Below is a letter to the editor I sent off a week ago. Do readers feel that it is unreasonable and insulting to people who call themselves Māori?
Scrap the undemocratic Māori seats
The Post has posed the question “Which electorate will be scrapped?” (Saturday February 6). It should be electorates, as the time has come to remove the undemocratic seven special seats for Māori. When the four special Māori seats were set up in the second half of the 19th century, they were only intended as a temporary expedient for representation of Māori people who mainly lived in remote villages. However there is no longer any justification for this separatist policy.
In 1967 Maori were allowed to stand in general seats, but it wasn’t until 1975 that National Party candidates Ben Couch and Rex Austin made the breakthrough by winning Wairarapa and Awarua respectively.
In the elections that followed more people with some Māori blood were elected in general seats. This prompted The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in its 1986 Report to recommend the abolition of separate representation. But it didn’t happen.
Instead by 2002 the number of designated Māori seats had increased to seven and today there are 33 MPs in parliament with some Māori blood. There is no longer any justification for a special allocation for people who are in fact part-Māori and descended from colonists and settlers, as well as early Polynesian immigrants.
Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks. This article was first published HERE
20 comments:
100% correct but the Government won’t listen.
The corporate legacy mocking bird media are the enemy of the people. In fact, ALL corporations are the enemy of the people.
Your letter is spot on. Anyone born here is indigenous. That's if we accept the real meaning of the word. Anyone arriving from another place is a settler. We have many politicians with various degrees of Maori blood...so what? Politicians need to be selected because they are capable people. Most of all, they take an oath to represent all of us. Some of the parties now go out of their way not to represent us. The conduct of those on the Justice committee is appalling to those who support the Treaty Principles Bill. Chewing, rolling their eyes and one picking his nose for goodness sake!
It's hard to see what can be insulting about both reality and common sense. We have reached a point in NZ's history where genetic background should not be pre-eminent in any part of administration and governance. Keep ancestral concerns to the home and family and maintain democratic ideals and equality of opportunity in the outside world.
They do not fear being called racists because they support the racism. Complicity on the wrong side of history always ends badly and history is a lesson that they are willingly seeming to ignore......
Meant to say in my earlier post Roger that you are not alone when it comes to being ignored by the Post concerning letters that point out inconsistencies in their social engineering policy. They have a long list of topics that must not be discussed yet allow their columnists free rein to bring those disputed topics into print. Terms like 'woke', Marxist, hypocritical and even racist describe the Post and its journalists and editorial team. They are a disgrace to the 4th estate, although that body of hacks has done themselves no favours in recent years with their left-leaning bias and double-dealing.
There is nothing unreasonable in this and it is a perfectly valid statement of truths that need to be aired. Puts me in mind of what I heard Peter Scholtes once say: "..and the truth shall set you free ... but ... at first the truth shall piss you off!" Peter wrote the Leader's Handbook BTW, on that point, it is a book that PM Luxon (and thereby us plebs) might benefit from. Luxon might also benefit from reading and digesting Roger's piece above!
The best thing to do with Stuff and it's newspapers is to ignore them, and certainly not spend money on them. They are a cancer to democracy.
Overseas news outlets take political viewpoints as well, but they make no secret of that. The Guardian and CNN are openly left wing while Fox News is openly conservative. On the other hand, Stuff claims "We believe in fiercely independent, fair, accurate, balanced, inclusive and trustworthy journalism that serves the common good", when the reality they're anything but.They are a fraud. Their reporting is not only biased but also lazy, sensational and of poor quality.
Roger, thank you for your informative piece. I suspect it is worse than you say. I think the Post did not publish your Letter because they do not want to put the facts on the table and stimulate debate. They are afraid you are right whereas they want to sweep the issue under the mat.
