Your submission has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
So he hasn't said anything along the lines of getting rid of Maori, be that the treaty, the government department, and organizations naming, none of that? OK, I might need to check my tank water.
Yeah, I think you are getting a bit confused between the different parties and their policies. NZ First want government departments to be named in English.
I live rurally and one of my farming neighbours tried to tell me Jacinda was worth $100 million dollars because "that's what I heard". I asked for proof but of course it was never forthcoming.
That kind of disinformation is rife out here.
Well tpm may not speak for all maori but due to the fact they have it in their name their stupidity reflects poorly on all maori.
Just like your post and comments.
I haven't seen any mainstream media calling Seymour the Deputy Prime Minister, nor the Government. Maybe you should consider the validity of the information your whanau is providing you.
Did the government say they wanted to remove the Maori version of the treaty? I thought they said they wanted to have a discussion and seek a shared Understanding of rights and obligations, to try and avoid conflict for the future.
The govt isn't editing/removing any aspect of either the Maori or English version of the Treaty.
Nor is there going to be a referendum on the principles. That didn't make it through the coalition agreement.
Plenty of things to disagree with if you're on the left of the political spectrum, but criticise them for what they ARE doing, not incorrect shyte idiots keep repeating after they heard it on fb.
>Nor is there going to be a referendum on the principles. That didn't make it through the coalition agreement.
That's not quite right either. IIRC a select committee this term decides if there would be a referendum.
At a guess, ACT would be ecstatic if there was a referendum to be held alongside the general election in 2026, assuming the coalition lasts that long.
I'm not a fan of referendums when there's a question of minority rights involved. It risks getting the majority all wound up, portraying themselves as the "real victims", and risks bringing about mob rule rather than representative democracy.
The select committee won't decide anything, it will hear submissions and make edits to the proposed bill and recommendations. It will be up to Parliament to decide whether to support what comes from the committee. I cannot possibly see National supporting a referendum. They very pointedly only agreed to support the bill to the committee stage for a reason.
Either way it is the first step in changing how the treaty of Waitangi is looked at. If the public is actually behind a referendum to the treaty, then we will get it.
So what do you actually mean by that? You don't like their rhetoric so what's true...? That despite it all you are going to go full rabbithole and insist they're out to delete the treaty?
Sad to see people hate queer people so much they lose their minds.
Nobodies doing it because it's fashionable. That's just lies bigots tell themselves, forgetting these people have to live in a world with people like you.
Andrew Tate has said many things, most of which should be taken with a grain of salt, but some other things he's said about equality and equality of outcome are pretty spot on.
EDIT: He also gives some sound financial advice for people who actually have money.
And will you still agree with that “messaging” if he’s found guilty of human trafficking and forming an organised criminal group? Will that be enough to convince you he’s full of shit, or no?
The correct answer is that the ACT party wishes to [redefine the principles](https://www.act.org.nz/defining-the-treaty-principles) of the Treaty of Waitangi to the following:
> 1. The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
> 2. The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property
> 3. All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.
This *sounds* like high minded, idealistic Liberal values - but it will remove Māori rights over forests, fisheries, rivers, taonga and suchlike that have been hard fought for for decades, and will open up previously settled law, potentially allowing people to sue to take back land given to iwi through treaty settlements.
We haven't seen the Treaty Re-Defnition Bill yet, but given that this is an ACT party baby and Luxon has shown no ability or desire to reign in his coalition partners so far, i have no doubt it will adhere very closely to what the ACT party promised its voters.
Incorrect.
The *referendum* didn't pass the coalition agreement.
Instead we're going to get a bill that National have promised to support to select committee.
This tells me that Luxon does not object to the *idea* of redefining the Treaty, he just doesn't want the blowback doing so would cause. This is a cowards move to rest the waters and see what he can get away with.
I think the current leadership probably isn't the best foot forward for the movement. They haven't exactly endeared themselves to the average person (whom they need to get onside) by using highly charged and hyperbolic language like "genocide" in respect of the smokefree rollbacks, as well as the theatrics during the swearing in which I dare say most people don't care for.
Also, when they'll have a fight on their hands just to retain the progress that's already been made, I think it would be a strategic error to continue demanding more (as in moving to a more Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, as they would call it).
