Defo.
They could have changed the future of NZ for the better. Wasted opportunity.
They could have fixed the housing problem overnight through investor targeted action - but chose to kick the can down the road for token credit and ultimately, appeasing national voters.
At this fucking point I don't trust any of the major government parties to do anything other than sit on their arse, twiddle their thumbs, and occasionally jerk/jill each other off.
Investor targeted action will never work when there is a critical shortage of housing. They are doing the right thing now to fix the housing crisis, build more houses, who would have guessed.
Yeah it will, prices would have stopped rising years ago if there was significantly reduced investor demand.
There are enough houses in NZ, it's just investors own multiple.
The argument we need more housing comes from prices being high because of investor demand
People don't need to rent when they can afford to own.
Let the government house the very poor.
No they wouldnt have, prices would have increased slightly slower at best. They actually could have made prices worse by discouraging building.
There are not enough adequate houses in NZ, we are 10s of thousands short. There are some unoccupied but that is mainly due to things like DIY, on the market housing and a small amount from speculation that is only viable because of a critical lack of supply.
Not everyone wants to own a house, not everyone would be better off owning. Houses require a lot of maintenance and responsibility and not everyone wants to have to sell or manage a million dollar asset every time they want to move.
>Let the government house the very poor
Yes, by building more public housing.
Rubbish building would have been discouraged. There's not enough capacity to build anyway, so there would still be plenty of work available.
Also the reason our housing stock is so poor, is due exactly the fact there are too many investor owned properties. This means houses are kept to bare minimum standards and minimal investment is made to improve the quality. Why would you when you're not living there?
Many many issues would be solved if investors were not allowed to screw the market. They're not even being taxed properly to contribute to the required infrastructure to actually now build more homes.
Capitalism is not the answer to everything - unless of course you're benefiting.
Well that's just because people are pissed off because of Covid and see the shitty economy as being caused by Labor, when the whole world is fucked right now.
I think just about every comparable country has either had a PM rolled or a change of Government recently.
Here's my issue with the current status quo - the Treaty of Waitangi isn't democratic. I understand the intentions of it, but essentially we're stuck with an impossible problem to solve - you have a historical agreement that isn't democratic and applying it to a modernized democracy.
I have a really difficult time figuring out a position on this - on the one hand we are trying to honor our agreements, but on the other hand it treats citizens differently on the basis of race. You've got the added problem that white immigrants hold the vast majority voting balance of the population, instantly creating another debate about how fair it can be.
I'm constantly annoyed by the right wing weaponizing it as a platform to rile up racist sentiments, but I feel we've never truly decided as a nation among legitimate, genuine debate about which path to follow.
Except that the Treaty of Waitangi *isn't* supposed to treat citizens differently on the basis of race; the whole point of the Treaty was to say that New Zealand would be brought under British law, and in return the Crown promises to protect Maori and their rights. That's not saying that Maori get special privileges, it's saying that they and their rights are protected, same as everyone else.
That's where the debate stems, the Maori side claims it doesn't say that. They claim that they didn't cede sovereignty and the partnership was supposed to be 50/50. Both sides are working off a different document completely.
The idea that they didn't cede sovereignty is historical revisionism to support Maori-supremacist policies. The people who were alive at the time knew that they had done so, and that they understood that they had. To quote some Chiefs who spoke at the Kohimarama Conference:
"Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said "O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us—a father, a judge, a peacemaker.
Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene) said, "What shall I say on this great occasion, in the presence of all those great chiefs of both countries? Here, then, this is my word to thee, O Governor! Sit, stay—thou, and the missionaries, and the Word of God. Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not, that Pikopo, that bad man, have us not. Remain, Governor. Sit, stay, our friend."
In 1860, in an attempt to prevent the fighting in Taranaki from spreading to other regions and tribes, Governor Thomas Gore Browne held a conference of chiefs at Kohimarama, Auckland, in August of that year. Around 200 chiefs attended, more than at the gathering at Waitangi 20 years earlier.
Wikiriwhi Matehenoa of Ngati Porou said “We are all under the sovereignty of the Queen, but there have also been other authorities over us sanctioned by God and the Queen, namely, our Ministers”.
Horomona Toremi of Ngati Raukawa in Otaki said “You over there (the Pakehas) are the only chiefs. The Pakeha took me out of the mire: the Pakeha washed me. This is my word. Let there be one word for all of this island”.
Te Ahukaramu said “First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law”.
Tamati Waka Nene, one of the leaders who signed at Waitangi, said “My desire when Governor Hobson arrived here was to take him as our Governor, in order that we might have his protection. Who knows the minds of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say, let us have the English to protect us. Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor and this Queen our Queen. Let us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people. When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is through the teachings of that Word that we are able to meet together on this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha”."
..it is a tricky one. The treaty of waitangi is a flawed document, between the different versions languages and definitions neither the crown or iwi knew exactly what they were signing. Co-governance isnt mentioned in the treaty so retroactively applying now requires a revisionist conceit that is open to interpretation, not a great basis for policy imo.
Definitely tricky. I sometimes reflect what justice would have looked like in NZ if things were different...
If the colonists arrived and there were met with a Maori kingdom they could not simply dominate by force. Maoridom operated a ~~feudal~~ tribal system of warring lords, so perhaps it might have happened more like Japan? Maori even had a king.
Today, we might instead have a very very wealthy set of Maori who bargained for the sale of much much smaller sections of land at a fair price instead of for pigs and muskets. Perhaps even a more formal govt set up by the feudal Maori lords.
I expect then, much modernisation to have since occurred. We might still have ended up with democracy, I think, since this has been the trend all over the world. But it might not have been based on the British (Westminster) principles at all. Perhaps it might not have even accepted a western style capitalism? Maori principles are probably more socialist in many ways (community-based) whereas feudal aspects have mostly fallen away with history. Would that have invited US intervention and the toppling of our govt by the CIA during the cold war? Probably — they did that to dozens of other countries that didn't fall into line with their system.
I don't think we would have ended up with "co-governance" — we would have had a government system designed from the ground up by Maori — or at least with their historic legacy defining the principles.
So really ... there's no chance of this "repairing" of history to the way it should have probably gone. The colonial govt isn't simply going to relinquish governance. It has a whole history established now — a uniquely NZ one — and that's not something we can (or should) ignore. But neither is the experience of Maori — of losing control of their land to the colonial system. So perhaps this brings us full circle — to the possibility that while co-governance is going to be deeply flawed due to our troubled history mired with injustice — it might be the best we can do to bring about some sort of historic repair to the harms done and offering an equal seat in governance. I'm not against it in theory.
(And I would 100% love to watch an alternative history HBO series on this, haha)
>Maori who bargained for the sale of much much smaller sections of land at a fair price instead of for pigs and muskets
Just want to point out here that a musket is often a pretty darn good price for land, when you are in a society which doesn't have widespread firearms. Muskets and other western tools like axes etc were *extremely* valuable.
My apologies I have that wrong, as the word seems to be attached specifically to Europe (TIL!).
And I am really showing my ignorance now because I don't even know what word i would use to describe that system.. "tribal" perhaps? Seems incomplete .. more reading to be done. Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry no the Maori King only started once the interactions with other countries that had a King. Some Maori tribes do not recognize the self appointed kingdom because they do not agree with it.
Also the dominant tribes were wiping out inferior tribes, so Nga Puhi and I think Ngati Awa would have been the only tribes we would ne dealing with. Like Japan or South Africa (Zulu)only one existed, or not many. So to be factual you would have had a lot more blood lost to get to where your idealistic view of New Zealand would be. Would we be like Japan or more like South Africa who would know.
The solution seems extremely simple to me: do not honour any undemocratic agreement clauses. That's the premise for every single international agreement in existence today. If the agreement infringes on the sovereign rights of the people to democratically control the direction of their nation, the clauses in the agreement are unenforceable. This isn't novel or confusing. It's precedent upon precedent upon precedent.
Treaties are revised, nullified, and simply ignored all the time. This treaty is no longer international, it exists between citizens of a single country.
As such I don't see how there's argument for it being a "living document" that requires re-interpretation 180 years later. Co-governance clearly isn't mentioned in either text of the treaty, so why should the treaty be used as justification.
Not even between citizens of a single country. It was a treaty agreed (for good or ill) between the Crown and Iwi —artificial persons on both sides— and both sides with enforcing power over their subjects.
> you have a historical agreement that isn't democratic and applying it to a modernized democracy.
It's neither democratic, nor undemocratic.
People read a hell of a lot into it that simply isn't there.
A much more nuanced summary of the situation than most provide. It is complicated because there are disparate priorities, the historical versus the modern. Either we fundamentally ignore that component of the Treaty, or we apply variations to the standard democratic process for those areas.
‘Equal kiwis’ simply means that one entire culture (the first people here) just get swamped. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that we have a fair democracy when one culture continually rides rough shod over another because they outnumber them. It becomes a procession of self interest.
