However, considering the race-based policies implemented during the last National Government, many feel Key is out of line in calling on the current government to "take the temperature down a wee bit" in the debate around race issues.
Indigenous Status
The debate over whether Māori are indigenous to New Zealand is contentious. Despite claims that Māori can trace their arrival in New Zealand to around 1250-1300 AD, some argue this does not qualify them as indigenous. Anthony Willy, a barrister and solicitor who served as a judge on four courts, points out that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not clearly define "indigenous." The concise Oxford Dictionary primarily refers to indigenous as native plant life, while Webster's dictionary defines it as the earliest known inhabitants.
Ngapuhi leader David Rankin, among others, questions the indigenous status of Māori, citing evidence of pre-Māori inhabitants such as the Moriori of the Chatham Islands. Furthermore, Māori share DNA with Taiwanese sailors, suggesting they were not the original inhabitants of New Zealand.
According to Willy, the only reason Māori could be considered indigenous at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 is that they were the most recent arrivals.
Treaty Partners
The notion of Māori and the Crown being "Treaty partners" is disputed. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed by chiefs and the Crown, does not establish a partnership.
Article 3 of the Treaty granted Māori the rights of British subjects, placing them under the political control of the Queen. Therefore, it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to be in a partnership with its subjects. While the Crown has a fiduciary obligation to all citizens, this does not equate to a partnership.
Harmonious Society
John Key's call for a harmonious society is criticized as contradictory. Elevating one section of society above others can lead to division rather than harmony. Respect should be afforded to all citizens, but there are concerns about the behaviour of certain Māori leaders and activists. Key's perspective, seen by some as a short-term, market-driven approach, appears to appease those seeking power and control at the expense of societal harmony.
Treading Carefully
Since the 1970s, successive governments have treaded carefully around Māori issues, often yielding to activist demands. Critics argue this has led to increased control by activist Māori over various aspects of New Zealand society. There has certainly been massive money flows which has done nothing to improve the often referred to “negative Maori statistics”.
Lowering the Temperature
The suggestion to lower the temperature on race issues is seen as naive. Publications like the NZ Herald's report on Key's comments may embolden activists, making it unlikely that tensions will decrease.
Notes
Today, no full-blooded Māori exist; all have mixed ancestry. Many who identify as Māori have significant heritage from other ethnicities.
Critics argue that in 1840, most chiefs signed away their desire for inter-tribal domination in exchange for the rights and protection of British subjects.
Concerns are raised about current political leadership, particularly Mr. Luxon of the National Party, and his stance on Māori preference and racial equality. Critics believe this does not bode well for National's re-election chances.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
The debate over whether Māori are indigenous to New Zealand is contentious. Despite claims that Māori can trace their arrival in New Zealand to around 1250-1300 AD, some argue this does not qualify them as indigenous. Anthony Willy, a barrister and solicitor who served as a judge on four courts, points out that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not clearly define "indigenous." The concise Oxford Dictionary primarily refers to indigenous as native plant life, while Webster's dictionary defines it as the earliest known inhabitants.
Ngapuhi leader David Rankin, among others, questions the indigenous status of Māori, citing evidence of pre-Māori inhabitants such as the Moriori of the Chatham Islands. Furthermore, Māori share DNA with Taiwanese sailors, suggesting they were not the original inhabitants of New Zealand.
According to Willy, the only reason Māori could be considered indigenous at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 is that they were the most recent arrivals.
Treaty Partners
The notion of Māori and the Crown being "Treaty partners" is disputed. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed by chiefs and the Crown, does not establish a partnership.
Article 3 of the Treaty granted Māori the rights of British subjects, placing them under the political control of the Queen. Therefore, it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to be in a partnership with its subjects. While the Crown has a fiduciary obligation to all citizens, this does not equate to a partnership.
Harmonious Society
John Key's call for a harmonious society is criticized as contradictory. Elevating one section of society above others can lead to division rather than harmony. Respect should be afforded to all citizens, but there are concerns about the behaviour of certain Māori leaders and activists. Key's perspective, seen by some as a short-term, market-driven approach, appears to appease those seeking power and control at the expense of societal harmony.
Treading Carefully
Since the 1970s, successive governments have treaded carefully around Māori issues, often yielding to activist demands. Critics argue this has led to increased control by activist Māori over various aspects of New Zealand society. There has certainly been massive money flows which has done nothing to improve the often referred to “negative Maori statistics”.
Lowering the Temperature
The suggestion to lower the temperature on race issues is seen as naive. Publications like the NZ Herald's report on Key's comments may embolden activists, making it unlikely that tensions will decrease.