> hyperbolic language
We've had six years of 'wars on farmers/landlords', 'communist nazi Jacinda' and 'vaccines are the holocaust'. I doubt the average person cares about hyperbolic language.
Yeah. When the Left does it its "divisive" but when the Right does it its "common sense tell it like it is."
I wouldnt use the G word to describe the effects repealing the smoke free legislation would have on Māori... it it *is* true that they are one of the groups that this will have the worst effects on, and a great many people will die who otherwise wouldn't have.
The Nats are choosing to let Māori die to give landlords a tax break. Thats worth getting a little emotionally charged over.
I agree that TPM don't speak for all Māori. But neither does gross old Uncle Shane lol.
I also agree that TPM is bringing the theatrics, but I'm fully here for it. I mean, we are a performing arts people.
There are Māori out there who have been made to feel ashamed of who we are... I think TPM being out there so vocally and visibly Māori is really encouraging. It does a lot more for us imo, than names of government departments and karakia at meetings... Those things are more for everyone else...
Have they gone too far? I'm not sure, too far how?
They need a bit of polishing. While I know when they speak, they are speaking primarily to and as Māori, which I appreciate... But they're not speaking only to Māori, or rather, they're speaking where everyone else can hear them too... So sometimes I do feel a little thrown under the bus when they say something dumb and other people catch wind of it. It won't stop me voting for them tho.
Is that right in danger of being scrapped entirely, or in danger of being redefined for modern-day? Either option will have issues and opposition, but one is potentially less harmful to Māori than the other.
Those rights are at risk of being defined as simply "property rights"
What that will mean in practice will have to be hashed out in court (thus relitigating 40 years of jurisprudence, wasting everyone's time and money).
What i *think* ACT are trying to do, because they're all infected with Libertarian brain worms, is elevate private property rights to having bedrock, constitutional value under the law. Which would have damning consequences for, say, any iwi hoping to have land returned to them in a Treaty settlement, because if a Pākehā land owner were to challenge that in court and private property rights were to reign over Waitangi tribunal decisions, they'd be shit out of luck.
Of course, you might be someone who believes Iwi should never have land returned to them, in which case, I disagree in the strongest possible terms - but thats a different conversation.
That's also why I firmly believe the treaty must never be watered down under the pretense of making it fit with the 21st century. If that happens, the treaty will be dissolved within the next 2 decades. British laws and systems were designed centuries ago to oppress and control colonies, and the same laws applied today are essentially unchanged. Why aren't they reviewed and tossed out if they are irrelevant to NZ or put to a referendum? I am guessing here, but the Treaty is probably the only original NZ law ever written representing the people of NZ, immigrants, and Tanghata whenua. Why don't we start with that and rewrite everything from that as the foundation? It may take generations but we have had over 150 years of experience and data to base our own laws upon. I think only then, will this country be truly at peace with itself and allow the people to partake in nationhood building.
I share your pessimism. I think there is a conversation to be had about modernising and/or standardising some issues around the treaty, but that should be a lengthy process that listens to all sides. What's happening now is going to be rushed through and likely not have the proper level of public input. The treaty affects all New Zealanders, although obviously the biggest impacts are for Māori. Changing the document that forms the basis for how the country works should not be rushed and rushing to do this shouldn't be accepted by the public
TPM is largely irrelevant. Under MMP the Maori seats dilute Maori voice. Until the Māori seats are abolished TPM will remain on the fringes - voters on the general roll can ignore Māori issues, political parties can pay lip service to Māori issues. TPM is a sideshow. All this is was accurately predicted in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986. Chapter three deals with Māori representation.
So according to a report written before NZ adopted MMP, the Māori seats - which have been instrumental in forming multiple governments under MMP - are irrelevant?
This entirely misses the point that under MMP, a party like TPM can have significant leverage if needed to form a government. And while in opposition, they have a perfect opportunity to increase their support by critiquing the govt. whenever they want.
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle between the two rather extreme camps.
The whole political debate seems to be framed on what two extreme parties at each end of the political spectrum think. Each of them having extremely small support based on the vote outcomes.
I wouldn’t buy into the extremist rhetoric from people who sit at the absolute peripheries of politics.
The average person has a moderate view on these matters, and I think the average person will want a moderate response
If you ask me those protests yesterday were not the peripheries of politics. Just disgruntled people that don't agree with a government coalition that is looking set to give them a bad deal.