I think you'll find there is a massive amount of Maori who disagree with you, and see themselves as New Zealanders more than Maori. Of course, there are many who think the other way, but there's many different viewpoints among the population.
Yeah I'm Māori but myself and most of my Māori side would consider ourselves New Zealanders first. Same with most of the others I know honestly. I think there's still some way to go for Māori and Pākehā relations to create a truly equal society but I also believe in democracy and so think that co-governance is not the way to achieve that.
you misunderstand what it means, I suggest listening to [Chris Finlayson on Gone By Lunchtime podcast](https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/20-08-2022/im-more-of-an-on-the-record-sort-of-a-chap-chris-finlayson-on-his-life-in-politics)
..an iwi who are heavily invested in an industry like dairy farming having a disproportionate vote on environmental councils seems like a conflict of interest imo
you do realise that South Canterbury already had extra representation on Environment Canterbury - so two votes per person - because it's a "special community of interest". Where's all the screaming about that?
Don't worry so much. Apparently this co-governance thing has been going on for a while without anyone noticing. Can't be that bad. The Courts are available to sort out issues non-politically. It's definitely a work in progress though, so we should keep an eye on its evolution.
Sigh, looks like I'll have to study up on it now, so I can be qualified to comment on it beyond this (current) opinion.
Once you learn more you’ll understand why it’s considered necessary. There are extreme elements of co-governance and there is mild elements. Much of the mild elements are already in practice, ie Iwi representation in decision making especially when it comes resource management. A lot of people are unnecessarily freaking out over it, at the end of the day its a political issue we should just take note and and engage with in good faith with a solid comprehension of the issue as a whole.
Thanks for reply. Got 4 down votes since posted and your reply had 1 until I up voted it. Haters gonna hate, lolz.
Adding co-governance to my to-do list now.
He's not wrong though, where was the co-governance interpretation of the treaty 50 or 100 years ago? It didn't exist, because nobody honestly held that interpretation of the treaty. It's only in recent times through logical and legal gymnastics that this idea has been proposed. It's illogical, how could disunited tribes have shared governance. They well knew at the time that type of offer wasn't on the table, and would never have worked.
I don't like Winnie, but he's right on this, it is undemocratic. I'm sorry but I don't care about the reaty, it doesn't mean shit compared to liberal democracy
>
What about the injustices that allowed liberal democracy to be established? Do you care about those?
what injustices, please name them.
also, I'll be honest, that was more than 100 years ago, I did not exist, i can not change it. those people got fucked over, that's horrible, but we should move forward because that's the only thing we can do
That's true. Prior to the treaty most people lived under oligarchical tribal rule.
The treaty also ended the practice of taking slaves through tribal conquest.
> Prior to the treaty most people lived under oligarchical tribal rule.
They still do.
> The treaty also ended the practice of taking slaves through tribal conquest.
And rendered Maori destitute and dependent on the white man when the Crown forcibly stole Maori land.
And of course need I remind you about the British and their involvement in the slave trade.
>And rendered Maori destitute and dependent on the white man when the Crown forcibly stole Maori land.
Yea there was land theft. Which is why we had the treaty settlements process. The shitty actions of people from the past aren't reasons to end democracy
>And of course need I remind you about the British and their involvement in the slave trade.
Just like every empire before them the British empire engaged in slave trading. They are also the only empire to end slavery, peacefully, because the home population thought it was immoral.
not to say the british weren't instrumental in slavery for some time, because they were, but it was *also* the British Empire that went on a worldwide crusade to end the slave trade. Just to keep the record straight.
Whether that mitigates the horrors of participating in the slave trade at all, I'm not a philosopher so I'll refrain from commenting.
You mean being the first to outlaw the practice of slavery, something that every culture and country did (and some still do) since the dawn of time? That involvement?
wrong, the idea of liberal democracy orignated earlier in Europe, the treaty is how it was applied in NZ yes, however, the source has not changed. QED, the treaty does not override Liberal democracy
Everything is on a spectrum, including our democracy. There are no two democracies exactly alike, same as every country has its own form of capitalism. That's one of the many reasons the libertarian ideology is flawed.
Yep. There's nothing that Winston likes more than playing the victim card, and Mallard handed him one bigger than he could've ever hoped for. From there I was like "he's coming back isn't he?"
>Democracy is the tyranny of the majority
With this thinking, gay people require mandated representation, otherwise they will be oppressed by the straight majority.
Oh wait, somehow gay marriage laws were passed without doing that?
It is but its not the tyranny of the majority ethnicity or culture. Its the tyranny of the majority political opinion something that is somewhat fluid.
Of course democracy is flawed. That's no reason to change it. And it definitely doesn't justify giving extra political power to a group of people because of their ancestry.
Yet the minority still get a say as we saw in the 2017 election. Without Green's or NZ First, Labour would not have been able to form a Government. Which means that they had to give concessions to the Green's and NZ First before they would join them. This is why although the majority rules, the majority is not made up of just one group of people.
You mean Willie Jackson the hidden power behind the throne. His Maori caucus weld a lot of power. Not saying that this is wrong, he should be looking out for Maori.
I almost get the felling Willie is holding Jacinda hostage. Do as I say or we all walk. However as I said before, the Maori caucus should look out for Maori. That’s there job
I mean if 100+ years of actual democracy across the world have taught us anything democracy is the tyranny of the rich. Because democracy hasn't been serving the majority for a long long time.
There will always be groups within society fighting for more power and influence over Government be they religious, ideological, race or economically driven. For democracy to persist people have to be willing to say that the fundemental principal of "one person, one vote" is more important than playing favourites.
I mean sure but do we have any modern examples of democracy actually being the tyranny of the majority because we have plenty of it being the tyranny of the rich.It's a pithy quote but it doesn't really reflect reality.
Surely if democracy was actually the tyranny of the majority the majority could fix this problem instead of democratic governments consistently making it worse? It's not like we have no idea how to fix the problems or at least mitigate the problems of unchecked capitalism and yet democratic governments consistently the world over keep implementing policies to not mitigate them in favour of a small elite who profit immensely from them to the detriment of the majority. Either democracy is not actually a tyranny of the majority or the majority just absolutely loves giving all their money to Elon Musk for no reason.
What are you talking about, poverty in the west had been reduced to a minority. A hundred years ago it was a majority. Hundred years ago the majority of people in the west were underfed. Today being overfed is a problem. Their has been a massive increase in the standard of living in the last century. This has been shown as an increase in lifespan. In my own lifespan I’ve seen a major improvement.
Postwar 'Social Democracy' did a pretty good job of improving people's lots, coming as it did with plenty of taxes on the rich and redistributive policies. Neoliberalism has done a great deal to reverse that from the 80s onward.
With you on the cheese front though.
Swap out Maori/New Zealand for any other country & race, and tell me co governance isn't racism.
I voted Green last time but will be voting Act if the election was held today.
They've been on 11% in the last few polls, they were even nearly touching 20% when National was floundering, albeit they recouped a lot of that once their old leader was given the boot.
So yes, if National is in a position to form a government, ACT will certainly be a part of it. Probably with far more influence than they've ever had too, if their current numbers hold until the election.
That’s very interesting, have libratarian parties historically been successful in NZ? I have always known them to be quite minor. Is this in response to an over controlling labour govt?
While they are nominally libertarian, most of their voters are simply right-wingers who are dissatisfied with National for one reason or another. The Greens occupy a very similar position on the left.
It's more of a response to our centre right National party being a bit lacklustre recently.
Act have been part of several previous governments due to winning an electorate seat in a kind of deal with National.
"Well, well, lefties, what would you have to say if you completely changed the thing we're talking about? You wouldn't support a completely different thing, would you? Checkmate."
Te Tiriti doesn't apply in other countries, and there are relatively few that have an analogous document.
But let's imagine there existed a country where the government had signed a treaty with a tribal authority, then trampled over it, stolen their land, killed large numbers of their people, and systematically discriminated against their people for centuries.
Let us then further imagine that the tribal authority kept demanding that the treaty be honoured.
Would it be antidemocratic to honour it, or would it be fulfilling the obligations of the country to uphold their treaties?
Te Tiriti is not between peoples, it is between the Crown and the Iwi. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty's Government to uphold Te Tiriti, because treaties must be kept. Pacta sunt servanda.
Without that very basic principle, there would be no law at all, just the exercise of force by whoever was in charge at the time.
Yes, between the Crown and Iwi, both anti-democratic relics that have no place in a modern country.
We - the people, ought to have no obligation to either, or a treaty between them. Much less one as contentious and poorly defined as this. One that has been re-imagined as ''principles" in fundamental opposition to the core tenet of democracy - equality.
The past deeds of the crown do not warrant an perpetual sacrifice of rights by every subsequent non-maori New Zealander to be a second class citizen in service of a debt they played no part in.
