got more value as fish and chip paper than a legal document.
               • bad12 …

                 6 February 2014 at 3:11 pm

                 Ngai Tahu, 170 million dollars, now that’s expensive fish’n’chip paper…
           • Anne 8.1.1.1.1.3

             6 February 2014 at 12:03 pm

             Wow BM. You are a fountain of knowledge. Were you there? Is that how you know why the Maaaris signed the Treaty?
       • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.2

         6 February 2014 at 9:52 am

         Open a paper BM, opoint your browser at any NZ news site. It’s not in the dustbin you fucking nonce.

         You might want it to be there, but hardly anyone agrees with you. Not lawyers, not citizens, not judges nor politicians. Fact is, it’s right there in the heart of our constitutional framework.
   • karol 8.2

     6 February 2014 at 9:27 am

     Yes – just like the whole legacy of British law was suddenly wiped from our country’s books.
   • RedBaronCV 8.3

     6 February 2014 at 9:30 am

     Mouth open. You really don’t know much do you?

     The Dominion of New Zealand would have suceeded the British crown under the Treaty as the Dominion status was between the New Zealand people and the British Crown.
     It’s pretty standard and makes for such interesting things as the French President being the co-prince of Andorra a status acquired under the Treaty of Utrecht by the French crown and suceeded to by succesive heads of the French state.
   • Pascal's bookie 8.4

     6 February 2014 at 9:34 am

     Take out any piece of NZ cash money you like and have a looksie at the faces on it. The one with the spiky hat, who’s that?
   • marty mars 8.5

     6 February 2014 at 10:10 am

     Why get so bothered BM – you get a day off, you can call it Bob Marley’s birthday and ignore it. There are a million things you could do instead of working yourself up. Why not take the time to write up/investigate/understand your family tree/history for instance – as you have said (like meg last night) that you have some whakapapa, This could be good for you, your family and the future and it may show some insights into where this country is now and what we can do about it. Now that would be a post i’d enjoy reading from you instead of these silly wee insulting ones you are chucking out today. Go on do it – I dare you!
9. Rosie 9

   6 February 2014 at 9:43 am

   Good explanation of the history and implementation of Te Tiriti Mickey. Hopefully Crazy Lady Meg has a read, a cup of tea and a sit down, and a bit of a think.
   • Meg 9.1

     6 February 2014 at 12:49 pm

     It was just more white man guilt nonsense. But it is to be expected on this day.

     While I am no John Key supporter I would love it if he settled with ngapuhi, then shifted nz into a republic. Imagine that, no more treaty, everyone an equal citizen, no one culture being able to claim special treatment. Fantastic.
     • karol 9.1.1

       6 February 2014 at 12:54 pm

       It’ll be a great day when the default position is no longer special treatment for Pakeha – so common some people don’t even notice.
       • Meg 9.1.1.1

         6 February 2014 at 12:59 pm

         And a myth to boot.
         • Paul 9.1.1.1.1

           6 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

           We ain’t listening.
           Time to head back to your red neck haven.
           • Meg 9.1.1.1.1.1

             6 February 2014 at 2:14 pm

             If you are not listening, then you should not be replying now should you.
             • Paul …

               6 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

               zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     • framu 9.1.2

       6 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

       ” then shifted nz into a republic”

       which would automatically take up all exisitng treaties and laws untill a new constitution could be written – and guess what would be in the mix there

       well done – you really think this stuff through dont you – gold star
     • Chrissy 9.1.3

       8 February 2014 at 8:05 am

       Meg, tell us about the ‘special treatment’ that you think Maori receive?
10. Tinfoilhat 10

    6 February 2014 at 9:46 am

    Ngapuhi should walk away from the negotiating table until there is some serious moves to give them back their land and fishing resources.
    • RedBaronCV 10.1

      6 February 2014 at 10:00 am

      Yes and personally I think that around Northland, commercial fishing should be banned within x miles of the shoreline so that the onshore fishery builds up to a level that can sustain the people living there and in the future to feed other parts of NZ.
      • weka 10.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 10:21 am

        +1

        Probably should happen in many places in NZ.
    • Meg 10.2

      6 February 2014 at 12:50 pm

      People like you would bankrupt nz.
      • RedBaronCV 10.2.1

        6 February 2014 at 1:25 pm

        No only the RWNJ who might have to go out and catch their next meal.
      • tinfoilhat 10.2.2