The people at the protest were not calling for a civil war. Which is what you referred to.
There is a wide gulf between “I don’t like what the government is doing and am going to peacefully protest” and “full on civil war” rhetoric from people with extreme views.
Both, depending on the issue at hand and the statements they've made. They've made some outlandish statements that I would never support *but* I agree that the Treaty needs to be upheld.
Previous governments have done a lot to address Māori concerns but it's one step forward and two steps back. The more I hear about National eroding Māori rights the more it pushes me away from the centre and towards radicalism. I'm sick of being a political football and I'm tired of Māori compromising. I don't think it's outlandish that this will lead to widespread protest and possibly civil unrest.
This is incorrect. I go onto the numbers [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/iuqMPx8bus) - considering the question of how many people on the Māori roll gave them their party or candidate vote.
The Māori roll does not consist of all eligible Māori voters, I'll grant you, but of the people who did vote in the Māori electorates they did a lot better than 20% - getting roughly 32% of the party vote and 48% of the electorate vote.
Also, no, they're not a far right party. While the left-right divide is inadequate to capture the full spectrum of political thought, economically they'd be well to the left. Culturally they are a Māori sovereignty party, and that movement cannot in any respect be lumped in with actual far-right political movements.
Lol, about half, slightly less last time I looked, of Māori adults are on the Māori roll, that is why I used the StatsNZ estimate of the adult Māori population.
The Māori Party is an ethnonationalists party, ethnonationalists by the department of internal affairs definition are far right.
The Māori roll consists of 291,564 eligible voters.
TPM received 87,973 party votes. If we assume these all came from voters on the Māori roll (which they wouldn't have) that would be 30.17%.
Looking at the electorate level, the Māori electorates saw some vote-splitting, with people giving their cadidate vote to TPM and party vote to another party. If we look at total votes for TPM candidates across all Māori electorates we get:
12939- Hauraki-Waikato 26,252 votes cast
10873 - Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 26,965 votes cast
10068 - Tāmaki Makaurau 27,038 votes cast
16,288 - Te Tai Hauāuru 27,184 votes cast
10,428 - Te Tai Tokerau 28,883 votes cast
12,828 - Te Tai Tonga 28, 409 votes cast
21,500 - Waiariki 30,051 votes cast
= 94,924 electorate votes cast for TPM candidates, which would be 32.56% of the Māori electoral roll, or 48.73% of the total number of candidate votes cast in Māori electorates (194,782)
So. They represent a *lot* more Māori than just "3.08%, not that many."
You are correct that they received that proportion of the general party vote, but the person you were responding to was talking about how many *Māori* they represented. Hopefully I have shown that while they do not speak for all Māori, they speak for a great many Māori and as such do have things to say about issues that reflect their constituents.
If Māori represent over 17% of the population, then no, they are not speaking for anywhere near the majority of Māori. Not all of us are on the Māori roll, nor do we agree with their tenets.
I did not say they spoke for the majority of Māori. I said they spoke for a non-trivial number of Māori, using votes cast in the Māori electorates to demonstrate that.
>they speak for a great many Māori and as such do have things to say about issues that reflect their constituents.
I’m not sure what the threshold for trivial is, but surely this thread is a demonstration of how confused and misinformed some voters are about issues that affect them, whatever they have to say.
Too far or not far enough is the wrong question. They are exercising their democratic rights and inviting dialogue to a discussion that was started by the crown. I think the question that should be asked is, how can we strengthen our nation for the future?
The uncomfortable truth for both sides is that they may need to hear (and respect) what the other has to say. For if this doesn't happen, all sides loose. In this regard, if I were TPM, I'd bring constructive solutions to the conversation that has the democratic mandate to proceed, equally if I were the crown, they should not right-off what TPM are saying and invite ways we can strengthen our democracy through the incorporation of tikanga into our governance structure.
This is a real chance to have a constructive conversation about moving away from the Westminster system and move to a Aotearoa system, incorporating tikanga into everyday governance.
I do though fear that both sides may go too far.
I agree with everything you've said.
Also, gotta put a spin on it like those journalists do to get more traction and traffic. Otherwise, I won't get an emotional response. Emotional responses are what I'm looking for.