Of course your comments and opinion expressed in your letter are not unreasonable, So called " Letters to the Editor" sections of all our legacy newspapers have long corralled and censored any opinion adverse to maori. A leading reason growing numbers of citizens have dropped subscriptions and moved to Blog sites, Substack sites etcetera for in formation. Still, good on you for having another go! Cheers Steve Ellis
In agreement however the practical factor in the South Island (SI) electorates is also indisputable. 17 SI electorates . One Te Tai Tonga- Te Pati Maori ( Ferris) is superimposed over the other 16 as a Maori electorate , plus a bit of Wellington for some reason . The political coverage for one MP is quite impossible as was always shown in both the Tirikatene eras.
The voting count was always poor.
The ridiculous issue is that the Maori seats are patently contrary to the requirements of the normal electoral boundaries and therefore undemocratic. Cancel them NOW.
I have bulk sent a similarly worded email to m.p's of all denominations.
Nothing but crickets, a few 'we have received your email blah blah blah' and nothing.
Pollies don't represent constituents!!!!
The msm endlessly repeat contrived maori folklore, eg that banning speaking of maoi in schools was a pakeha initiative, that maori had and retained sovereignty etc etc. but it is near impossible to get the objective true situation publicised. In the msm (including RNZ) the maori views are seldom seriously questioned, usually acquiesced to and encouraged. Most rational persons have long ago given up writing Letters to Editor for the sheer futility. For the same reason readership has plummeted. Meanwhile I suspect many pro maori letters are organised. Articulate supportive responses, invariably under European names, appear suspiciously soon after. The whole cycle often smacks of artful coordination.
At Hikoi you will not see a NZ flag nor hear strains of "Men of every creed and race...."
Are they still receiving PIJF money ?
If yes, that could be compromised by their contract to only say positive things about Maori.
I stop reading any of their articles at thd first word of replaced English with a fabricated "Maori " word.
Luxon could, and should stop that overnight.
Wimp.
You're far from alone Roger, and there in Te Harvey Norman (formerly The Post) today is a piece reputedly reporting on some of those presenting at the Treaty Principles Bill hearings. Penned by the entirely partisan, te reo immersed, Joel Maxwell, the article is headlined in bold type "Treaty Principles Bill unworkable". It then relates the usual emotive nonsense about the "legal uncertainty, inequity and confusion" it would create without any sound reasoning, and this from the Auckland Council that, I'll wager anything you like, never asked it ratepayers what they thought. Buried in there, was reportage of some of what Fiona Mackenzie said in support of the Bill (btw, sound reasoning well worth seeking out on youtube), followed by three more against and all again with very dubious arguments, long on emotive rhetoric and short on facts. That's the "balance" displayed by Wellington's daily propaganda rag, and 'rag' it is.
As with Allen Heath's letter to the Post , also true for Roger's , I enjoy getting a well written different perspective on MSM articles .
As I have suggested before letters to the editor are one of if not the most popular section of a paper. I am sure many who still get the Post would like to read a letter by thoroughly knowledgeable people like Allen and Roger.
We must , I feel be proactive on this and I suggest perhaps BV has a section with some screening of good letters of 200 words or less , to the editors of main MSM that have failed to be published.
Excellent idea for BV Gaynor . Yes I would up my donation for that.
The Otago Daily Times is abysmal at not allowing balanced letters to editor.
Auckland Council's decision to submit was approved by 11 councillors at a meeting in December where Mayor Brown was absent. The aim was to give the impression that the entire Auckland population ( 2 million approx ) opposed the Bil. No consultation was ever held with ratepayers or residents.
I wrote to Mayor Brown, SC Chair James Meager and new Local Govt, Minister Watts in protest - and to say that this sort of ploy completely cancels the integrity of the SC.
In effect, the submission was the view of 11 ACC councillors - noone else.
Yes - this funding is in place till 2025. Meanwhile Melissa Lee ( who had a plan to deal with the MSM) was replaced by Goldsmith - who has revived Labour's Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. As well, Goldsmith is now exploring how to vet entities with " nz " in their Internet address - he was approached by the NZ Internet Council to do this. This is a type of censorship.
Post a Comment