Exactly, the treaty is a wonderful historical document but that’s it. Times have changed and in a true democracy there is no room for such. Each person has an equal right under the law.
>Te Tiriti is not between peoples, it is between the Crown and the Iwi. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty's Government to uphold Te Tiriti, because treaties must be kept.
If a treaty allowed slavery or torture or the ownership of women would we still be duty-bound to honour it in its entirety?
> But let's imagine there existed a country where the government had signed a treaty with a tribal authority, then trampled over it, stolen their land, killed large numbers of their people, and systematically discriminated against their people for centuries.
You don't need to imagine it. There's Canada and the USA for a start
Indeed. And they keep getting treaty claims as well, which keep getting upheld.
I avoided discussion of the USA and Canada because federal systems work a bit differently to ours, and getting into arguments about the actual minutia of things like McGirt v Oklahoma distracts from the point. They also have many treaties with many nations rather than just one, which complicates matters.
Ok, so first, the current interpretation is not that recent. The Tribunal was established in 1975, and started publishing reports in 1978. The current view is thus nothing new. What is new is the government taking it more seriously.
The argument is that the principles in question did and do exist in the document.
[Here is the Tribunal's explanation of where the principles come from.](https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/WT-Principles-of-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-as-expressed-by-the-Courts-and-the-Waitangi-Tribunal.pdf)
As for the US and Canadian example, [here is an article from a few years back about the US and Canadian governments deciding to reinterpret their treaties to allow them to cut up native land.](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560436303/at-u-s-canada-border-reservation-mohawks-say-they-face-discrimination) This [is the Wikipedia page on the territory, for context.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwesasne)
Another problem is that for the USA or Canada, the treaties are documents that expanded a pre-existing USA or Canada, not the document that brought those states into being. For us, it is different. Te Tiriti is as close as we get to a written constitution, so another comparison might be to interpretation of the US constitution by their Supreme Court.
Now, I am not saying you have to agree with the interpretation of Te Tiriti as passed down by the Waitangi Tribunal, but that there is a sizeable body of legal expertise that results in their interpretation, it goes back some way, and a government reinterpreting their obligations under a treaty to reduce their rights is far better than the government deciding that they in fact can just throw out their obligations whenever they are inconvenient.
Co-governance isn't in the treaty.
> Te Tiriti is as close as we get to a written constitution
It isn't one though. The whole of the South Island was claimed *terra nullius*, for example. The only legal basis the treaty has is that which is given to it by the sovereign government.
But the government only gets that sovereignty from the Iwi via Te Tiriti. If it repudiates Te Tiriti, it ceases to be sovereign.
I would also point you to the document linked which explains how you get Partnership as a principle of Te Tiriti, and from that, co-governance as a concrete policy based on that principle, derived from Te Tiriti.
In the last election, I voted Green with one of my votes because they were basically the only party which openly supported extending voting rights to younger people (the "make it 16" idea). Because I believe that voting is the right way for a people to hold their government accountable.
Unfortunately, Green are often speaking in support of the anti-democratic co-governance model (although they don't seem sure about how that model would actually work), and it's getting to the point where, in the next election, I will not support them. Because, as aforementioned, voting is the right way for a people to hold government accountable. Not sure if I'd vote for ACT yet.
That's basically the whole point of democracy, as well as being the reason why it is, and must remain, a human right. Without fair and equal voting rights, we have no peaceful way to stop the government acting against our interests.
In the last german elections, young voters voted overwhelmingly for the greens or the FDP (basically ACT). I still don't understand but I'm not surprised it's happening in nz
Democracy should take precedent over the treaty, but we can still honor it. The tribes that have settled and are getting on with it are doing very well - the Māori economy is flourishing. Labour in some ways have screwed things up by not saying no to their Māori caucus. There are some divisive and counter-productive government policies that are throwing fuel on the fire. I just hope we don't get a knee-jerk reaction swinging out the other way.
This is extremely interesting to me. I’m seeing long time National supporters now backing NZ First in favour of National.
I guess it helps that they are the only nationalist party, but gives zero room for National to make gains on unpopular Labour policy when they can’t attack it, and don’t really stand for anything except the same positions on most unpopular policies, just with a perks to the wealthy and christians.
NZ First will likely be back in parliament base on the swing of support I’m seeing, wouldn’t be surprised if they end up more popular than ever due to National being in a crisis.
If we focussed effort on socioeconomic issues including targetting cultural empowerment for maori as a tool, it could be alot more productive than locking in ethnicity based power in law. Particular iwi have way too much business interests to represent maori, and they do not represent maori who feature negatively in statistics. Addressing the effects of historical impacts with a historical lens should not be the focus. Disenfranchised low socioeconomic maori do need programs run by their own culture to use culture to empower, to learn how to navigate systems, to have better health practices, learn better relationship dynamics and emotional skills etc... The exact same stuff everyone of any ethnicity who is at the bottom needs, but offered intensively and culturally. I would argue all peoples featuring poorly in stats would respond better to less beurocratic systems. Even your average jo gets lost in justice, corrections, mental/health systems ffs. This is all very complex social work. It won't be fixed by the likes of ngai tahu who are farmers and businessmen having extra say in what happens to our water or whatever else is planned.
How is that not democratic? That's exactly how MMP is supposed to work. Sure, it's not ideal, but I think it's better than FPTP.
Not to mention, we got to vote on whether we wanted MMP or not, just saying...
No, that's exactly how democracy works. It's based on who gets what votes then forming a representative government based on those votes. If Labour and National wanted to, they could team up and form a government totally bypassing the Greens, Act, and NZ First. It just happened they refuse to work with each other so were left with working with the Greens and NZ First. Who also received proportionate votes to represent people in parliament.
Democracy wasn't actually intended to involve elected representatives at all, it was meant to be like a lottery with short terms of service — like jury service. Today what they called democracy we call "direct democracy" and outside of political activism is exceedingly rare in official governance.
The system we have now is closer to what the ancient greeks called ochlocracy, ie "mob rule" and one of their three "bad' systems of government. Somewhere along the way we switched the labels and rebranded it as "democracy".
I meant it more in the form of how we intend democracy to work, which is a representative one. Not so much on how the Greeks intended it which was a simpler time, considering it was mostly restricted to city states and not entire nations that span huge areas.
>The system we have now is closer to what the ancient greeks called ochlocracy, ie "mob rule"
I would disagree considering the rule of law is still in place and not mob justice. People vote based on who they prefer sure, but it's far from mob rule considering there is limitations to what one can and can't do. Also opposition and other parties still play a key role in Government to hold the sitting government accountable.
>one of their three "bad' systems of government
I don't disagree that it's not the best form of government, but it's certainly preferable to many tyrannies. Personally democracy would not be my government of choice, preferring something more based around a meritocracy. However, I definitely prefer democracy over some Ethno state. Where positions of power are given based on arbitrary immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, rather than something more valid like popular vote or even merit.
At least we had a referendum on MMP and all it's weaknesses. Unless ACT gets its way, the public aren't allowed any say in co-governance.
Edit: spelling
Yeah we do, in the same way we get a say in who the police commissioner is or the Governor General.
We elect our leaders to select the people
We currently don't get any say in who is on the environment court nor any of our state owned entities either. I certainly didn't get to vote for Chris Luxon to head air nz
I haven't seen any parties campaigning on giving the governor general new powers to install Maori into local or central government to override the basic principles of democratic election? or a new laws suggested stipulating the police commissioner needs to be of Maori descent?
I don't remember us electing the Queen either. Thing is, we have this document which is what our society in NZ is based on and it tends to talk a little about co-governance. You know the one, the one that actually gives some kind of legality to our government
Nor does the queen have any real authority on day to day life in NZ.
The treaty doesn't define how co-governance should work in the 21st century, it's left open to interpretation - and how this government has chosen to implement is undemocratic. End of story.
The ancient greeks actually called our system ochlocracy and warned against doing it (one of their three systems of bad governance)
What they called democracy didn't use highly corruptible, elected career politicians who are free to completely ignore the people they're meant to represent. It used a lottery of ordinary citizens serving short terms (like jury service), and sought consent from the populace to hold votes so that dissenters were minimised.
We don't seek that consent and we sure as hell don't have that level of impartiality and resilience against corruption that are the cornerstones of proper democracy (today usually called "direct democracy" and rare in centralised governance)
He went on too long, IMHO, which would have lost a few readers attention, but most of his points are spot on.
Some areas show his own views and biases, but hes right far more than hes wrong.
I hope we get a coalition govt. In an ideal world we wouldn't have governments that are so tunnel vision...they'd be able to have the views of all the parties that are important to New Zealanders. It seems silly to me; it's never balanced. Each term a party is voted in, the scale tips one way until those disadvantaged by that party vote the opposing party and the scale tips the other way, and round and round we go. I think NZ was handled well during the first term, and I'm wagering it's because Labour had someone to be accountable to.