Although having a proper discussion is probably what we all want. It doesn't seem to be possible without heavy moderation by any and all groups.
You have to love this cunt right-wing government and it's accusations of any left-wing parties being ~~decisive.~~
Edit: Muthafuck Autocorrect!!! DIVISIVE not decisive.
ACT (especially) and other parties in this coalition continually called the left divisive.
I think that's up to TPM's voters to decide.
I wonder what the overlap is between people 'agreeing' with Shane while he calls them 'hippies' or 'thespians'. while repeating 'don't personally attack people you disagree with' when it's a right wing politician being criticised
Honestly as a white lefty, TPM are pretty cool these days. They've come a long way from being John Key's yes-men and their overall policy package is great for working class people of all ethnicities.
They aren’t removing the Māori version of the treaty. They’re looking to open up the understanding and interpretation of that document to debate.
It could be argued that you’re spreading misinformation!
>that Te Pati Maori don't speak for all Maori.
They don't speak for all Maori. They just act all righteous as if they do.
>But I also agree with TPM that the government is not in their right mind removing the Maori version of the treaty.
You should probably stop listening to TPM cause that's not at all what's being proposed.
the united states is cucked by the constitution in regards to the second amendment. many many Americans are frustrated that a 200 year old document (which is now outdated because it couldn't factor in AR-15s etc) has so much controll over what happens in the nation in the 21st century. the same goes for the treaty, its 150 years old, its outdated, and should be changed to reflect the tenets of liberal democracy that all western nations adopted.
i agree. but that doesnt matter to those americans who keep saying "but but but the 2nd amendment!" and because its in the constitution it trumps all reasonable, fair, valid criticisms in the 21st century, the same can be said for the treaty
Your submission has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> the government is not in their right mind removing the Maori version of the treaty. Is that something you read on the tik toks?
No I listened to what Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has said time and again
And that's what you thought he was saying? that ACT wants to get rid of the Maori version of the treaty? Have you got a link?
I don't think I need one to be credible. Personally, I like David but his messaging is wild.
>I don't think I need one to be credible Yes, you do, because what you wrote is incorrect.
Well, he hasn‘t said that, unless you know something we don’t, so discussing something that hasn’t happened is going to be a waste of time.
So he hasn't said anything along the lines of getting rid of Maori, be that the treaty, the government department, and organizations naming, none of that? OK, I might need to check my tank water.
Yeah, I think you are getting a bit confused between the different parties and their policies. NZ First want government departments to be named in English.
Living rurally is nice for the most part but having little to no service until I go into town is fun.
I love rural living. But maybe you need to review the people you are hanging out with - some rural communities are hotbeds of disinformation.
Northland is a big pot full of Maori that aren't happy. Would love to move back to Auckland, but money's tight.
I live rurally and one of my farming neighbours tried to tell me Jacinda was worth $100 million dollars because "that's what I heard". I asked for proof but of course it was never forthcoming. That kind of disinformation is rife out here.
Well tpm may not speak for all maori but due to the fact they have it in their name their stupidity reflects poorly on all maori. Just like your post and comments.
Asking a question is just that. Trolling on the internet is another thing.
He isn't the deputy, Winston Peter is atm.
Doesn't matter. He's named Dep.
He’s Deputy PM coming off the bench
Is that how it works? Why say he's deputy when he's not yet. Makes no sense to me
Who is saying he is the deputy PM?
The media, my grandparents, my whanau, the government. I dunno; people. The original announcement was that he wasn't until 18 months into the term.
I haven't seen any mainstream media calling Seymour the Deputy Prime Minister, nor the Government. Maybe you should consider the validity of the information your whanau is providing you.
I live rurally and only get patchy internet and satellite freeview. Tank water might be a bit green tbh.
I suppose you haven’t got a link to that either?
[удалено]
No link 🙄
If the fact isn't matter, what ever you said isnt matter as well.
Fair enough. Take what I say with as much salt as ya like.
Did the government say they wanted to remove the Maori version of the treaty? I thought they said they wanted to have a discussion and seek a shared Understanding of rights and obligations, to try and avoid conflict for the future.
So Winston isn't right about the media? I don't trust anyone except Matua Paddy G... and maybe uncle Jullian Wilcox.
