-
Interesting section of a speech from David Lange 24 years ago, since people seem hung up on DS.
"Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both.
This brings me to the preoccupation of successive governments with the Treaty of Waitangi.
It is with no disrespect for Maori feeling for the treaty that I have to say it means nothing to me. It can mean nothing to me because it has nothing to say to me. When I was in office I understood that the government had succeeded to certain legal and moral obligations of the government which signed the treaty, and that in so far as those obligations had not been met it was our responsibility to honour them. But that is the extent of it.
The treaty cannot be any kind of founding document, as it is sometimes said to be. It does not resolve the question of sovereignty, if only because one version of it claims one form of sovereignty and the other version claims the opposite. The court of appeal once, absurdly, described it as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not. The signatories are, on one side, a distinctive group of people, and on the other, a government which established itself in New Zealand and whose successors represent all of us, whether we are descendants of the signatories or not. The treaty cannot even resolve the argument among Maori themselves in which one side maintains that that you’re a Maori if you identify as such, and the other claims that it’s your links to traditional forms of association which define you as Maori.
As our increasingly dismal national day continues to show, the treaty is no basis for nationhood. It doesn’t express the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and it doesn’t have any unifying concept. The importance it has for Maori people is a constant reminder that governments in a democracy should meet their legal and moral obligations, but for the country taken as a whole, that is, and must be, the limit of its significance.
Here I come to the dangers posed by the increasing entrenchment of the treaty in statute. The treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place, and the public interest in it is the same as the public interest in enforcing any properly-made agreement. To go further than that is to acknowledge the existence of undemocratic forms of rights, entitlements, or sovereignty.
The treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with, but it could never have assumed the importance it has without the complicity of others. It came to prominence in liberal thought in the seventies, when many who were concerned about the abuse of the democratic process by the government of the day began to see the treaty as a potential source of alternative authority. It’s been the basis of a self-perpetuating industry in academic and legal circles. Many on the left of politics who sympathise with Maori aspiration have identified with the cause of the treaty, either not knowing or not caring that its implications are profoundly undemocratic.
I don’t think it any coincidence that the cause gained momentum in the eighties and nineties, when the government retreated from active engagement in economy and society and in doing so weakened the identification between government and governed which is essential to the functioning of a democracy. It isn’t in the least surprising that undemocratic ideas flourish when democracy itself seems to be failing.
I think that in practice the present government will find it difficult to draw back from its public commitment to the treaty, and that this will almost certainly rob it of its chance to build a more cohesive society and a more productive economy. It has, in the public mind if nowhere else, adopted a goal whose pursuit is inevitably divisive, and it is spending its political capital on it almost by the hour. The result, if the worst comes to the worst, will be a fractured society in which political power will be contested in ways beyond the limits of our democratic experience.
This is the sum of it. In practical terms the government has done very little to change what it says it rejects about the last fifteen years, and very little to equip itself with the tools it needs to build an alternative. What it has done may be the groundwork for greater change in the future, or it may be tinkering. It’s impossible to be sure. The government is diffident in its language and has not yet succeeded in associating itself with any unifying idea. On the contrary, it has become too clearly associated with an undemocratic and divisive goal which is likely to deny it more than one term in office. The conclusion which then must be drawn is that the last election has changed very little, and that democratic values are still at risk here."
-
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
Co-governance is a vague term - like partnership
If NZers agree to this they are fools. Maori and whites alike. But also consider the PIs and Asians etc in the country now. It must be stopped for the good of NZ.
And it always starts off as no-big-deal. 1% tax and look now. Co-govenance is such a dreadful idea, I wonder if say the evil Putin is behind it
Yeah, tax is bad. I hate roads and the health system and the police too.
The point is not whether tax is good or bad. The point is its starts off small. And then grows. This will happen with co-governance. It's a door that, for the good of NZ, should be kept tightly closed.
It's not closed now, so you can't technically keep it closed.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@gt12 I wasn't suggesting it for Tim, it's just a current ad for a uni position which mentions all the treaty stuff (and rainbow etc) in a way which I don't find particularly threatening or unusual.