        6 February 2014 at 2:15 pm

        How is what I suggested going to bankrupt NZ ?
        • framu 10.2.2.1

          6 February 2014 at 2:17 pm

          i think meg is against recognising property rights
          • Tinfoilhat 10.2.2.1.1

            6 February 2014 at 3:14 pm

            Except for him/herself and his/her mates I suspect.
11. mikesh 11

    6 February 2014 at 10:12 am

    If New Zealand became a republic the treaty would presumably be no longer valid. However, in formulating a constitution at that point, we would have to consider how much weight should be given to the ideas encapsulated in the treaty, but the decision arrived at would depend, I think, on the situation at the time rather than historical considerations.
    • weka 11.1

      6 February 2014 at 10:21 am

      Why would it no longer be valid?
    • RedBaronCV 11.2

      6 February 2014 at 10:23 am

      No the Republic just becomes the sucessor state to all treaties. Think a bit harder – if treaties became invalid then all free trade agreements etc etc would also become invalid.
      • mikesh 11.2.1

        6 February 2014 at 2:09 pm

        The treaty is not with the state but with the crown, which was the head of state before the move to a republic. After the change the crown would have no further say.

        Trade and other agreements with other countries would be a different kettle of fish altogether.
        • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.1

          6 February 2014 at 6:42 pm

          Er no. The french president of a republic is also a prince of Andorra -clear head of state successor rights when France changed from monarchy to Republic
          • mikesh 11.2.1.1.1

            6 February 2014 at 7:11 pm

            What the French have chosen to do on some particular occasion is surely irrelevant.
            • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.1.1.1

              7 February 2014 at 8:49 am

              No it was state succession rights under an international treaty.
        • McFlock 11.2.1.2

          7 February 2014 at 9:22 am

          the treaty is with the crown, but becoming a republic means we take all the rights and responsibilities of the crown. Including the treaty.
          • mikesh 11.2.1.2.1

            7 February 2014 at 12:07 pm

            The crown is, in theory, the enforcer of the treaty. In the event of the crown’s departure the question of whether a treaty forged 170+ years ago, under different circumstances, should remain in force would become something of a moot point. At any rate it would be an internal matter which didn’t involve other countries.
12. greywarbler 12

    6 February 2014 at 10:31 am

    What do you think of Radionz interviewing this Ngai Tahu chap who has lived in the USA since a child and is going on about the US anti-missile defence needs.? He has achieved something in the SuperBowl and apparently this gives him the opening to come and spoil our Waitangi Day commemorations with talk about war, attacks etc.

    Up for complaints about this disgrace in their choice of speakers and topic. This is our day. If he wanted to talk about us and the difference that USA to us but I’m just infuriated at this anti-missile talk, that he is selling the USA Defence ideas to us on our day of peace and friendship and community.

    Radionz Waitangi Day special broadcast –
    10:06 Riki Ellison – Missile Defence
    Riki Ellison (Ngāi Tahu) left Christchurch as an eight-year-old to live in the US. He’s the only New Zealander to be part of a winning Super Bowl team; he won three times with the San Francisco 49ers. Today he is the founder and chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance – a non-profit organisation advocating for hi-tech missile defence systems which he says will protect the national security of the US and its allies.

    He came back in 1992 to see if he has roots, he says that feeling has never left him. And he comes over preaching USA anti-missiles need! He has ceased to have his heart here, even if there are vestiges of it left. He has been in the USA since 8 years old.

    If we are to speak to NZs who have been living overseas, please talk to someone who has positive things to say about life, without stuffing our ears with negative information.
    • weka 12.1

      6 February 2014 at 11:38 am

      I was surprised at that interview being on today but I turned it off without listening to much. The one before that with Tariana Turia was pretty interesting.
      • greywarbler 12.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

        weka +1
        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 12.1.1.1

          6 February 2014 at 4:44 pm

          Today he is the founder and chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance – a non-profit organisation advocating for hi-tech missile defence systems which he says will protect the national security of the US and its allies.