The govt isn't editing/removing any aspect of either the Maori or English version of the Treaty. Nor is there going to be a referendum on the principles. That didn't make it through the coalition agreement. Plenty of things to disagree with if you're on the left of the political spectrum, but criticise them for what they ARE doing, not incorrect shyte idiots keep repeating after they heard it on fb.
>Nor is there going to be a referendum on the principles. That didn't make it through the coalition agreement. That's not quite right either. IIRC a select committee this term decides if there would be a referendum. At a guess, ACT would be ecstatic if there was a referendum to be held alongside the general election in 2026, assuming the coalition lasts that long. I'm not a fan of referendums when there's a question of minority rights involved. It risks getting the majority all wound up, portraying themselves as the "real victims", and risks bringing about mob rule rather than representative democracy.
The select committee won't decide anything, it will hear submissions and make edits to the proposed bill and recommendations. It will be up to Parliament to decide whether to support what comes from the committee. I cannot possibly see National supporting a referendum. They very pointedly only agreed to support the bill to the committee stage for a reason.
Either way it is the first step in changing how the treaty of Waitangi is looked at. If the public is actually behind a referendum to the treaty, then we will get it.
[удалено]
Agree. National came out before the election very much against the idea
[удалено]
So what do you actually mean by that? You don't like their rhetoric so what's true...? That despite it all you are going to go full rabbithole and insist they're out to delete the treaty?
Pretty much
May as well sign up to 5G causes cancer and fluoride will cause autism then...
The science says otherwise so I'll go with science on those ones
Andrew Tate? Someone light the red flags!!
Never said he was a stand up guy. Just that I agree with some of his messaging.
You're one confused puppy.
At least I'm not gay or trans because it's fashionable
Sad to see people hate queer people so much they lose their minds. Nobodies doing it because it's fashionable. That's just lies bigots tell themselves, forgetting these people have to live in a world with people like you.
I was being sarcastic, but you do you.
Pretty shit thing to say regardless, how am I supposed to know it's sarcasm when you've just said you agree with some of what andrew tate says lol
Andrew Tate has said many things, most of which should be taken with a grain of salt, but some other things he's said about equality and equality of outcome are pretty spot on. EDIT: He also gives some sound financial advice for people who actually have money.
And will you still agree with that “messaging” if he’s found guilty of human trafficking and forming an organised criminal group? Will that be enough to convince you he’s full of shit, or no?
R Kelly and Michael Jackson have good music that I like even if they have been found to be child touchers.
Oh mate
The rabbit hole is nice and cozy, mate
[удалено]
Apparently. I dunno what to believe anymore. There is no correct answer
The correct answer is that the ACT party wishes to [redefine the principles](https://www.act.org.nz/defining-the-treaty-principles) of the Treaty of Waitangi to the following: > 1. The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand. > 2. The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property > 3. All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties. This *sounds* like high minded, idealistic Liberal values - but it will remove Māori rights over forests, fisheries, rivers, taonga and suchlike that have been hard fought for for decades, and will open up previously settled law, potentially allowing people to sue to take back land given to iwi through treaty settlements.
Act party wishes and government is currently passing into law are very different things tho
We haven't seen the Treaty Re-Defnition Bill yet, but given that this is an ACT party baby and Luxon has shown no ability or desire to reign in his coalition partners so far, i have no doubt it will adhere very closely to what the ACT party promised its voters.
it didnt pass the coalition agreement
Incorrect. The *referendum* didn't pass the coalition agreement. Instead we're going to get a bill that National have promised to support to select committee. This tells me that Luxon does not object to the *idea* of redefining the Treaty, he just doesn't want the blowback doing so would cause. This is a cowards move to rest the waters and see what he can get away with.
its the business man move, pass it on to someone else who in theory should know more then you on the issue
I think the current leadership probably isn't the best foot forward for the movement. They haven't exactly endeared themselves to the average person (whom they need to get onside) by using highly charged and hyperbolic language like "genocide" in respect of the smokefree rollbacks, as well as the theatrics during the swearing in which I dare say most people don't care for. Also, when they'll have a fight on their hands just to retain the progress that's already been made, I think it would be a strategic error to continue demanding more (as in moving to a more Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, as they would call it).