I understand, my point is that there is some differentiation in the positions available - especially dual-location positions overseas usually avoid overt references to local DEI efforts.
Even that position though, states that candidates have to support the university's policy towards Te Tiriti.
Whether that means directly supporting "forms of indigenous knowledge" is not clear.
I being this up because I have some experience with this in NZ - a somewhat standard advertisement for a position where such knowledge is not a requirement for specialization / teaching / research - yet the opening question in the interview (following the karakia of course) was about the Te Tiriti principles leading to 'tell us about how you address indigenous knowledge in your teaching and research".
-
@gt12 said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@gt12 I wasn't suggesting it for Tim, it's just a current ad for a uni position which mentions all the treaty stuff (and rainbow etc) in a way which I don't find particularly threatening or unusual.
I understand, my point is that there is some differentiation in the positions available - especially dual-location positions overseas usually avoid overt references to local DEI efforts.
Even that position though, states that candidates have to support the university's policy towards Te Tiriti.
Whether that means directly supporting "forms of indigenous knowledge" is not clear.
I being this up because I have some experience with this in NZ - a somewhat standard advertisement for a position where such knowledge is not a requirement for specialization / teaching / research - yet the opening question in the interview (following the karakia of course) was about the Te Tiriti principles leading to 'tell us about how you address indigenous knowledge in your teaching and research".
Yeah that's a bit fucked eh? But is that not down to implementation by whatever organisation it was, as there is no legislation requiring it to that extent?
-
Majority of funding from the government…
I think the issue with seemingly positive initiatives is that they can be captured by different interests.
DEI at universities (especially Te Tiriti in NZ) seems to be one example from higher education.
I cant speak to the extent to which it reflects the whole sector, but I can say my example does not come from the same institution as Tim referenced earlier.
-
@ploughboy said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate do you have a comment on ecan and iwi self appointing on board?
Don't know anything about it mate, so not really. I can say that in my (admittedly limited) experience our local government bodies seem to be some of the most wasteful organisations that I've seen, a feature being useless people failing upwards and being lazy and incompetent for decades with guaranteed pay rises just for being there. I also assume that the turnout for those elections is pitiful, as in my experience the amount of information available on those standing is a joke - so all I can really say is that I don't think they're likely to be the pinnacle of democracy, or anything else really.
A quick google seems to show that the council was obliged to consult with Ngai Tahu as part of their treaty settlement. Then they had non-voting reps, and then the council themselves initiated the bill to have 2 appointed Ngai Tahu councillors (out of 16) with voting rights. Looks like National intends to repeal the bill - which is kinda funny given they talk about giving the local councils more responsibility etc.
I still don't know enough to know how I feel about it - non-democratic doesn't sit great with me, and if you take the number of Ngai Tahu living in Canterbury rather than Ngai Tahu membership, then yeah, they are being over-represented in a democratic sense. A bit depends on the Ngai Tahu process to select those guys too.
I guess with all this stuff there is always a bit of contention from a Maori perspective because the democratic process was not used when Pakeha were the minority - it's the 'hold off on that one person one vote thing fellas, I've got some mates arriving soon' style of democracy.
In the practical world, with 2/16 votes I can't see them achieving anything too crazy, and as a former councillor and former National MP you'd hope there is some degree of competence? -
@gt12 said in NZ Politics:
Majority of funding from the government…
I think the issue with seemingly positive initiatives is that they can be captured by different interests.
DEI at universities (especially Te Tiriti in NZ) seems to be one example from higher education.
I cant speak to the extent to which it reflects the whole sector, but I can say my example does not come from the same institution as Tim referenced earlier.
A bloke on the dole gets his funding from the government too though yeah? Be a bit rough to blame the government for his actions...
But yes, I totally agree there will always be people who grab hold of something and use it as justification for making dumb decisions. Unis have always been heavily socially liberal leaning, so they're definitely a likely candidate for doing that on DEI (which I had to google).
Which brings it back to: it is the choice of those organisations - we have a weird coalition somewhat right wing government now, and as you say they're providing the funding - so if there's an implication that the unis were going all ridiculous to gain funding from a crazy leftie government, then surely they will now swing back the other way to gain favour with the new guys? Either that or the government doesn't have much to do with it? -
Agreed.