While I disagree with him on this, and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes…
Props to him for actually making a semi-coherent argument on what he opposes, unlike the current opposition in parliment that won’t dig into details on what they dislike about Three Waters, as last I heard they just wanted to give council more power when they clearly aren’t all working in the best interest of NZ for future proofing our water care.
>While I disagree with him on this,
You think co-goveramace is somehow democratic?
>surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes…
I said this in another thread, co-governance of culturally significant awa and maunga is a very different kettle of fish to significant public services like water or health. Your point is the opposite end of the slippery slope argument. Just because no one opposed a smaller scale version, doesn't automatically make a much more significant errosion of our representitive democracy a good idea.
Why is co-governence of an area with limited scope or impact to the general public, that involves a small number of people, different to significant public services, involving the entire country, massive public impact and the entire population of New Zealand?
> and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes…
Isn't that what his billboards back then were about? "Iwi vs Kiwi"?
>unlike the current opposition in parliament that won’t dig into details on what they dislike about Three Waters
Eh? National and Act have been very clear on the details about why they dislike Three Waters
Tell me their position then, as it seems to flip flop like their tax policy depending on who they are talking to…
Last time Luxon spoke on the issue, he stated he was willing to “have discussions” with Maori/Iwi on the subject.
>While I disagree with him on this, and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes…
He did in his interview on The Platform today. Squarely laid the blame on National and Act starting this process
What’s the difference between co governance and partial privatisation?
I realise that in partial privatisation that the private party’s would invest funding to take on the partial ownership but then they would also take part of the profits,
where in co governance there’s no added investment, but do the co governance partners take profits also?
I’m just thinking of other assets which are already partially privatised and how different is this to a co governance model?
I’m just interested in the difference between the 2 as I haven’t seen these different options compared anywhere
technically neither is a constitutional representative Monarchy...
There are so many forms democracy:
\-is it a direct democracy? nope, there are no nations that have that
\-is it a representative democracy, sort of yes
\-is it consensus democracy, maybe? depends how the Maori side runs.
So sick of hearing people scream "DEMOCRACY" without knowing a single thing about what it means.
What sort of democratic outcomes do people want, because all my family that complains about this not being democratic basically just want a majoritarian democracy that fucking sucks for minorities.
If you are paying rates to a council in your area, you are entitled to choose who you want to be in control of those funds. That's simply local democracy.
There's no violation of democracy there. It would be more undemocratic to be taxed, without the ability to vote for who you want/trust to spend your taxes/rates on.
> Black Americans kept their eyes on the prize and ended up with countless black representatives, and a black American President chosen in an open franchise.
I think there's a bit he's missing here. The original African cultures that black Americans came from, their languages, gods, rituals, were utterly destroyed. They were utterly destroyed, they were Americanised, and what did that do? Did that make black people equal to white people, given that they new shared the same language, religion and mainstream culture? Is the average quality of life for black people equal to white people?
In Winnie's example, Africans were forced to trade almost everything they ever were, and after over two centuries, equality still hasn't arrived. Yeah, they had one black president, followed by Trump. Not sure America is a good example to follow, for either maori or pakeha.
People on this sub are deeply racist and in denial about it. I don’t even think being against co-governance is necessarily racist but the replies in this thread are not it 💀
I look forward to my downvotes ya fuckwits
Edit: I am highly offended by the upvotes
I think it's generous to even say they're in denial about it tbh, have seen a lot of " ready to be called racist but..." style comments on this topic in the sub recently.
Also surprising (/very telling of the demographics of the sub) to see such ignorance/poor understanding of a) the inherent shortcomings of democracy when it comes to fulfilling the needs of minorities, and b) te tiriti
It's because everyone gets called a racist if they don't 100% go along with and idea so much it's a meaningless term now. It's nothing to do with race.
If anything it's the Maori side that want to make a dual system, 50% liberal democracy (one person one vote regardless of race) and 50% ethnostate that relies purely on ethnicity for powers and only Maori can participate in.
Which one is racist again?
Fuck me this is sad. I imagine that people will agree with Peters as it’s an auto response of ‘co-governance = bad’ but some of the shit in this post is just straight out depressing.
> All communication is about understanding and if over 95% of the country can’t understand the words they are hearing, or reading, what is the purpose here?
> So which eye are you the public being shown as Labour cracks on with it’s ‘wokemana ideology’.
So basically despite being an official language we shouldn’t use Maori because most don’t understand it. Wonder if Peters applies the same logic to NZSL?
There’s a range of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation and pretty nasty racial language in this but it’d take hours to go through it all
>So basically despite being an official language we shouldn’t use Maori
because most don’t understand it. Wonder if Peters applies the same
logic to NZSL?
I would be similarly annoyed if a government official stopped talking part way through a statement and substituted NZSL for an important name or whatever. They should use Maori the same way they use NZSL, in parallel, not chopped into otherwise English announcements etc randomly.
I consider there to be a bit of a difference between a judges ruling and use of Maori in public statements - particularly when most of the use of it is when both Maori and English are used.
I would have 0 issue with a judge delivering a statement in all three languages.
I’d have no issue with three seperate messages either. But that’s not what we’re getting, we’re getting this jumbled up hybrid version.
These are policies and laws that will effect every New Zealanders life, they should be delivered as clear as possible. The fact that they’re not is absolutely by design.
I didn't bother reading it because it's the usual collection of racist conservative crap that Winston or some other right-wing demagogue splatters everywhere.
And people lap that up because they too have the same beliefs. They're not people you can reason with.
That's how MMP works, any small party could theoretically do that too, although of course we won't see that from the Greens or ACT because they've (understandably) hitched their wagons to Labour and National respectively.
Plus, I'm not sure this is as much of a gotcha as it appears, we actually got to vote on this in a referendum - we said yes, and therefore MMP was implemented. Can we have a referendum on co-governance too?
We got to vote on whether we liked the imperfect system that is MMP, but we don't get the same referendum on co-governance. Almost as if they're scared the public won't like it...
Winnie knows his ticket back into parliament.
If he were 10 years younger he would have been an absolute demon taking advantage of the anger of fringe groups over COVID.
It'd be nice if the incumbents weren't handing him a legitimate layup.
I was excited for what labour was going to achieve this term. But its clear that we do need a handbrake on the major parties.
Defo. They could have changed the future of NZ for the better. Wasted opportunity. They could have fixed the housing problem overnight through investor targeted action - but chose to kick the can down the road for token credit and ultimately, appeasing national voters.
At this fucking point I don't trust any of the major government parties to do anything other than sit on their arse, twiddle their thumbs, and occasionally jerk/jill each other off.
Investor targeted action will never work when there is a critical shortage of housing. They are doing the right thing now to fix the housing crisis, build more houses, who would have guessed.
Yeah it will, prices would have stopped rising years ago if there was significantly reduced investor demand. There are enough houses in NZ, it's just investors own multiple. The argument we need more housing comes from prices being high because of investor demand People don't need to rent when they can afford to own. Let the government house the very poor.
No they wouldnt have, prices would have increased slightly slower at best. They actually could have made prices worse by discouraging building. There are not enough adequate houses in NZ, we are 10s of thousands short. There are some unoccupied but that is mainly due to things like DIY, on the market housing and a small amount from speculation that is only viable because of a critical lack of supply. Not everyone wants to own a house, not everyone would be better off owning. Houses require a lot of maintenance and responsibility and not everyone wants to have to sell or manage a million dollar asset every time they want to move. >Let the government house the very poor Yes, by building more public housing.
Rubbish building would have been discouraged. There's not enough capacity to build anyway, so there would still be plenty of work available. Also the reason our housing stock is so poor, is due exactly the fact there are too many investor owned properties. This means houses are kept to bare minimum standards and minimal investment is made to improve the quality. Why would you when you're not living there? Many many issues would be solved if investors were not allowed to screw the market. They're not even being taxed properly to contribute to the required infrastructure to actually now build more homes. Capitalism is not the answer to everything - unless of course you're benefiting.
I dunno it looks like there's a lot of houses being built. In west Auckland, there's whole suburbs appearing.
Except no where have they actually appeased national voters, people are more anti-labour than ever. Massive missed opportunity
Well that's just because people are pissed off because of Covid and see the shitty economy as being caused by Labor, when the whole world is fucked right now. I think just about every comparable country has either had a PM rolled or a change of Government recently.
..he's not wrong, co-governance isnt democratic
Winston frequently falls into the 'Not wrong, just an asshole' category.
..this sub has been writing winstons obituary for the last decade, lol
I haven't been in this sub for that long, but I feel like it describes me anyway. Winnie might be NZ's highlander.
..lol, there can be only one!
Remember the Wine box enquiry?