          When I hear “non-profit” and “defence systems” in the same sentence, all I hear is the sound of cash registers ringing.
13. red rattler 13

    6 February 2014 at 10:48 am

    The Treaty was and is a fraud. Regardless of version or who signed it.
    There was no intention on the part of the British to honour its terms.
    The intention was to dispossess Maori and turn them into labourers.
    At the same time the British forced the Opium Wars on China.
    The Treaty cannot be honoured without meaningful Maori self-determination.
    Self-determination for Maori will be possible only when we get rid of capitalism.
    To do that Maori and non-Maori workers will have to unite to take power.
    That will allow the nationalisation of land and industry so that Maori can if they choose assert rights to the use of these resources that are adequate to meet their needs.
    Anything less is dystopia.
    • weka 13.1

      6 February 2014 at 11:41 am

      Isn’t that telling Måori how to go about their self-determination? And that in fact they can’t have any kind of self-determination until they help dismantle the West’s problems?
      • karol 13.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

        weka, it looks to me like a co-option of Maori struggles for the cause of western-focused socialism.
        • weka 13.1.1.1

          6 February 2014 at 12:16 pm

          Indeed. It makes me uncomfortable because of that and because it renders us all victims and in a state of complete oppression until the revolution comes. Tariana Turia talked on the RNZ interview this morning about how Māori wil always hold onto their essence and that can’t be taken away from them and they will never go away (that’s me paraphrasing). That is beyond resistence and resilience and belies the Western notion that colonisation was complete (or that capitalism is all encompassing).
      • mikesh 13.1.2

        6 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

        Maori can’t have self determination unless all pakeha emigrate. Which seems unlikely.
        • Bill 13.1.2.1

          6 February 2014 at 8:55 pm

          That’s quite simply and obviously a false statement mikesh. It’s the top down institutions that prevent sovereignty residing in people. The mere presence of Pakeha per se has got nothing to do with any prospects for self determination.
          • mikesh 13.1.2.1.1

            6 February 2014 at 9:54 pm

            The presence of pakeha has everything to with the institutions that exist, top down or otherwise.
            • Bill 13.1.2.1.1.1

              6 February 2014 at 9:58 pm

              The presence of people, or more precisely, peoples’ beliefs on how things should be organised – not simply Pakeha – has everything to do with current institutions.
              • mikesh …

                7 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

                Pakeha is People.
    • Bill 13.2

      6 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

      That will allow the nationalisation of land and industry so that Maori can if they choose assert rights to the use of these resources that are adequate to meet their needs statists can impose their idea of order and install systems of command and control over resources and production

      Kinda like, there goes freedom and self determination right there.
      • mikesh 13.2.1

        6 February 2014 at 2:44 pm

        Nationalization of land would be more in keeping with the Maori way. Property, as Proudhon said, is theft, and we should all perhaps be regarded as joint owners of all the land in the country. The right to the exclusive use of land would then be subject to whatever conditions we democratically decide, and would usually entail the payment to the community of some form of rent or land tax.

        The Maoris didn’t have a system of land ownership prior to the coming of the pakeha.
        • Bill 13.2.1.1

          6 February 2014 at 2:58 pm

          Nationalisation is exactly giving the state control of whatever resource. And that means that whoever ascends in the government hierarchy or up through the echelons of ‘The Party’ gets to call the shots. Fuck it. We’ve been here before. Do the historical and inevitable dungeon conditions of the USSR and Eastern Europe (5/8ths of fuck all political freedom and absolutely no input to economic management adding up to no democracy) not mean a thing?
          • mikesh 13.2.1.1.1

            6 February 2014 at 7:15 pm

            No I don’t think they do mean a thing. You would need to show a connection between them and us.
            • Bill 13.2.1.1.1.1

              6 February 2014 at 7:45 pm

              The connection is the putting of resources into state control. The USSR is the example of what eventuates.
              • mikesh …

                6 February 2014 at 9:57 pm

                Perhaps that is what happened when the Russians put resources into state control. But them is them and us is us.
                • Bill …

                  6 February 2014 at 10:07 pm

                  Jeesus wept, there is no ‘perhaps’ – it’s an inevitable result of the structures and dynamics inherent to state control of resources. It’s got nothing at all to do with nationality.
                  • red rattler …