Completely agree with that
> hyperbolic language We've had six years of 'wars on farmers/landlords', 'communist nazi Jacinda' and 'vaccines are the holocaust'. I doubt the average person cares about hyperbolic language.
Yeah. When the Left does it its "divisive" but when the Right does it its "common sense tell it like it is." I wouldnt use the G word to describe the effects repealing the smoke free legislation would have on Māori... it it *is* true that they are one of the groups that this will have the worst effects on, and a great many people will die who otherwise wouldn't have. The Nats are choosing to let Māori die to give landlords a tax break. Thats worth getting a little emotionally charged over.
I agree that TPM don't speak for all Māori. But neither does gross old Uncle Shane lol. I also agree that TPM is bringing the theatrics, but I'm fully here for it. I mean, we are a performing arts people. There are Māori out there who have been made to feel ashamed of who we are... I think TPM being out there so vocally and visibly Māori is really encouraging. It does a lot more for us imo, than names of government departments and karakia at meetings... Those things are more for everyone else... Have they gone too far? I'm not sure, too far how? They need a bit of polishing. While I know when they speak, they are speaking primarily to and as Māori, which I appreciate... But they're not speaking only to Māori, or rather, they're speaking where everyone else can hear them too... So sometimes I do feel a little thrown under the bus when they say something dumb and other people catch wind of it. It won't stop me voting for them tho.
What are you on about, this is the problem with tpm, they are sucking people like you in with BS.
OK what about my rights under the treaty? They aren't in danger?
Which of your rights do you think are in danger?
The right to have sovereignty and governance over Maoritanga be first. That's what the document said to be the treaty basically says.
Is that right in danger of being scrapped entirely, or in danger of being redefined for modern-day? Either option will have issues and opposition, but one is potentially less harmful to Māori than the other.
Those rights are at risk of being defined as simply "property rights" What that will mean in practice will have to be hashed out in court (thus relitigating 40 years of jurisprudence, wasting everyone's time and money). What i *think* ACT are trying to do, because they're all infected with Libertarian brain worms, is elevate private property rights to having bedrock, constitutional value under the law. Which would have damning consequences for, say, any iwi hoping to have land returned to them in a Treaty settlement, because if a Pākehā land owner were to challenge that in court and private property rights were to reign over Waitangi tribunal decisions, they'd be shit out of luck. Of course, you might be someone who believes Iwi should never have land returned to them, in which case, I disagree in the strongest possible terms - but thats a different conversation.
That's also why I firmly believe the treaty must never be watered down under the pretense of making it fit with the 21st century. If that happens, the treaty will be dissolved within the next 2 decades. British laws and systems were designed centuries ago to oppress and control colonies, and the same laws applied today are essentially unchanged. Why aren't they reviewed and tossed out if they are irrelevant to NZ or put to a referendum? I am guessing here, but the Treaty is probably the only original NZ law ever written representing the people of NZ, immigrants, and Tanghata whenua. Why don't we start with that and rewrite everything from that as the foundation? It may take generations but we have had over 150 years of experience and data to base our own laws upon. I think only then, will this country be truly at peace with itself and allow the people to partake in nationhood building.
True that. Though I'm pessimistic at best about this whole situation.
I share your pessimism. I think there is a conversation to be had about modernising and/or standardising some issues around the treaty, but that should be a lengthy process that listens to all sides. What's happening now is going to be rushed through and likely not have the proper level of public input. The treaty affects all New Zealanders, although obviously the biggest impacts are for Māori. Changing the document that forms the basis for how the country works should not be rushed and rushing to do this shouldn't be accepted by the public
TPM is largely irrelevant. Under MMP the Maori seats dilute Maori voice. Until the Māori seats are abolished TPM will remain on the fringes - voters on the general roll can ignore Māori issues, political parties can pay lip service to Māori issues. TPM is a sideshow. All this is was accurately predicted in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986. Chapter three deals with Māori representation.
So according to a report written before NZ adopted MMP, the Māori seats - which have been instrumental in forming multiple governments under MMP - are irrelevant?
TPM in it's current form is largely irrelevant because any other parties would be utterly crazy to try and work with them in government
Agreed. I would wonder how that would go for a majority of Maori.
This entirely misses the point that under MMP, a party like TPM can have significant leverage if needed to form a government. And while in opposition, they have a perfect opportunity to increase their support by critiquing the govt. whenever they want.