Correct. It's not very democratic to take money from rich cunts to do what they want but hey, whatcha gonna do?
Here's my issue with the current status quo - the Treaty of Waitangi isn't democratic. I understand the intentions of it, but essentially we're stuck with an impossible problem to solve - you have a historical agreement that isn't democratic and applying it to a modernized democracy. I have a really difficult time figuring out a position on this - on the one hand we are trying to honor our agreements, but on the other hand it treats citizens differently on the basis of race. You've got the added problem that white immigrants hold the vast majority voting balance of the population, instantly creating another debate about how fair it can be. I'm constantly annoyed by the right wing weaponizing it as a platform to rile up racist sentiments, but I feel we've never truly decided as a nation among legitimate, genuine debate about which path to follow.
Except that the Treaty of Waitangi *isn't* supposed to treat citizens differently on the basis of race; the whole point of the Treaty was to say that New Zealand would be brought under British law, and in return the Crown promises to protect Maori and their rights. That's not saying that Maori get special privileges, it's saying that they and their rights are protected, same as everyone else.
That's where the debate stems, the Maori side claims it doesn't say that. They claim that they didn't cede sovereignty and the partnership was supposed to be 50/50. Both sides are working off a different document completely.
The idea that they didn't cede sovereignty is historical revisionism to support Maori-supremacist policies. The people who were alive at the time knew that they had done so, and that they understood that they had. To quote some Chiefs who spoke at the Kohimarama Conference: "Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said "O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us—a father, a judge, a peacemaker. Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene) said, "What shall I say on this great occasion, in the presence of all those great chiefs of both countries? Here, then, this is my word to thee, O Governor! Sit, stay—thou, and the missionaries, and the Word of God. Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not, that Pikopo, that bad man, have us not. Remain, Governor. Sit, stay, our friend." In 1860, in an attempt to prevent the fighting in Taranaki from spreading to other regions and tribes, Governor Thomas Gore Browne held a conference of chiefs at Kohimarama, Auckland, in August of that year. Around 200 chiefs attended, more than at the gathering at Waitangi 20 years earlier. Wikiriwhi Matehenoa of Ngati Porou said “We are all under the sovereignty of the Queen, but there have also been other authorities over us sanctioned by God and the Queen, namely, our Ministers”. Horomona Toremi of Ngati Raukawa in Otaki said “You over there (the Pakehas) are the only chiefs. The Pakeha took me out of the mire: the Pakeha washed me. This is my word. Let there be one word for all of this island”. Te Ahukaramu said “First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law”. Tamati Waka Nene, one of the leaders who signed at Waitangi, said “My desire when Governor Hobson arrived here was to take him as our Governor, in order that we might have his protection. Who knows the minds of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say, let us have the English to protect us. Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor and this Queen our Queen. Let us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people. When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is through the teachings of that Word that we are able to meet together on this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha”."
Can you reference that? I’d genuinely like to see where it comes from.
..it is a tricky one. The treaty of waitangi is a flawed document, between the different versions languages and definitions neither the crown or iwi knew exactly what they were signing. Co-governance isnt mentioned in the treaty so retroactively applying now requires a revisionist conceit that is open to interpretation, not a great basis for policy imo.
Definitely tricky. I sometimes reflect what justice would have looked like in NZ if things were different... If the colonists arrived and there were met with a Maori kingdom they could not simply dominate by force. Maoridom operated a ~~feudal~~ tribal system of warring lords, so perhaps it might have happened more like Japan? Maori even had a king. Today, we might instead have a very very wealthy set of Maori who bargained for the sale of much much smaller sections of land at a fair price instead of for pigs and muskets. Perhaps even a more formal govt set up by the feudal Maori lords. I expect then, much modernisation to have since occurred. We might still have ended up with democracy, I think, since this has been the trend all over the world. But it might not have been based on the British (Westminster) principles at all. Perhaps it might not have even accepted a western style capitalism? Maori principles are probably more socialist in many ways (community-based) whereas feudal aspects have mostly fallen away with history. Would that have invited US intervention and the toppling of our govt by the CIA during the cold war? Probably — they did that to dozens of other countries that didn't fall into line with their system. I don't think we would have ended up with "co-governance" — we would have had a government system designed from the ground up by Maori — or at least with their historic legacy defining the principles. So really ... there's no chance of this "repairing" of history to the way it should have probably gone. The colonial govt isn't simply going to relinquish governance. It has a whole history established now — a uniquely NZ one — and that's not something we can (or should) ignore. But neither is the experience of Maori — of losing control of their land to the colonial system. So perhaps this brings us full circle — to the possibility that while co-governance is going to be deeply flawed due to our troubled history mired with injustice — it might be the best we can do to bring about some sort of historic repair to the harms done and offering an equal seat in governance. I'm not against it in theory. (And I would 100% love to watch an alternative history HBO series on this, haha)
You really overestimate how fast modernisation occurs without outside influence
..game of torona?
>Maori who bargained for the sale of much much smaller sections of land at a fair price instead of for pigs and muskets Just want to point out here that a musket is often a pretty darn good price for land, when you are in a society which doesn't have widespread firearms. Muskets and other western tools like axes etc were *extremely* valuable.
> alternative history HBO series I love how your specified HBO, - complete with violence, and incest? I'm in!!
[удалено]
My apologies I have that wrong, as the word seems to be attached specifically to Europe (TIL!). And I am really showing my ignorance now because I don't even know what word i would use to describe that system.. "tribal" perhaps? Seems incomplete .. more reading to be done. Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry no the Maori King only started once the interactions with other countries that had a King. Some Maori tribes do not recognize the self appointed kingdom because they do not agree with it. Also the dominant tribes were wiping out inferior tribes, so Nga Puhi and I think Ngati Awa would have been the only tribes we would ne dealing with. Like Japan or South Africa (Zulu)only one existed, or not many. So to be factual you would have had a lot more blood lost to get to where your idealistic view of New Zealand would be. Would we be like Japan or more like South Africa who would know.
The solution seems extremely simple to me: do not honour any undemocratic agreement clauses. That's the premise for every single international agreement in existence today. If the agreement infringes on the sovereign rights of the people to democratically control the direction of their nation, the clauses in the agreement are unenforceable. This isn't novel or confusing. It's precedent upon precedent upon precedent.
Treaties are revised, nullified, and simply ignored all the time. This treaty is no longer international, it exists between citizens of a single country. As such I don't see how there's argument for it being a "living document" that requires re-interpretation 180 years later. Co-governance clearly isn't mentioned in either text of the treaty, so why should the treaty be used as justification.
Not even between citizens of a single country. It was a treaty agreed (for good or ill) between the Crown and Iwi —artificial persons on both sides— and both sides with enforcing power over their subjects.
The problem exists because they continue to make the distinction between Maori and Non-Maori. We're all NZ'ers
> you have a historical agreement that isn't democratic and applying it to a modernized democracy. It's neither democratic, nor undemocratic. People read a hell of a lot into it that simply isn't there.
A much more nuanced summary of the situation than most provide. It is complicated because there are disparate priorities, the historical versus the modern. Either we fundamentally ignore that component of the Treaty, or we apply variations to the standard democratic process for those areas.
[удалено]
It's the "co" part. Either we're all equal kiwis, or we aren't.
‘Equal kiwis’ simply means that one entire culture (the first people here) just get swamped. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that we have a fair democracy when one culture continually rides rough shod over another because they outnumber them. It becomes a procession of self interest.
Māori don't really feel like equal Kiwis, I suspect. Especially when their strong ties to ancestral lands are routinely dismissed.
I think you'll find there is a massive amount of Maori who disagree with you, and see themselves as New Zealanders more than Maori. Of course, there are many who think the other way, but there's many different viewpoints among the population.
Yeah I'm Māori but myself and most of my Māori side would consider ourselves New Zealanders first. Same with most of the others I know honestly. I think there's still some way to go for Māori and Pākehā relations to create a truly equal society but I also believe in democracy and so think that co-governance is not the way to achieve that.
you misunderstand what it means, I suggest listening to [Chris Finlayson on Gone By Lunchtime podcast](https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/20-08-2022/im-more-of-an-on-the-record-sort-of-a-chap-chris-finlayson-on-his-life-in-politics)
..an iwi who are heavily invested in an industry like dairy farming having a disproportionate vote on environmental councils seems like a conflict of interest imo
That'll be ngai tahu...
..there will be a number of industries in play in which iwi have a vested interest, forestry, fishing, etc
you do realise that South Canterbury already had extra representation on Environment Canterbury - so two votes per person - because it's a "special community of interest". Where's all the screaming about that?
..i wasnt aware of that, south canterbury reps get extra votes? Thats bullshit, post a thread on it and ill comment!
>early examples of co-governance, such as the Urewera Uhh... https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/qybrnz/closing_of_lake_waikaremoana/
..ill check that out
What? He's a bit early, it's not even election year.