                    7 February 2014 at 10:10 am

                    Bill you seem to think that all states are oppressive.
                    The difference between the capitalist state and the workers state is the class in control. A Workers State represents the working class majority in society.
                    Stalinist Russia was not an example of a true workers state.
                    The workers were ruled over by a parasitic bureaucracy.
                    To argue that a workers state in NZ would inevitably ape Stalinist Russia is is to patronise workers as incapable of democracy.
                    This is a standard ploy by middle class reformists with a personal stake in the capitalist system who want to tell workers what to do.
                    The NZ Labour Party is a reformist party with its ideological origins in C19th Fabianism, a middle class endorsement of a progressive capitalism.
                    Today capitalism is proven to be bent on global destruction killing 200 species a day and heading for human extinction.
                    If we have any hope of surviving we have to overthrow the capitalist rulers and plan production collectively.
                    Let’s not call this collective a state, let’s call it a commune.
                    In uniting to create this commune, the indigenous peoples will play a leading role because for them, the large majority of them have nothing to lose because they face extinction before the rest of us.
                    People like Shane Jones of course, have a lot to lose. They, like all Fabians, play the Eurocentric game, that Western capitalism is still the only hope for civilisation. Fools and scoundrels!
                    • Bill …

                      7 February 2014 at 12:13 pm

                      red rattler, it would seem that your heart is in the right place. But seriously. Put down ‘the bible’ and just think things through.

                      Just some examples. How can you condemn ‘middle class reformers’ for ‘wanting to tell workers what to do’ while simultaneously advocating that an administrative elite is established so that workers become ‘suitably’ organised and ordered? Where exactly is the democracy or the empowered worker in that scenario? Why do you assert that the USSR was not a ‘true’ workers state? Just a little thought reveals that ‘parasitic bureaucracy’ is an inevitable consequence of ‘democratic centralism’ – think it through instead of (presumably and implicitly) falling back on the lazy assertion that Stalin was a ‘bad apple’ and if only Lenin…blah te de blah, Trotsky blah, blah.

                      It was Lenin who disbanded workers councils and Trotsky is on record for reporting that the Bolshevics would have dismantled workers councils and moved to oppressive, undemocratic vertical structures in workplaces sooner than they did if it hadn’t been for continuing unrest post 1919.

                      Then I wonder at the lack of consistency in condemning the Eurocentric approach of the Fabians, while advocating for an entirely Eurocentric vanguardist workers state?

                      Finally, you wonder about what I think of states. it’s simple. All ‘power over’ must justify itself, and if it can’t then should be removed. You also appear to suggest I’m a middle class reformer with a stake in capitalism who would thwart democratic aspirations. That, if I’m reading you correctly, is just quite simply you being woefully wrong headed.
                  • mikesh …

                    7 February 2014 at 11:48 am

                    Russia was never really a democracy. It was initially an autocratic monarchy, and then a communist oligarchy.
                    • Bill …

                      7 February 2014 at 12:22 pm

                      Russia was never really a democracy.

                      True. Now, if only you could recognise or understand that any centralised administration or control stands in stark opposition to democracy. Then, if you actually care about the prospects for democracy, stop advocating for scenarios that would most assuredly thwart and crush any democratic aspirations people might have.
                    • mikesh …

                      7 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      Who said anything about “centralised administration and control”? I was only talking about nationalization of land and resources. But even so, a centralised control doesn’t have to be undemocratic.
14. Stephanie Rodgers 14

    6 February 2014 at 11:08 am

    The photo of Key with Aroha Nathan is a great study in body language. Him in his totally uncharacteristic mufti, big grin on his face, in motion, her with her feet together, hands clasped. One of them doesn’t want to be there, the other is very pleased with himself.
    • karol 14.1

      6 February 2014 at 11:11 am

      Looks like Aroha is handcuffed, and Key has a gun pointed at her back – maybe I watch too many crime movies….?
      • Will@Welly 14.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 10:22 pm

        Time perhaps for a Caption Contest. Can I start it off:
        “Come with me, little girl, or I’ll kick your family out of their house, and Paula will cut the benefit.”
15. Olwyn 15