I think that exactly what you propose will happen - DEI / Te Tiriti bloat in universities would a natural source of efficiency to be gained. I bet the new government will address it and the media will point to it as some kind of attack on the principles of DEI / Te Tiriti as opposed to the "people who grab hold of something and use it as justification for making dumb decisions".
I see that Winston has said that he might be able to find common ground with ACT on their bill beyond the select committee, which tells you that he understands the political implications of what ACT has identified with this issue.
-
@reprobate thanks for the reply
dont agree though, the atitude that nothing can go wrong
In the practical world, with 2/16 votes I can't see them achieving anything too crazy, and as a former councillor and former National MP you'd hope there is some degree of competence?
Is exatly how we got here today.
30/40 years ago a judge goes we are in a kind of partnership and now we get unelected members of coutcils.either we live in a democracy or we dont, and i would rather live in one.
[mod edit - reformatted the quote for clarity]
-
@Tim said in NZ Politics:
Two-thirds of it were about Maori concepts in mathematics.
What are Maori concepts in mathematics? Is it how maths are taught or how maori used maths?
-
@ploughboy said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate thanks for the reply
dont agree though,
the atitude that nothing can go wrong(In the practical world, with 2/16 votes I can't see them achieving anything too crazy, and as a former councillor and former National MP you'd hope there is some degree of competence?) is exatly how we got here today.
30/40 years ago a judge goes we are in a kind of partnership and now we get unelected members of coutcils.either we live in a democracy or we dont, and i would rather live in one.Not sure I see the similarity. I've only looked into it really briefly, but it look like the timeline was:
Ngai Tahu treaty settlement mandates council consulting with iwi.
Council consults with (non-voting) iwi.
Council decides 2/16 voting councillors is a better approach and initiates legislation to achieve that.So to me that's the council following the treaty settlement rules, and then deciding for themselves how to implement it - in a way that is arguably undemocratic. How undemocratic it is depends on how the Ngai Tahu process and how you define Ngai Tahu, and whether you think people from the region, but outside the region should be allowed to vote (as they are in general elections). Then there's the argument that by pinching Ngai Tahu land, the Crown removed votes from Ngai Tahu people.
If you're disagreeing with the treaty settlement, then that's a shitload more reading before I can comment on that, other than to say that it is very clear they were fucked over by the Crown.
I don't have a strong positive or negative view of what the council has done (slightly suspicious if anything), as I don't know enough about it - but it seems clear to me that the decision has been made by them. -
@Victor-Meldrew I have no idea. Circa 1996 when I was a young teenager, I found a book in the Takapuna Public Library about this, and it was just pidgeon-english translations of mathematics dictionary terms.
Transcendental numbers - there you go.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Without written literature how are you going to do even basic algebra or trigonometry?
-
It seems from some brief research (and from afar) to be about maori concepts of space and orientation derived from conversations with some maori elders in the early-90's link
It doesn't seem like maths to me but more as a cultural study or ethnology. That's great and should be taught, but I would think serious scientists/ethnologists like Peter Buck/Te Rangi Hiroa would roll their eyes at it being taught as proper maths.
EDIT: As the man himself said ""Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first."
-
@Victor-Meldrew That's an interesting little read, worthy of maybe half a lecture - more at high school level than uni.
So if we're talking 2/3 of a position description, how much actual curriculum can there be @Tim - or is it just an over the top indigenous version of how every job ad these days must emphasise how equal opportunities are? -
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew That's an interesting little read, worthy of maybe half a lecture - more at high school level than uni.
So if we're talking 2/3 of a position description, how much actual curriculum can there be @Tim - or is it just an over the top indigenous version of how every job ad these days must emphasise how equal opportunities are?I'm afraid you've lost me a bit. I'm just trying to understand what people mean by maori mathematics. From what I've read it's either a way of taking a cultural angle when teaching maths or a anthropological view into how maori used maths (which was clearly sophisticated). Can't see how anyone would have any objection to either.
But Maths, like physics, is the universal, immutable language and has nothing to do with culture, or ethnicity and shouldn't be framed as such.
NZ Politics