Any Kiwis care to make a prediction on the outcome of the general election next week?

I'm picking that Labour will increase their current majority, that the Greens will lose all or most of their seats, that the Maori Party will win at least two of the Maori seats.

No matter how hard the Destiny Church Party prays it will be shocked at how few people want them in parliament.

National will increase their presence in the house - but not by much.

I'm giving my *party* vote to the Maori Party because I am so appalled about the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. My *local* vote will go to the Labour candidate.

Not much of a choice is there really.

What was wrong with the Foreshore and Seabed legislation? I thought the rights of all NZers were protected under that? (I plead ignorance to starting an "issue" here, I haven't been in the country for a while.)

Jay

I predict that whoever wins will go on spending my money.

Steve

Labour should be the party with the largest number of seats in the parliament after the election. Too close to call at the moment though. The Greens will win 7 or 8 seats, Maori Party should win 2 or 3 seats. National may increase its number of seats by a small number. If the other parties don't win an electorate seat they will be gone.

it has been a lolly scramble though and the adolescent behaviour of new zealanders is encouraged. hopefully a long term view will prevail in the minds of voters.

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
Labour should be the party with the largest number of seats in the parliament after the election. Too close to call at the moment though. The Greens will win 7 or 8 seats, Maori Party should win 2 or 3 seats. National may increase its number of seats by a small number. If the other parties don't win an electorate seat they will be gone.

Yip. Labour again probably!

quote:

hopefully a long term view will prevail in the minds of voters.

Ay? That's not realistic!

quote:

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

I don't understand all this. Prob best not to isn't it?

Jay

quote:

quote:

thought the foreshore and seabed legislation was the best solution. if due process had been allowed to be exercised and the courts found maori did have title, imagine passing legislation to extinguish that title, which the govt of the day would have had to do.

I don't understand all this. Prob best not to isn't it?

Jay

There was never even a suggestion that Maori did have title to the foreshore and seabed - only a decision that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims based on Aboriginal title (not a Treaty of Waitangi issue but based on international law centuries older) and a finding on the meaning of "seabed".

The honour of the Crown is the beginning of government - all else proceeds from this. That an interested party's access to the courts was denied based on a flimsy and populist idea that NZers would be stopped from going to the beach has cut away some of the moral claim to rule that the government enjoyed up to that point.

Not only that, but in my view the proper separation of powers was affected as interested parties have had their right to subject the Executive's actions to review removed.

In the history of dealings between the Crown and Maori (Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) the reasonableness, patience and understanding of Maori is as consistent as the underhandedness, corruption and venality of the Crown.

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

quote:

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

Theft of what?
When?
By whom?

Cheers

Don

Don

I sorry but I can't give a brief answer and do justice to the subject. More than 150 years of history would need to be recounted. However, just one example of the theft is the deal that was struck between the colonists and the local Maori who owned the land that the colonists needed for settlements. A deal was struck in which a tenth of the land would be set aside for ownership by the local Maori so that they would have a future stake in the wealth that might be created. The "tenths" agreement was never honoured.

Here are some excerpts from the Crown's apology to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu:

The Crown acknowledges that it acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with Ngāi Tahu in the purchases of Ngāi Tahu land. The Crown further acknowledges that in relation to the deeds of purchase it has failed in most material respects to honour its obligations to Ngāi Tahu as its Treaty partner, while it also failed to set aside adequate lands for Ngāi Tahu use, and to provide adequate economic and social resources for Ngāi Tahu.

...The Crown recognises that it has failed to act towards Ngāi Tahu reasonably and with the utmost good faith in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.

...The Crown recognises that Ngāi Tahu has been consistently loyal to the Crown, and that the tribe has honoured its obligations and responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi and duties as citizens of the nation...

My own history in this country goes back to 1841 when my ancestor, Earl White Foreman, landed in New Plymouth with his family. The further I look into the history of my country the less proud I am to be a white New Zealander.

Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

I seriously doubt it. Your point?

The further I look into the history of my country the less proud I am to be a white New Zealander

Deane,

Thank you for outlining the general issue.

I assume that the answers to my actual questions are

Land and its resources (you break an agreement etc but I don't think you can steal it)
about 150 years ago
white people from Europe

I don't know why you torment yourself over this issue. Same applies to all the ex European colonies and the decendants from the first European settlers and subsequent waves of European and Asian imigrants.

In VERY simple terms....

We can't put the clock back. And if you could, where would you stop it, and why.

Eurasia is full of intermixed people and societies. We don't fully know how and where the hunter/gatherers spread throughout Eurasia but we know some of them migrated to Australia, then more recently America and Polynesia and very recently, on to New Zealand.

Eurasia has been shaped by the invention of farming, war, alliances, broken promises....you name it. We can't put the clock back. We try to live with it.

The subsequent expansion of European farmers during the past 500 years to America and Australasia was simply a continuation of 'civilisation' as it had developed during the previous 10,000 years - survival of the fittest - and bloody cruel.

We also know that none of these first emigrant groups of Aboriginies, North American Indians, South American Indians, Poynesians, (including those who eventually found New Zealand about 1,000 years ago), were able to farm succesfully and we know they had the odd squable amongst themselves over land and resoures.

They simply weren't able to withstand the recent impact of European farming. And in my view, they had no more right to the land than the invading Europeans. As I said above - survival of the fittest in an evolving world, and they weren't all 'goody-goodies' amongst themselves.

If (and its a big if) but, if we are going to compensate 'First Nation' poeple around the world, then (from a purely selfish point of view) I propose that we start with England getting compensation from Rome (Italy can help out), Denmark, and France etc.........