    6 February 2014 at 11:19 am

    As you point out Mickey, Aroha now lives in Australia. We do not know where the rest of the so-called “underclass” of McGehan Close are; people who in for the most part worked in modest jobs and took umbrage at that description. McGehan Close itself has since been drawn into the million-dollar-property aeroplane game. That is how Key deals with the underclass: deem anyone who stands in the way of quick profits a member of it, and shove them to one side. We are on the verge of signing yet another treaty, the TTP, whose defenders claim will also respect our sovereignty. And interestingly, the computer’s spell-check now accepts “underclass” as a single word. It has become part of the accepted lexicon.
    • just saying 15.1

      6 February 2014 at 12:36 pm

      …And interestingly, the computer’s spell-check now accepts “underclass” as a single word.

      How depressing is that?

      We need strong flax-roots movements. Gotta do it somehow.
    • adam 15.2

      6 February 2014 at 2:26 pm

      Funny how quick one group in society is so quick to dismiss one treaty – Waitangi, then lambaste all to sundry for not accepting another treaty TTP. Same mob even – does that mean the right wing in this country only follow the rule of law when it suits them? Do we live now in a situation, were governments have got so use to lying to the population they can do anything they want?

      Many have said that it’s socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor – That misses the point, the rich can do as they please because liberalism protects them from any consequences. Waitangi day does a good job of proving that. Imagine for one second if your white – someone (the state) came along and took your grandparents house and all their land – and then your great great grandkids might get into court to put their case forward about it. That would make you Maori, or close to it in the grievances area. Winston is right that there is an industry, but one born of the fact the state and its flunkies are slow, and obtuse in there dealing with these issues.

      Personally, I’m sick to death of reactionaries saying we should all just get along, were all one nation, or, see Maori got all these benefits from colonization. Also I’m sick of the double standard of the use of contracts (liberalism at its core) to govern commerce and government on one hand. Then the quick double speak of wanting to dismiss one contract The Treaty of Waitangi on the other. Time to see our nation as less than perfect – and our politicians as lying opportunistic scum bags.
      • greywarbler 15.2.1

        6 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

        I’ll just mention contra proferentem effects on law here. It means that when there is a power imbalance between knowledgable entity and naive, simple, smaller or weaker then in interpretation the c.p. effects are looked at, as well as the legal and language translations when Maori and the Treaty are being considered.

        Links –
        http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/contra-proferentem-my-piece-of-cake-1485-1.html

        http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095635656
        Oxford Reference
        Quick Reference
        A rule of legal interpretation primarily applying to documents. If any doubt or ambiguity arises in the interpretation of a document, the rule requires that the doubt or ambiguity should be resolved against the party who drafted it. For instance, a defendant who claims that a clause in a contract that he drafted exempts him from liability can expect that any ambiguity in the terms of the clause will be resolved against him. The expression derives from the Latin: verba chartarum fortuis accipiuntur contra proferentum, the words of a contract are construed more strictly against the person proclaiming them.

        Also Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment
        Unjust enrichment
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        In law, unjust enrichment is where one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.[1] A common example is when a party contracts to provide a service, but the contract is terminated prematurely due to a breach, and the contractor unjustly receives no compensation for partial services rendered.

        The concept of unjust enrichment is based upon the Roman legal maxim “no one should be benefited at another’s expense” (nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura).
16. Roflcopter 16

    6 February 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Mickey, the Maori version of the treaty was translated from the English version.
    • BM 16.1

      6 February 2014 at 1:20 pm

      And the English transcribed the Maori language.
      • Will@Welly 16.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 3:47 pm

        El prat – my understanding Samuel Marsden and 3 paramount chiefs worked on the treaty. It wasn’t the “English” as such, but a missionary. That wasn’t unusal in those days, often missionaries were the primary contact for a lot of indigenous peoples.
        Still, el prat, as a rabid Nat. supporter, why let facts or knowledge get in the way of a “good” story?
      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.2

        6 February 2014 at 4:40 pm

        BM, since you’re so knowledgeable, can you tell me – in international treaty law, which version takes preference where there is a dispute over interpretation?