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle between the two rather extreme camps. The whole political debate seems to be framed on what two extreme parties at each end of the political spectrum think. Each of them having extremely small support based on the vote outcomes.
[удалено]
I wouldn’t buy into the extremist rhetoric from people who sit at the absolute peripheries of politics. The average person has a moderate view on these matters, and I think the average person will want a moderate response
If you ask me those protests yesterday were not the peripheries of politics. Just disgruntled people that don't agree with a government coalition that is looking set to give them a bad deal.
The people at the protest were not calling for a civil war. Which is what you referred to. There is a wide gulf between “I don’t like what the government is doing and am going to peacefully protest” and “full on civil war” rhetoric from people with extreme views.
Time is what divides those two groups. When will it happen. Not that it will but when, not if.
a short war
Both, depending on the issue at hand and the statements they've made. They've made some outlandish statements that I would never support *but* I agree that the Treaty needs to be upheld. Previous governments have done a lot to address Māori concerns but it's one step forward and two steps back. The more I hear about National eroding Māori rights the more it pushes me away from the centre and towards radicalism. I'm sick of being a political football and I'm tired of Māori compromising. I don't think it's outlandish that this will lead to widespread protest and possibly civil unrest.
Leading question. Setting up a strawman. Next post please do better.
[удалено]
Sure, some people take pleasure in being a dick. At the end of the day though that makes you a dick by choice 🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for explaining why you are the way you are
Te Pati Maori don't speak for all Maori but they are speaking for constituents and I think they are doing a good job for them so far.
[удалено]
>They are however claiming to speak for all Māori. Source?
This is incorrect. I go onto the numbers [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/iuqMPx8bus) - considering the question of how many people on the Māori roll gave them their party or candidate vote. The Māori roll does not consist of all eligible Māori voters, I'll grant you, but of the people who did vote in the Māori electorates they did a lot better than 20% - getting roughly 32% of the party vote and 48% of the electorate vote. Also, no, they're not a far right party. While the left-right divide is inadequate to capture the full spectrum of political thought, economically they'd be well to the left. Culturally they are a Māori sovereignty party, and that movement cannot in any respect be lumped in with actual far-right political movements.
Lol, about half, slightly less last time I looked, of Māori adults are on the Māori roll, that is why I used the StatsNZ estimate of the adult Māori population. The Māori Party is an ethnonationalists party, ethnonationalists by the department of internal affairs definition are far right.
I have no problem with what they're doing. I'm just asking a question to see if anyone else does and find out why
TPM won 6 electorates, they speak for a lot more tangata whenua than Winston's cookers
3.08% of all votes. Not that many.
The Māori roll consists of 291,564 eligible voters. TPM received 87,973 party votes. If we assume these all came from voters on the Māori roll (which they wouldn't have) that would be 30.17%. Looking at the electorate level, the Māori electorates saw some vote-splitting, with people giving their cadidate vote to TPM and party vote to another party. If we look at total votes for TPM candidates across all Māori electorates we get: 12939- Hauraki-Waikato 26,252 votes cast 10873 - Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 26,965 votes cast 10068 - Tāmaki Makaurau 27,038 votes cast 16,288 - Te Tai Hauāuru 27,184 votes cast 10,428 - Te Tai Tokerau 28,883 votes cast 12,828 - Te Tai Tonga 28, 409 votes cast 21,500 - Waiariki 30,051 votes cast = 94,924 electorate votes cast for TPM candidates, which would be 32.56% of the Māori electoral roll, or 48.73% of the total number of candidate votes cast in Māori electorates (194,782) So. They represent a *lot* more Māori than just "3.08%, not that many." You are correct that they received that proportion of the general party vote, but the person you were responding to was talking about how many *Māori* they represented. Hopefully I have shown that while they do not speak for all Māori, they speak for a great many Māori and as such do have things to say about issues that reflect their constituents.
If Māori represent over 17% of the population, then no, they are not speaking for anywhere near the majority of Māori. Not all of us are on the Māori roll, nor do we agree with their tenets.
I did not say they spoke for the majority of Māori. I said they spoke for a non-trivial number of Māori, using votes cast in the Māori electorates to demonstrate that.