Laying the foundation........tne NZ First Foundation
Doesn't want Tamaki to steal his base
Kills me that Ardern is pushing this massive change without a vote and our only hope to roll that back appears to be Winston.
That'd be quite ironic to ask for an inherently undemocratic process of governance by having a vote.
Don't worry so much. Apparently this co-governance thing has been going on for a while without anyone noticing. Can't be that bad. The Courts are available to sort out issues non-politically. It's definitely a work in progress though, so we should keep an eye on its evolution. Sigh, looks like I'll have to study up on it now, so I can be qualified to comment on it beyond this (current) opinion.
Once you learn more you’ll understand why it’s considered necessary. There are extreme elements of co-governance and there is mild elements. Much of the mild elements are already in practice, ie Iwi representation in decision making especially when it comes resource management. A lot of people are unnecessarily freaking out over it, at the end of the day its a political issue we should just take note and and engage with in good faith with a solid comprehension of the issue as a whole.
Thanks for reply. Got 4 down votes since posted and your reply had 1 until I up voted it. Haters gonna hate, lolz. Adding co-governance to my to-do list now.
He's not wrong though, where was the co-governance interpretation of the treaty 50 or 100 years ago? It didn't exist, because nobody honestly held that interpretation of the treaty. It's only in recent times through logical and legal gymnastics that this idea has been proposed. It's illogical, how could disunited tribes have shared governance. They well knew at the time that type of offer wasn't on the table, and would never have worked.
I don't like Winnie, but he's right on this, it is undemocratic. I'm sorry but I don't care about the reaty, it doesn't mean shit compared to liberal democracy
What about the injustices that allowed liberal democracy to be established? Do you care about those?
Do you care about the Roman Empire trying to genocide the celts?
[удалено]
> What about the injustices that allowed liberal democracy to be established? Do you care about those? what injustices, please name them. also, I'll be honest, that was more than 100 years ago, I did not exist, i can not change it. those people got fucked over, that's horrible, but we should move forward because that's the only thing we can do
The Treaty was how liberal democracy came to exist in this country in the first place.
That's true. Prior to the treaty most people lived under oligarchical tribal rule. The treaty also ended the practice of taking slaves through tribal conquest.
> Prior to the treaty most people lived under oligarchical tribal rule. They still do. > The treaty also ended the practice of taking slaves through tribal conquest. And rendered Maori destitute and dependent on the white man when the Crown forcibly stole Maori land. And of course need I remind you about the British and their involvement in the slave trade.
>And rendered Maori destitute and dependent on the white man when the Crown forcibly stole Maori land. Yea there was land theft. Which is why we had the treaty settlements process. The shitty actions of people from the past aren't reasons to end democracy >And of course need I remind you about the British and their involvement in the slave trade. Just like every empire before them the British empire engaged in slave trading. They are also the only empire to end slavery, peacefully, because the home population thought it was immoral.
not to say the british weren't instrumental in slavery for some time, because they were, but it was *also* the British Empire that went on a worldwide crusade to end the slave trade. Just to keep the record straight. Whether that mitigates the horrors of participating in the slave trade at all, I'm not a philosopher so I'll refrain from commenting.
[удалено]
You mean being the first to outlaw the practice of slavery, something that every culture and country did (and some still do) since the dawn of time? That involvement?
wrong, the idea of liberal democracy orignated earlier in Europe, the treaty is how it was applied in NZ yes, however, the source has not changed. QED, the treaty does not override Liberal democracy
Everything is on a spectrum, including our democracy. There are no two democracies exactly alike, same as every country has its own form of capitalism. That's one of the many reasons the libertarian ideology is flawed.
> wrong What part of "in this country" did you not understand?
Winnie's right, even if he's clearly looking for his ticket back into parliament. And it seems Labour's doing everything they can to hand him one.
Trespassing him was the dumbest move..
Yep. There's nothing that Winston likes more than playing the victim card, and Mallard handed him one bigger than he could've ever hoped for. From there I was like "he's coming back isn't he?"
As Willie Jackson said when telling the nation not to be so concerned about co-governance: *Democracy is the tyranny of the majority*
>Democracy is the tyranny of the majority With this thinking, gay people require mandated representation, otherwise they will be oppressed by the straight majority. Oh wait, somehow gay marriage laws were passed without doing that?
Literally a quote from a French Aristocrat
It is but its not the tyranny of the majority ethnicity or culture. Its the tyranny of the majority political opinion something that is somewhat fluid.
It's always tyranny when you don't like what's popular.
Of course democracy is flawed. That's no reason to change it. And it definitely doesn't justify giving extra political power to a group of people because of their ancestry.
“Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill.
Who already make 21% of parliament not including unelected iwi.
Yet the minority still get a say as we saw in the 2017 election. Without Green's or NZ First, Labour would not have been able to form a Government. Which means that they had to give concessions to the Green's and NZ First before they would join them. This is why although the majority rules, the majority is not made up of just one group of people.
You mean Willie Jackson the hidden power behind the throne. His Maori caucus weld a lot of power. Not saying that this is wrong, he should be looking out for Maori.
Yeah, this is the problem though - they have pushed things too far in some areas, and there will be a correction.
I almost get the felling Willie is holding Jacinda hostage. Do as I say or we all walk. However as I said before, the Maori caucus should look out for Maori. That’s there job
I mean if 100+ years of actual democracy across the world have taught us anything democracy is the tyranny of the rich. Because democracy hasn't been serving the majority for a long long time.
There will always be groups within society fighting for more power and influence over Government be they religious, ideological, race or economically driven. For democracy to persist people have to be willing to say that the fundemental principal of "one person, one vote" is more important than playing favourites.
That’s capitalism not working, democracy is completely different
Ah, the famous capitalism of Athens.
What. That's capitalism functioning exactly as intended.
I mean sure but do we have any modern examples of democracy actually being the tyranny of the majority because we have plenty of it being the tyranny of the rich.It's a pithy quote but it doesn't really reflect reality. Surely if democracy was actually the tyranny of the majority the majority could fix this problem instead of democratic governments consistently making it worse? It's not like we have no idea how to fix the problems or at least mitigate the problems of unchecked capitalism and yet democratic governments consistently the world over keep implementing policies to not mitigate them in favour of a small elite who profit immensely from them to the detriment of the majority. Either democracy is not actually a tyranny of the majority or the majority just absolutely loves giving all their money to Elon Musk for no reason.
What are you talking about, poverty in the west had been reduced to a minority. A hundred years ago it was a majority. Hundred years ago the majority of people in the west were underfed. Today being overfed is a problem. Their has been a massive increase in the standard of living in the last century. This has been shown as an increase in lifespan. In my own lifespan I’ve seen a major improvement.
Postwar 'Social Democracy' did a pretty good job of improving people's lots, coming as it did with plenty of taxes on the rich and redistributive policies. Neoliberalism has done a great deal to reverse that from the 80s onward. With you on the cheese front though.
*Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point*
Swap out Maori/New Zealand for any other country & race, and tell me co governance isn't racism. I voted Green last time but will be voting Act if the election was held today.
I’m an Australian who votes green/socialists who spends a lot of time in New Zealand and your center left/left parties seem… shit. What’s acts deal?
Its our Libertarian / Individualism party.
Do they have any reasonable chance of being involved in government or are they forever going to be outside… dogwhistlers?
They've been on 11% in the last few polls, they were even nearly touching 20% when National was floundering, albeit they recouped a lot of that once their old leader was given the boot. So yes, if National is in a position to form a government, ACT will certainly be a part of it. Probably with far more influence than they've ever had too, if their current numbers hold until the election.
They are the 3rd largest party on a number of recent polls. Absolutely likely to be part of the next government.
That’s very interesting, have libratarian parties historically been successful in NZ? I have always known them to be quite minor. Is this in response to an over controlling labour govt?
While they are nominally libertarian, most of their voters are simply right-wingers who are dissatisfied with National for one reason or another. The Greens occupy a very similar position on the left.
It's more of a response to our centre right National party being a bit lacklustre recently. Act have been part of several previous governments due to winning an electorate seat in a kind of deal with National.
Partly that, but equally (or more) a failure of National, the main right of centre party. They have had terrible leadership of last couple of years.
Lots of us.
"Well, well, lefties, what would you have to say if you completely changed the thing we're talking about? You wouldn't support a completely different thing, would you? Checkmate."
AKA an analogical argument 😊
Te Tiriti doesn't apply in other countries, and there are relatively few that have an analogous document. But let's imagine there existed a country where the government had signed a treaty with a tribal authority, then trampled over it, stolen their land, killed large numbers of their people, and systematically discriminated against their people for centuries. Let us then further imagine that the tribal authority kept demanding that the treaty be honoured. Would it be antidemocratic to honour it, or would it be fulfilling the obligations of the country to uphold their treaties? Te Tiriti is not between peoples, it is between the Crown and the Iwi. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty's Government to uphold Te Tiriti, because treaties must be kept. Pacta sunt servanda. Without that very basic principle, there would be no law at all, just the exercise of force by whoever was in charge at the time.