Notes
Today, no full-blooded Māori exist; all have mixed ancestry. Many who identify as Māori have significant heritage from other ethnicities.
Critics argue that in 1840, most chiefs signed away their desire for inter-tribal domination in exchange for the rights and protection of British subjects.
Concerns are raised about current political leadership, particularly Mr. Luxon of the National Party, and his stance on Māori preference and racial equality. Critics believe this does not bode well for National's re-election chances.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
19 comments:
With the greatest respect.
Mr Key.You had your shot and made things worse.
Please go away and we will try and sort out the mess.
Key is way out of line. This man sent off in the dead of night a non-indigenous political ally to sign us up to UNDRIP and lied to us about it's consequences.
The ego of politicians seems to prevent them ever admitting they were wrong. If it were not for Key's pandering to maori many of today's problems would have been avoided. A great virtue of helen Clark is that she (eventually) had maori sussed. Key would best address his opinion about pushing racial issues to Waititi.
Key and now Luxon are saps.
Their namby-pamby party are gutless when it comes to defining the true principles of the treaty. They are too scared that they might upset the activists and perpetrators of the various treaty scams.
It takes two politicians of maori descent (Peters and Seymour) to even think about developing a spine.
Luxon idolises John Key. Was his speech scripted to save Luxon’s indifference to addressing the elephant in the room?
Thank you Geoff Parker for a very succinct and straightforward takedown of Key's speech. You identified the divisive racial issues upon which this Government was elected to address and overturn.
Luxon needs to adopt leadership qualities that affirm the Electorate's views and should take the principled stance and endorse Act's attempts to legislate for an end to the Waitangi Tribunal's - among others - specious redrafts/rewrites of the ToW.
Steve Ellis
John Key is suggesting appeasement in an attempt to maintain harmonious race relations. However, history warns us that appeasement only encourages the aggressor, ultimately leading to greater conflict and potentially tragic consequences.
Now essential to focus on future strategy.
Yes - we all know the WT should be terminated (. Like the Supreme Court should be reined in.) Even the key fact - Hobson was told to leave if a Treaty ceding sovereignty was not possible - is ignored.
But no one is going to do this - too risky ( despite the election mandate) . This would be political suicide for National - and any Right party.
So, get real. NZ is now at a crossroads = Seymour's Bill and possible referendum.
Pro-Maori and /or self -serving MPs know this - as do radical Maori.
MPs' strategy to keep their jobs is:
1. if Seymour's Bill fails, they can blame ACT for social disruption
( If this fails, they know many non-Maori will leave NZ -fast cf Sth Africa in the 60s and 70s.)
2. to keep their lucrative jobs on the gravy train, all MPs - any party - will do a deal with Iwi.
NZ is not well served by current MPs - with a few exceptions.
These facts are unpleasant but they must be the basis for effective future strategy.
John Key thinks you can take the heat out of race relations while we have Te Pati Māori blatantly disrespecting the Treaty that was created at the behest of Māori, and introduced civility to a previously cannabalistic, warmongering people. Yeah right!
Key is certainly one of Luxon's minders - perhaps the principal one.
Key will be dead against a referendum
After seeing Key flap his jaw yesterday I was thinking precisely what is clearly articulated in the post and attendant comments. The elephant in the room needs to be guided out so it does not smash the furniture! Peters and Seymour appear far more equipped and capable than Luxon so let's just get on with it eh?
John key reminds me of that prime minister of England Neville Chamberlain, who tried to appease Hitler by letting him take over part of europe and then asking him kindly to stop there please Mr Hilter, if you don't mind. Weakness never works against evil, as history shows.
take the temp down and tread carefully sounds like walking on eggshells....this is what the abused has to do in an abusive relationship out of fear
All of the above. No respect for John Key - or Luxon. I do think David Seymour is our only hope.
It is hard to find even a staunch National supporter who thinks well of Key. His behavior in the search of staying in power has put us here.
Then, just like Jacinda, he sneaked off like a thief in the night when the citizens wanted to hold him to account. Luxon is not doing himself any favous by being in the same room.
The longer Luxon keeps quiet, the more anger builds up, and the aggressive mood deepens to the day that we have race riots in NZ.
Is that what you want Mr Luxon, or do you want a peaceful respected NZ ?
Those riots are inevitable unless you do everything to prevent them - you have the power and means to do that - please exercise that now - not after the riots and probable bloodshed.
How ironic ... apartheid was removed in South Africa - less because of race and rather because of numbers.
The Black and Indian population were in the majority.
So democracy triumphed.
Three words describe Key's time as PM: Nine Wasted Years
Where England goes, we go. Civil war maybe unavoidable.
Post a Comment