In a Q&A interview with Jack Tame, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer acknowledged Māori have separate rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as tangata whenua. When pressed on whether this meant different standards of citizenship, she said, “We have different expectations and different rights, absolutely.”
She argued these rights are essential to protect all New Zealanders from “corporate exploitation” and the “Atlas agenda coming at us”.
Ngawera-Packer offered as proof of an “Atlas conspiracy” the suggestion that the libertarian leaning Atlas Network is chaired by Debbi Gibbs, whose mother, Dame Jenny Gibbs, is an ACT party donor.
While evasive regarding answers surrounding the use of parliamentary resources in relation to the hīkoi to Parliament, organised by a Te Pāti Māori staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, Ngarewa-Packer admitted: “He’s partly paid by parliamentary services.”
However, she alluded to the practice being commonplace amongst political parties. She attempted to distance her party’s involvement by stating the hīkoi was “run by the people.”
When asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive, she, again, deflected saying: “I cannot say that that’s been our focus.” However, she continued: “The priority was to make sure our people knew how to get on the Māori role.”
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
While evasive regarding answers surrounding the use of parliamentary resources in relation to the hīkoi to Parliament, organised by a Te Pāti Māori staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, Ngarewa-Packer admitted: “He’s partly paid by parliamentary services.”
However, she alluded to the practice being commonplace amongst political parties. She attempted to distance her party’s involvement by stating the hīkoi was “run by the people.”
When asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive, she, again, deflected saying: “I cannot say that that’s been our focus.” However, she continued: “The priority was to make sure our people knew how to get on the Māori role.”
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Packer can distance, obfuscate and deny all she likes but the majority see her and what the maori political wing of the activists march stand for and it is everything but unity! It is power, money and control for the 3% that they represent (and it may not even be 3%).
The co-leader of the racist party admits to racist views on rights and privileges 🤔.
Can’t say I am shocked, but I’ll be shocked if MSM makes that obvious conclusion.
Maori - the people of mokomokai. They developed this into a lucrative trade by killing and selling heads to Europeans. Fortunately many Europeans looked after the heads now being returned to their forbears as grisly reminders of the bloodthirsty culture of Maori- disunited by definition as I find it hard to believe that in a united society people would donate their heads for mokomokai.
Packer and her ilk can dress Maori history and culture up any way they like. But killers they were and, it seems, destroyers they are.
Maori have NO 'separate rights' as written in the 6/2/1840 Maori language treaty, the 4/2/1840 final draft or the 1869 official back translation.
So just WHAT treaty is Packer referring to that give Maori 'separate rights' to ALL the people of NZ?
Awarding indigenous (however defined) people rights that other citizens do not have arguably began in the 18th century with treaties made between colonial powers and American Indian tribes. These rights tended to revolve around ancestral lands and the resources they contained. The recognition of Native Title by Australia under Keating was largely a continuation of this tradition.
The 'special rights' alluded to by these various instruments are collective i.e. they apply to a people as a whole. Giving individuals special rights that others don't have is changing the goalposts.
In Aus, the ancestral lands approach to native special rights works in some instances but not in others depending on the precise definition of an Aboriginal people (the term 'tribe' is not always accurate as a 'people' may, according to the Aus Govt, consist of people who are not related and do not even speak the same indigenous language), and how mobile those 'people' are - they may vacate an area for lengthy periods while other 'peoples' traverse it.
Here in NZ I do not think we can lay the basis for 'special rights' as doing so purely on the basis of ethnicity amounts to racial discrimination while other criteria just don't stick except for isolated cases e.g. some East Cape Maori.
Post a Comment