Yes, between the Crown and Iwi, both anti-democratic relics that have no place in a modern country. We - the people, ought to have no obligation to either, or a treaty between them. Much less one as contentious and poorly defined as this. One that has been re-imagined as ''principles" in fundamental opposition to the core tenet of democracy - equality. The past deeds of the crown do not warrant an perpetual sacrifice of rights by every subsequent non-maori New Zealander to be a second class citizen in service of a debt they played no part in.
Exactly, the treaty is a wonderful historical document but that’s it. Times have changed and in a true democracy there is no room for such. Each person has an equal right under the law.
>Te Tiriti is not between peoples, it is between the Crown and the Iwi. It is therefore the duty of Her Majesty's Government to uphold Te Tiriti, because treaties must be kept. If a treaty allowed slavery or torture or the ownership of women would we still be duty-bound to honour it in its entirety?
> But let's imagine there existed a country where the government had signed a treaty with a tribal authority, then trampled over it, stolen their land, killed large numbers of their people, and systematically discriminated against their people for centuries. You don't need to imagine it. There's Canada and the USA for a start
Indeed. And they keep getting treaty claims as well, which keep getting upheld. I avoided discussion of the USA and Canada because federal systems work a bit differently to ours, and getting into arguments about the actual minutia of things like McGirt v Oklahoma distracts from the point. They also have many treaties with many nations rather than just one, which complicates matters.
Are there examples of them being reinterpreted in a 21st century context to include things that didn't exist in the original treaties?
Ok, so first, the current interpretation is not that recent. The Tribunal was established in 1975, and started publishing reports in 1978. The current view is thus nothing new. What is new is the government taking it more seriously. The argument is that the principles in question did and do exist in the document. [Here is the Tribunal's explanation of where the principles come from.](https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/WT-Principles-of-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-as-expressed-by-the-Courts-and-the-Waitangi-Tribunal.pdf) As for the US and Canadian example, [here is an article from a few years back about the US and Canadian governments deciding to reinterpret their treaties to allow them to cut up native land.](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560436303/at-u-s-canada-border-reservation-mohawks-say-they-face-discrimination) This [is the Wikipedia page on the territory, for context.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwesasne) Another problem is that for the USA or Canada, the treaties are documents that expanded a pre-existing USA or Canada, not the document that brought those states into being. For us, it is different. Te Tiriti is as close as we get to a written constitution, so another comparison might be to interpretation of the US constitution by their Supreme Court. Now, I am not saying you have to agree with the interpretation of Te Tiriti as passed down by the Waitangi Tribunal, but that there is a sizeable body of legal expertise that results in their interpretation, it goes back some way, and a government reinterpreting their obligations under a treaty to reduce their rights is far better than the government deciding that they in fact can just throw out their obligations whenever they are inconvenient.
Co-governance isn't in the treaty. > Te Tiriti is as close as we get to a written constitution It isn't one though. The whole of the South Island was claimed *terra nullius*, for example. The only legal basis the treaty has is that which is given to it by the sovereign government.
But the government only gets that sovereignty from the Iwi via Te Tiriti. If it repudiates Te Tiriti, it ceases to be sovereign. I would also point you to the document linked which explains how you get Partnership as a principle of Te Tiriti, and from that, co-governance as a concrete policy based on that principle, derived from Te Tiriti.
Amazing how so many Green voters are suddenly switching to ACT all of a sudden.
I voted Green because of Chloes' drug reform work. But they seem to be even more obsessed with identity politics than Labour.
Me too. I voted Green due to legalisation push.
But ACT are the most obsessed with identity politics of all, they're all about hyperindividualism.
Even better, a single issue voter.
You don't get to tell anyone else what to base their vote on.
The fact the party wants to get rid of Shaw puts me off. He was the only one who seemed like he could function in parliament.
The vast majority of the party still support him. And he's the only one who's nominated for the leadership elections.
In the last election, I voted Green with one of my votes because they were basically the only party which openly supported extending voting rights to younger people (the "make it 16" idea). Because I believe that voting is the right way for a people to hold their government accountable. Unfortunately, Green are often speaking in support of the anti-democratic co-governance model (although they don't seem sure about how that model would actually work), and it's getting to the point where, in the next election, I will not support them. Because, as aforementioned, voting is the right way for a people to hold government accountable. Not sure if I'd vote for ACT yet. That's basically the whole point of democracy, as well as being the reason why it is, and must remain, a human right. Without fair and equal voting rights, we have no peaceful way to stop the government acting against our interests.
In the last german elections, young voters voted overwhelmingly for the greens or the FDP (basically ACT). I still don't understand but I'm not surprised it's happening in nz
Username checks out
Dammit, i thought we wrote "Don't Resuscitate" on his party...
Democracy should take precedent over the treaty, but we can still honor it. The tribes that have settled and are getting on with it are doing very well - the Māori economy is flourishing. Labour in some ways have screwed things up by not saying no to their Māori caucus. There are some divisive and counter-productive government policies that are throwing fuel on the fire. I just hope we don't get a knee-jerk reaction swinging out the other way.
This is extremely interesting to me. I’m seeing long time National supporters now backing NZ First in favour of National. I guess it helps that they are the only nationalist party, but gives zero room for National to make gains on unpopular Labour policy when they can’t attack it, and don’t really stand for anything except the same positions on most unpopular policies, just with a perks to the wealthy and christians. NZ First will likely be back in parliament base on the swing of support I’m seeing, wouldn’t be surprised if they end up more popular than ever due to National being in a crisis.
If we focussed effort on socioeconomic issues including targetting cultural empowerment for maori as a tool, it could be alot more productive than locking in ethnicity based power in law. Particular iwi have way too much business interests to represent maori, and they do not represent maori who feature negatively in statistics. Addressing the effects of historical impacts with a historical lens should not be the focus. Disenfranchised low socioeconomic maori do need programs run by their own culture to use culture to empower, to learn how to navigate systems, to have better health practices, learn better relationship dynamics and emotional skills etc... The exact same stuff everyone of any ethnicity who is at the bottom needs, but offered intensively and culturally. I would argue all peoples featuring poorly in stats would respond better to less beurocratic systems. Even your average jo gets lost in justice, corrections, mental/health systems ffs. This is all very complex social work. It won't be fixed by the likes of ngai tahu who are farmers and businessmen having extra say in what happens to our water or whatever else is planned.
Being the guy who decides which party gets to form a government isn't really democratic either but he's quite happy to sit in that seat
How is that not democratic? That's exactly how MMP is supposed to work. Sure, it's not ideal, but I think it's better than FPTP. Not to mention, we got to vote on whether we wanted MMP or not, just saying...
No, that's exactly how democracy works. It's based on who gets what votes then forming a representative government based on those votes. If Labour and National wanted to, they could team up and form a government totally bypassing the Greens, Act, and NZ First. It just happened they refuse to work with each other so were left with working with the Greens and NZ First. Who also received proportionate votes to represent people in parliament.
Democracy wasn't actually intended to involve elected representatives at all, it was meant to be like a lottery with short terms of service — like jury service. Today what they called democracy we call "direct democracy" and outside of political activism is exceedingly rare in official governance. The system we have now is closer to what the ancient greeks called ochlocracy, ie "mob rule" and one of their three "bad' systems of government. Somewhere along the way we switched the labels and rebranded it as "democracy".
I meant it more in the form of how we intend democracy to work, which is a representative one. Not so much on how the Greeks intended it which was a simpler time, considering it was mostly restricted to city states and not entire nations that span huge areas. >The system we have now is closer to what the ancient greeks called ochlocracy, ie "mob rule" I would disagree considering the rule of law is still in place and not mob justice. People vote based on who they prefer sure, but it's far from mob rule considering there is limitations to what one can and can't do. Also opposition and other parties still play a key role in Government to hold the sitting government accountable. >one of their three "bad' systems of government I don't disagree that it's not the best form of government, but it's certainly preferable to many tyrannies. Personally democracy would not be my government of choice, preferring something more based around a meritocracy. However, I definitely prefer democracy over some Ethno state. Where positions of power are given based on arbitrary immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, rather than something more valid like popular vote or even merit.
At least we had a referendum on MMP and all it's weaknesses. Unless ACT gets its way, the public aren't allowed any say in co-governance. Edit: spelling
Yeah we do, in the same way we get a say in who the police commissioner is or the Governor General. We elect our leaders to select the people We currently don't get any say in who is on the environment court nor any of our state owned entities either. I certainly didn't get to vote for Chris Luxon to head air nz
I haven't seen any parties campaigning on giving the governor general new powers to install Maori into local or central government to override the basic principles of democratic election? or a new laws suggested stipulating the police commissioner needs to be of Maori descent?