        What’s that? Speak up man, don’t mumble!
17. Ron 17

    6 February 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Can anyone comment please on ratification of the Treaty. As I understood it International Convention requires all such treaties to be ratified usually by presenting a bill into their Parliament to ratify such treaty into law.
    I am not aware that Britain ever did this with Waitangi Treaty.
    Of course NZ subsequently passed legislation but not sure that could be considered as ratification.
    Any thoughts please?
18. greywarbler 18

    6 February 2014 at 2:28 pm

    This chap was interesting and presented his points well so gave some different to what else I have heard.
    Radionz http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/waitangiday
    Audio from Thursday 6 February 2014
    Manuka Henare – Declaration of Independence ( 20′ 22″ )

    09:08 Manuka Henare (Ngapuhi, Te Aupouri, Te Rarawa, Ngati Kuri) discusses the
    1835 Ngapuhi-led Declaration of Independence (He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni) – a declaration of sovereignty that underpins Ngapuhi’s ongoing claim before the Waitangi Tribunal. Ngapuhi stand firm on the argument that the Treaty of Waitangi did not revoke the declaration, but confirmed it. Manuka Henare is an expert witness before the Waitangi Tribunal Hearing Wai 1040 Paparahi o te Raki (Ngapuhi-Northland Enquiry), and an Associate Professor of Maori Business Development at the University of Auckland Business School.
19. Flip 19

    6 February 2014 at 2:34 pm

    For arguments sake lets say Maori achieve ‘self-determination’ and gain nationhood/independence. Not sure what it is they want? What does that look like and how would it work in practice? Has anyone done work on this? Does anyone have any clue where this would go? Or is it an idealised aspiration that gives people a reason to complain? Being the devil’s advocate.
    • Bill 19.1

      6 February 2014 at 8:51 pm

      Did give it some thought a while back. Can’t remember ever being able to figure out how two ‘states’ could functionally operate in the same territorial area. Not saying there isn’t a workable scenario – just that I couldn’t figure one out.

      Of course, if there was no state at all and full self determination for all…. 😉
      • karol 19.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 9:07 pm

        Nationhood and statehood are not the same thing. The state is a governance thing. Nation is the people.

        In the US tribal groups have independent nation status.

        Navajo Nation:

        The United States still asserts plenary power to require the Navajo Nation to submit all proposed laws to the United States Secretary of the Interior for Secretarial Review, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Most conflicts and controversies between the federal government and the Nation are settled by negotiation and by political agreements. Laws of the Navajo Nation are currently codified in the Navajo Nation Code.
        • Bill 19.1.1.1

          6 February 2014 at 9:28 pm

          Yeah – which is partly why I put ‘state’ in parenthesis. I merely wanted to indicate the existence of two legal or generally recognised entities. Anyway, I can’t see how self determination can be said to occur without control of resources and their use….implying some form of state, if we are going to stick to an idea of sovereignty being something that can be exercised over people rather than by people.
        • Flip 19.1.1.2

          6 February 2014 at 10:16 pm

          “Nationhood and statehood are not the same thing…..”

          Good point.

          Are the aims of Maori nationhood as in your Navajo example?

          Excuse my ignorance. I’d be interested in some informed post on what Maori see as a good working state.
20. Cleo George 20

    6 February 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Waitangi Day is the MOST important day for all New Zealanders to reflect and celebrate the birth of a Nation brought about wisely for a fair partnership between the natives and the settlers.
    What is TRUE is that the Maori as a race have had a poor deal in many aspects such as their lands, health, education, economic and social equity. The government, the Iwi and all of us should strive to help improve Maori statistics in education, income, health, jobs etc come close to that of the rest of the country. If not, we have dishonoured the treaty and failed as a Nation.
    Of course, the uplifting of the rest of the less privileged too should proceed simultaneously irrespective of ethnic background.
    • weka 20.1

      6 February 2014 at 3:45 pm

      🙂
      • Cleo George 20.1.1

        7 February 2014 at 9:08 am

        The smilie is a little enigmatic to me here. Could you describe your views in words?
21. Tanz 21

    6 February 2014 at 8:09 pm

    I am not an immiigrant, but a fifth generation New Zealander.
    The settlement process is now a gravy train all about guilt and apeasement.
    Everyone in NZ has equal opportunities, and if anything, Pakehas are now frowned upon.
    we are heading towards different rules for different races.
    • framu 21.1

      7 February 2014 at 8:19 am

      “I am not an immiigrant, but a fifth generation New Zealander.”