Then I suggest we ensure that Spain (mainly) compensates the South American Indians, followed by the Moguls compensating the earlier population of India, whom they exploited...

Nah, let's just recognise where we are, and muddle through.

Although I am open to sensible and practical suggestions

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Anyone non-Kiwi give a damn on this?

G

I seriously doubt it. Your point?

I find it interesting. The thread is clearly "labelled", so its contents will hardly come as any surprise (unlike Fritz's which are always surprising, albeit in an increasingly enjoyable way).
I was in Tasmania once, a place where the local indigenous population was - I understand - completely wiped out by the colonisers. This fact, and similar, were stated baldly and almost accusatively, to me as "And the Poms did this", "the English did that" and so on.
By people whose great grandparents had "done" it...

I'm not familiar with NZ politics, but I am curiously heartened that you have Maori MPs. Thanks for the insights.

Despite being strangely well informed going into this election (because I work from home and am fed a constant diet of politics by the National program's "morning report" and then the highly political Linda Clark) my voting motivations are largely based (like most NZ'ers) on my gut.

1) I'm sick of Helen Clark. She has got far too big for her boots and she has horrible teeth. Helen's demeanor is largely representative of the arrogance of her colleagues.

2) Don Brash seems like a nice man but he's too desperate and do we really want a nutty professor for PM ?

3) I usually vote National but it seems to me that a vote for National this time would be like handing the keys over to someone without a driver's license.

4) I'm sick of Cullen.

5) The idea of wiping out interest on student loans is mental. If I was student and was offered this deal would take out a very big loan and then wait until inflation made it into a very small one.

5) John Key is a big tosser.

6) Winston only exists to win elections. What else does he do ?

7) The major parties seem to have commandeered most of the good ideas from the minor parties and in doing so have made them somewhat redundant.

8) The lolly scramble that we are being enticed with makes me very worried. We have just had a graphic demonstration of what happens when the gulf between the haves and have-nots gets too deep. I would prefer to live in a country full of happy people than have more cash in the bank, so I would vote for the major party who promised more money on health, education, police etc, but there isn't one.

My prediction is that Winston's muck-raking will bear fruit and that he will form an alliance with Don and Dunne and (if they get through) Rodney and the Maori party.

Minky

Point 6 is brilliantly concise and describes a classic demagogue. Made me laugh too.

Linda is good but I do miss Kim.

Deane

Don

I can understand, if not exactly sympathise, with many of your points. But the colonisation of New Zealand was not achieved by conquest but by negotiation - and the "invading" party volunteered a willingness to be lawful and reasonable to the peoples already in New Zealand before colonisation even began. This is despite the (orthodox) view of this country being subject to the doctrine of terra nullius, (or unpeopled) according to international law, before the arrival of Europeans.

But the British Crown entered into a Treaty with Maori (some say because they couldn't beat them by fighting with them) and then almost entirely disregarded it after it was signed.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
There was never even a suggestion that Maori did have title to the foreshore and seabed - only a decision that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims based on Aboriginal title (not a Treaty of Waitangi issue but based on international law centuries older) and a finding on the meaning of "seabed".

The honour of the Crown is the beginning of government - all else proceeds from this. That an interested party's access to the courts was denied based on a flimsy and populist idea that NZers would be stopped from going to the beach has cut away some of the moral claim to rule that the government enjoyed up to that point.

Not only that, but in my view the proper separation of powers was affected as interested parties have had their right to subject the Executive's actions to review removed.

In the history of dealings between the Crown and Maori (Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) the reasonableness, patience and understanding of Maori is as consistent as the underhandedness, corruption and venality of the Crown.

The matter will be revisited though, I am quite sure. Ngai Tahu patiently waited decade upon decade before their claims were settled (by $600M of compensation for a $20 billion theft.)

Hi Deane

Thanks for that. Appreciate the trouble you've gone to bring me up to speed.

Jay

Deane

How many people (Maori?)lost out in the $600million settlement v $20bn 'theft'?

and how many people (other Maori?) were not covered by that settlement

Cheers

Don

Party vote and local vote? How does this work then?

Steve

Don

Here is a link to Ngai Tahu's website.

Sorry, but your question is too strange to answer.

Ngai Tahu is but one Iwi (tribe) that has historical grievances against the Crown but they are one that has reached a settlement and received compensation which each party freely admits is a mere token. If you feel that my use of the word "theft" is innapropriate then I beg that you allow me to change it to "misappropriation" or "fraud" or "rort" - take your pick.


Steve

We have a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system in New Zealand and each voter has two votes at each General Election. One vote is for the local candidate for that voter's electorate and the other is a vote purely for a political party. There are more seats in parliament than there are local candidates. These seats are filled from a ranked list of candidates that each party determines and publishes before the election. According to the proportion of the vote that each party receives from the party vote list members are assigned to seats in parliament - but their party must win more than 5 percent of the party vote or get a candidate elected to a local seat to receive an allocation of seats based on the proportion of the party vote.

Here is the official site - I found it a bit cheerful and patronising though, I'm afraid.

New Zealand reformed its electoral system from the traditional first past the post (FPP) system to MMP in 1996 after a referendum held at the previous General Election. It has effectively reformed parliament as minor parties are now able to win seats and have held the balance of power through coalitions with major parties in every election since MMP was introduced. It is still possible, though, for a party to win an absolute majority.

Oh, and the parliamentary term in New Zealand is three years.

Deane