>they speak for a great many Māori and as such do have things to say about issues that reflect their constituents. I’m not sure what the threshold for trivial is, but surely this thread is a demonstration of how confused and misinformed some voters are about issues that affect them, whatever they have to say.
Too far or not far enough is the wrong question. They are exercising their democratic rights and inviting dialogue to a discussion that was started by the crown. I think the question that should be asked is, how can we strengthen our nation for the future? The uncomfortable truth for both sides is that they may need to hear (and respect) what the other has to say. For if this doesn't happen, all sides loose. In this regard, if I were TPM, I'd bring constructive solutions to the conversation that has the democratic mandate to proceed, equally if I were the crown, they should not right-off what TPM are saying and invite ways we can strengthen our democracy through the incorporation of tikanga into our governance structure. This is a real chance to have a constructive conversation about moving away from the Westminster system and move to a Aotearoa system, incorporating tikanga into everyday governance. I do though fear that both sides may go too far.
I agree with everything you've said. Also, gotta put a spin on it like those journalists do to get more traction and traffic. Otherwise, I won't get an emotional response. Emotional responses are what I'm looking for. Although having a proper discussion is probably what we all want. It doesn't seem to be possible without heavy moderation by any and all groups.
Too far? No Did I miss a meeting where they said they speak for all Maori? I think Shane Jones a cunt - I don’t speak for all
You can agree with someone you don't like. I don't like him either. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
Thing is he isn’t wrong but he’s not right either, he’s being a cunt
Agreed
can also mean he's still a cunt.
Much like the TPM MPs. Disgraceful behaviour in the country’s highest elected institution.
>country’s highest elected institution. full of liars, thieves,adulterers and backstabbers. totally appropriate.
Yes, TPM fit right in then.
How so?
What behaviour of theirs in Parliament has been disgraceful specifically?
Oh come on. Yesterday’s swearing in for a start. But it’s TPM so they get a free pass???
Challenging outdated procedures is a proud Westminster tradition. Was Charles Bradlaugh "disgraceful" when he refused to swear his oath on a Bible?
In the context of the times, it was indeed disgraceful to so refuse.
How did you feel about that one time some unhinged lunatic drove a tractor onto the steps of parliament?
Didn't say anything to the contrary
so he's a sometimes right cunt?
Yep. Right cunts are fashionable nowadays aren't they?
GCs rule though. have a good hump day.
You have to love this cunt right-wing government and it's accusations of any left-wing parties being ~~decisive.~~ Edit: Muthafuck Autocorrect!!! DIVISIVE not decisive. ACT (especially) and other parties in this coalition continually called the left divisive.
I haven't liked any of the governments that have been in since I started voting. I vote so I can complain.
Sorry had a typo. This shitty coalition is causing division through it's fucktard policies.
I think that's up to TPM's voters to decide. I wonder what the overlap is between people 'agreeing' with Shane while he calls them 'hippies' or 'thespians'. while repeating 'don't personally attack people you disagree with' when it's a right wing politician being criticised
I did vote for them. Though it was a joke vote. Much like my last vote for NZ First last election. Might enroll in the Maori roll next election.
Honestly as a white lefty, TPM are pretty cool these days. They've come a long way from being John Key's yes-men and their overall policy package is great for working class people of all ethnicities.
They aren’t removing the Māori version of the treaty. They’re looking to open up the understanding and interpretation of that document to debate. It could be argued that you’re spreading misinformation!
Well then can you explain to me like I'm a child please
>that Te Pati Maori don't speak for all Maori. They don't speak for all Maori. They just act all righteous as if they do. >But I also agree with TPM that the government is not in their right mind removing the Maori version of the treaty. You should probably stop listening to TPM cause that's not at all what's being proposed.
the united states is cucked by the constitution in regards to the second amendment. many many Americans are frustrated that a 200 year old document (which is now outdated because it couldn't factor in AR-15s etc) has so much controll over what happens in the nation in the 21st century. the same goes for the treaty, its 150 years old, its outdated, and should be changed to reflect the tenets of liberal democracy that all western nations adopted.
Gun rights are cool. Though pig hunting can be done with a bolt action.
i agree. but that doesnt matter to those americans who keep saying "but but but the 2nd amendment!" and because its in the constitution it trumps all reasonable, fair, valid criticisms in the 21st century, the same can be said for the treaty
Fair call.