      me too – and i feel the opposite

      -i dont feel guilt – but i recognise that maori have lost out massively via the crown not playing ball
      -i dont feel frowned upon – because i dont let someone elses opinion create my own self image
      -i dont see the treaty process as a gravy train – because i know that what is given back is a tiny % of what was taken
      -i dont feel threatened by maori or the treaty – because despite everyone human failings i know from history that maori arent going to rip up all the land deeds, block the beaches and kick everyone out of the national parks
      -i dont feel that we are heading for separate rules – because i see this issue as one of helping to get a generationally disadvantaged group back to an even level with the bulk of society via giving them back a tiny bit to help with the subsequent generational change that is required to enable proper self determination
      -im not concerned that things dont seem to be changing that fast – because a generational fuck up takes generations to fix

      sure mistakes get made, dodgy stuff happens with some of the money and theres hot heads around who inflame things – but not for a second to a think that maori have any monopoly on that sort of thing
      • Cleo George 21.1.1

        7 February 2014 at 9:05 am

        Good points. I agree. (except the swear words!)
        • framu 21.1.1.1

          7 February 2014 at 9:16 am

          you know – it took me a good read to spot them 🙂 – perhaps im just a bit to comfortable with my sailor talk

          edit “but not for a second to a think” – that should be “DO i think”
22. Tanz 22

    6 February 2014 at 8:19 pm

    My forebears are from the USSR and the USA, but have been in NZ for many decades. How does this make us immigrants? We are all New Zealanders.
    • karol 22.1

      6 February 2014 at 8:37 pm

      Bingo!
    • Meg 22.2

      6 February 2014 at 9:45 pm

      Correct. But do not expect acceptance for that on here.

      Expect punishment for not following blindly.

      [lprent: Expect to arouse suspicion from the moderators if you look like you’re trying to start a flamewar. Trying to act the victim when you’re pulled up on doing so is usually a pretty good indicator that you are a worthless troll.

      If you want to be taken seriously by me you have to offer argument that goes beyond the slogans that any person with 3rd stage syphilis and rotted brain could repeat. Indeed that any parrot with arseholes for parents could do. So far you’re not getting too far past that rotted brain state in my opinion.

      BTW: Read the policy about what I feel about trolls with syphilis and bad hygienic habits during your rapes self-proclaimed consensual sex. To demonstrate that you aren’t one, you have to demonstrate some actual thought. Otherwise I might just have a suspicion that you’re merely trying wind people up for no nett contribution to this debate ]
23. greywarbler 23

    6 February 2014 at 11:28 pm

    Wayne Mapp was on Radionz in afternoon, I think being replayed from original lecture. Seemed to be around what will NZ be in 2040? He emphasised how prcentages are changing lifting Asian, Maori have remained static, and Pacific gradually rising.

    May have to think more multiculturally,. Maori have obtained assured positions so they are legally assured of being an advisory groupt to Auckland CC. and others? Population of Asians will grow, pakeha remain about 43%.

    Trading – Maori business in dairy is big enough to set up own brand and give Fonterra to whom they are big suppliers, a run for their money. Maori through Sealord have already Asian relationships with Japanese.
    Just some of what was said.
    • Wayne 23.1

      7 February 2014 at 10:39 am

      Greywarbler,

      Thank you for noting this. I was intending the speech, which is also written, to be my Waitangi statement, rather than contributing to a blog.

      You will note that I said the treaty relationship was secure, notwithstanding future population changes.

      I also said that Maori seats, or a Maori Statutory Committee as in Auckland should be a mandatory requirement for all Local Authorities.

      I also noted that the relationship with Asia was a particular opportunity for Maori. Miraka, a Maori owned milk processing business near Taupo, has entered into a joint venture with Shanghai Pengxin, the purchasers of the Crafar farms to process their milk. Miraka is about 2 years old, but I believe will become a big player in the milk industry.
      • greywarbler 23.1.1

        7 February 2014 at 10:49 am

        Wayne
        I found your speech very interesting and had to make some notes about it for here.

        I had to do them in a hurry so I couldn’t make them as full, and check them for correctness, as I would have liked. So thank you for filling the gaps, ensuring the right interpretation, and adding more important details.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS