The suggestion by Lana Wright [The Weekend Sun letter, February 5] that Maori Wards are separatist seems to be a misuse of the English language.
Dame Whina Cooper opposed separatism but she supported Maori seats in Parliament, because Maori seats in Parliament are not separatist. Separatism would be Maori having their own Parliament, which Dame Whina opposed.
Maori and Pakeha being separate Treaty partners but meeting together in one Parliament is unity not separatism.
In the same way Maori Ward representatives meeting with Pakeha representatives in one council is unity not separatism. Separatism would be Maori and Pakeha having separate meetings and separate councils.
Nanaia Mahuta is quite right. We have Maori seats in Parliament because the Treaty made us one nation of two Treaty partners. Equally we should have Maori Wards in councils, to represent united communities of two Treaty partners.
Peter Dey, Kawerau
2 comments
Carcass
Posted on 14-02-2021 13:11 | By Carcass
Peter Day you are wide of the mark. Time to do your home work.Time to stand on your own feet instead of looking for hand outs
nicely explained
Posted on 16-02-2021 21:01 | By Tracy Jane
I agree with you Peter, I don't see what all the fuss is about. My observation is that pakeha seem to not vote for Maori on to council, so a guaranteed single Maori voice in council does not seem like much concession and will help break down the barriers and prejudice that still works against Maori running for council. The WBPODC had voted FOR a Maori ward because they had recognised the fact that Western Bay residents tend to vote for people that look and sound like them. Once people see that Maori in council are diligent, work hard to represent their communities, work well in council, speak for tikanga and whanonga pono, then we'll see that Maori and Pakeha want the same things - just come at it from a different perspective. I believe Maori wards can be a win;win situation.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.