Racism is differentiation on the basis of race. Democracy is one man, one vote – the same vote. Maori wards fail both tests. We do not want a New Zealand form of apartheid. Both sides would be worse off. ‘A house divided against itself will not stand'.
L Christie, Otumoetai.
10 comments
used to privilege
Posted on 04-05-2018 11:31 | By Captain Sensible
But when a part race is so used to privilege, anything less appears to them as discrimination!!
Gross distortion
Posted on 05-05-2018 13:34 | By waxing
Let's get real. Someone voting in Mr Christie's ward can't vote in say the Mount ward. A Maori voting in a Maori ward cannot also vote in any other ward. So it is still one person (we are passed the sexism of one man) one vote. We are a country based on a partnership. Mr Christie may not like that, but it is now recognised under law. A partnership is not apartheid. Is his marriage partnership apartheid?
A question or two, of many I have.
Posted on 07-05-2018 09:48 | By Murray.Guy
At present Tauranga City has three geographical 'Wards'. as I understand it, if we were to include a 'Maori Ward' those who choose to vote in the Maori Ward would NOT be eligible to vote for in 'Geographical Ward', only the Mayor and 'At Large' candidates. all good so far, all residents have equal voting/representation opportunities. If the community decided to do away with the 'geographical wards' and have 'At Large' only, would the Maori Ward ALSO GO? If not, then clearly there would be an imbalance. If a Maori Ward was in place to enhance Maori perspective, would a Maori Councillor be exempt from legislation from making decisions based on 'best outcomes for the city as a whole, be permitted to have predetermined opinions and bias'? Over time my personal support for 'Wards' has reduced, a preference for 'At Large' representation only.
@ Murray Guy
Posted on 07-05-2018 16:21 | By waxing
Good that we have agreement on your first sentence. I wish some of the letter writers did the same. You pose an interesting question if geographical wards went. But since the case for Maori wards is based on Maori representation in decision making, I don't see a problem with someone on the Maori roll having a vote for a Maori ward and votes for at large wards on a basis of at large wards minus one. To suggest that Maori councillors will have "pre-determined options and bias" and be unable to make decisions on "best options for the city as a whole" is gratuitous and insulting. A strong case could be mounted that by having Maori absent from decision-making, councils are not making decisions on the best options for the city as a whole and that is why councils have voted for Maori wards.
maori privilege
Posted on 07-05-2018 16:51 | By Captain Sensible
Some are so foolish that they compare a Treaty to a marriage!!!! Also they don't understand that 1840 ideas are different to current thinking. All these weak excuses to try to justify maori privilege.
@ petty officer nonsense
Posted on 08-05-2018 22:58 | By waxing
Still the same old rubbish. Maori have rights (not "privileges") that they were guaranteed by the British Crown. So what if it was 1840. The Magna Carta was 1215. Do you dismiss it because of its much longer age? Sorry you don't see marriage as a partnership - this perhaps explains your views on a lot of things. If you understood partnership better, you would see how Maori wards can help Maori and Pakeha move forward together at local government level for the benefit of both.
Yes Captain
Posted on 09-05-2018 09:40 | By crazyhorse
Auckland is a great example how "giving" seats to Maori has helped the people there, thanks to the democracy action group and a few others the trough they can feed from has been limited.
Crusher Collins calls it an “unaccountable monster”
Posted on 09-05-2018 12:56 | By crazyhorse
Having un-elected representation of Maori on committees voting initially cost the Auckland ratepayer $3.4-million yearly, worse was to come when the board submitted a $295 million wish list that included the compulsory teaching of Maori in all Auckland schools, but wait, they get even greedier a schedule detailed 61 sites and places of significance to Maori, and a cultural heritage layer which would cover about 2231 public and private sites by early 2013 there were over 3600, mostly "unproven" an assessment was required for any improvements involving earthworks on or within 50 metres of one of these alleged sites of value. Consents from numerous Auckland tribes were required. Each consultation could attract a fee, "koha", hmm, I fail to see where Waxo gets the idea this benefits us, but I can plainly see how it benefits the treaty troughers.
Troughers
Posted on 09-05-2018 17:52 | By Captain Sensible
The troughers can't help themselves with their lame personal attacks on all who prove them wrong. Obviously this particular trougher is enjoying their privileges and does not want them to end.
Troughers
Posted on 09-05-2018 17:52 | By Captain Sensible
The troughers can't help themselves with their lame personal attacks on all who prove them wrong. Obviously this particular trougher is enjoying their privileges and does not want them to end.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.