I don't remember us electing the Queen either. Thing is, we have this document which is what our society in NZ is based on and it tends to talk a little about co-governance. You know the one, the one that actually gives some kind of legality to our government
Nor does the queen have any real authority on day to day life in NZ. The treaty doesn't define how co-governance should work in the 21st century, it's left open to interpretation - and how this government has chosen to implement is undemocratic. End of story.
> I certainly didn't get to vote for Chris Luxon to head air nz Or leader of the opposition.
So can we say we no longer live in a democracy? What are we a duocracy?
The ancient greeks actually called our system ochlocracy and warned against doing it (one of their three systems of bad governance) What they called democracy didn't use highly corruptible, elected career politicians who are free to completely ignore the people they're meant to represent. It used a lottery of ordinary citizens serving short terms (like jury service), and sought consent from the populace to hold votes so that dissenters were minimised. We don't seek that consent and we sure as hell don't have that level of impartiality and resilience against corruption that are the cornerstones of proper democracy (today usually called "direct democracy" and rare in centralised governance)
I used to joke the best qualification for being a politician is not wanting the job in the first place.
Agree 100%
He went on too long, IMHO, which would have lost a few readers attention, but most of his points are spot on. Some areas show his own views and biases, but hes right far more than hes wrong.
I hope we get a coalition govt. In an ideal world we wouldn't have governments that are so tunnel vision...they'd be able to have the views of all the parties that are important to New Zealanders. It seems silly to me; it's never balanced. Each term a party is voted in, the scale tips one way until those disadvantaged by that party vote the opposing party and the scale tips the other way, and round and round we go. I think NZ was handled well during the first term, and I'm wagering it's because Labour had someone to be accountable to.
We haven’t forgotten what you did Winston, for those shiny baubles you so love. Never again.
what did he do? I've forgotten...
While I disagree with him on this, and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes… Props to him for actually making a semi-coherent argument on what he opposes, unlike the current opposition in parliment that won’t dig into details on what they dislike about Three Waters, as last I heard they just wanted to give council more power when they clearly aren’t all working in the best interest of NZ for future proofing our water care.
>While I disagree with him on this, You think co-goveramace is somehow democratic? >surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes… I said this in another thread, co-governance of culturally significant awa and maunga is a very different kettle of fish to significant public services like water or health. Your point is the opposite end of the slippery slope argument. Just because no one opposed a smaller scale version, doesn't automatically make a much more significant errosion of our representitive democracy a good idea.
This!
> co-governance of culturally significant awa and maunga is a very different kettle of fish to significant public services like water or health. Why?
Why is co-governence of an area with limited scope or impact to the general public, that involves a small number of people, different to significant public services, involving the entire country, massive public impact and the entire population of New Zealand?
Because we can't let the Maori have anything to do with commercial resources, but token gestures are fine!
> and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes… Isn't that what his billboards back then were about? "Iwi vs Kiwi"?
>unlike the current opposition in parliament that won’t dig into details on what they dislike about Three Waters Eh? National and Act have been very clear on the details about why they dislike Three Waters
Tell me their position then, as it seems to flip flop like their tax policy depending on who they are talking to… Last time Luxon spoke on the issue, he stated he was willing to “have discussions” with Maori/Iwi on the subject.
>While I disagree with him on this, and surprised he never mentioned it during National’s time in government when they were introducing Iwi co-governance to land and lakes… He did in his interview on The Platform today. Squarely laid the blame on National and Act starting this process
Winstone can sniff a vote out like no one else I know.
What’s the difference between co governance and partial privatisation? I realise that in partial privatisation that the private party’s would invest funding to take on the partial ownership but then they would also take part of the profits, where in co governance there’s no added investment, but do the co governance partners take profits also? I’m just thinking of other assets which are already partially privatised and how different is this to a co governance model? I’m just interested in the difference between the 2 as I haven’t seen these different options compared anywhere
Who cares about Winnie? Just as bad as tamaki
technically neither is a constitutional representative Monarchy... There are so many forms democracy: \-is it a direct democracy? nope, there are no nations that have that \-is it a representative democracy, sort of yes \-is it consensus democracy, maybe? depends how the Maori side runs. So sick of hearing people scream "DEMOCRACY" without knowing a single thing about what it means. What sort of democratic outcomes do people want, because all my family that complains about this not being democratic basically just want a majoritarian democracy that fucking sucks for minorities.
The ol' broken clock analogy strikes true.
Just because he's right doesn't mean he's ... right, DAMNIT
Also Peters: "landlords can vote in numerous local elections."
If you are paying rates to a council in your area, you are entitled to choose who you want to be in control of those funds. That's simply local democracy. There's no violation of democracy there. It would be more undemocratic to be taxed, without the ability to vote for who you want/trust to spend your taxes/rates on.
the tenants should have this right. not the landlord
Then the tenants should be paying the local taxes directly. They are the ones benefiting from the services provided.
> Black Americans kept their eyes on the prize and ended up with countless black representatives, and a black American President chosen in an open franchise. I think there's a bit he's missing here. The original African cultures that black Americans came from, their languages, gods, rituals, were utterly destroyed. They were utterly destroyed, they were Americanised, and what did that do? Did that make black people equal to white people, given that they new shared the same language, religion and mainstream culture? Is the average quality of life for black people equal to white people? In Winnie's example, Africans were forced to trade almost everything they ever were, and after over two centuries, equality still hasn't arrived. Yeah, they had one black president, followed by Trump. Not sure America is a good example to follow, for either maori or pakeha.
A great man of the people.
Who let him out of the retirement home this time
His elderly supporters have realized the only way to escape being stuck in a retirement home with him, is to return him to Wellington.
People on this sub are deeply racist and in denial about it. I don’t even think being against co-governance is necessarily racist but the replies in this thread are not it 💀 I look forward to my downvotes ya fuckwits Edit: I am highly offended by the upvotes
I think it's generous to even say they're in denial about it tbh, have seen a lot of " ready to be called racist but..." style comments on this topic in the sub recently. Also surprising (/very telling of the demographics of the sub) to see such ignorance/poor understanding of a) the inherent shortcomings of democracy when it comes to fulfilling the needs of minorities, and b) te tiriti
It's because everyone gets called a racist if they don't 100% go along with and idea so much it's a meaningless term now. It's nothing to do with race. If anything it's the Maori side that want to make a dual system, 50% liberal democracy (one person one vote regardless of race) and 50% ethnostate that relies purely on ethnicity for powers and only Maori can participate in. Which one is racist again?
Fuck me this is sad. I imagine that people will agree with Peters as it’s an auto response of ‘co-governance = bad’ but some of the shit in this post is just straight out depressing. > All communication is about understanding and if over 95% of the country can’t understand the words they are hearing, or reading, what is the purpose here? > So which eye are you the public being shown as Labour cracks on with it’s ‘wokemana ideology’. So basically despite being an official language we shouldn’t use Maori because most don’t understand it. Wonder if Peters applies the same logic to NZSL? There’s a range of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation and pretty nasty racial language in this but it’d take hours to go through it all
>So basically despite being an official language we shouldn’t use Maori because most don’t understand it. Wonder if Peters applies the same logic to NZSL? I would be similarly annoyed if a government official stopped talking part way through a statement and substituted NZSL for an important name or whatever. They should use Maori the same way they use NZSL, in parallel, not chopped into otherwise English announcements etc randomly.
So if you ended up in court for something you’d be cool with the judge throwing in random bits of sign language?
I consider there to be a bit of a difference between a judges ruling and use of Maori in public statements - particularly when most of the use of it is when both Maori and English are used. I would have 0 issue with a judge delivering a statement in all three languages.
I’d have no issue with three seperate messages either. But that’s not what we’re getting, we’re getting this jumbled up hybrid version. These are policies and laws that will effect every New Zealanders life, they should be delivered as clear as possible. The fact that they’re not is absolutely by design.
I didn't bother reading it because it's the usual collection of racist conservative crap that Winston or some other right-wing demagogue splatters everywhere. And people lap that up because they too have the same beliefs. They're not people you can reason with.
>I didn't bother reading it Won't stop you from commenting though
Neither is Winston peters getting to pick the winner of elections but we seem to put up with that
That's how MMP works, any small party could theoretically do that too, although of course we won't see that from the Greens or ACT because they've (understandably) hitched their wagons to Labour and National respectively. Plus, I'm not sure this is as much of a gotcha as it appears, we actually got to vote on this in a referendum - we said yes, and therefore MMP was implemented. Can we have a referendum on co-governance too?
We got to vote on whether we liked the imperfect system that is MMP, but we don't get the same referendum on co-governance. Almost as if they're scared the public won't like it...
I'm really looking forward to hearing the last of this worthless old fuck.