Rabid Racists Demise

Rabid Racists Demise

With any luck, the rabidly racist Maori Party has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The vitriol spewed by ex news reader Marama Fox was sobering reading. It was all the voters fault, she exclaimed.

Never, not once, not for a moment, did the racist duo of Flavell and Fox show any signs of asking themselves the most obvious question.

Perhaps the voters don’t like our Maori supremacist policies? Our words? Our actions? Us?

That the Maori language has no word for “democracy” takes on a whole new perception, eh?

The halving of the Greens MPs. Was that because the benefit fraud confession of Miss Meretricious? Or that people have had a gutsful of the Greens’ social engineering?

That’s why they’re called the watermelon party. A thin green veneer over a rapacious red core of extreme socialism.

That aside, the next few weeks will provide some interesting observations. Another but more wily and experienced fox will be courting the chickens in various political party hen houses.

Where to from here?

 

 

 

Huff and Puff From Whinlayson and all

Huff & Puff From Whinlayson et al

The political party of part-Maoris has, lashed out at NZ First over the way it has wrecked plans to pass five treaty settlement bills at a special sitting of parliament on Friday.

In the media, Whinlayson, Brownlee and Fox were all vocally venting their spleens with Peters responding that they were an unsightly trio of drama queens. Two linked media reports below.

Maori fury over NZ First treaty opposition

Winston Peters in war of words with ‘unsightly trio of drama queens’ over Treaty settlement stoush

What’s really worrying is the hints of corruption in some reported comments from Whinlayson. Viz.

Finlayson had already written to the three iwi who had made travel plans for Wellington, promising to cover their costs for exceptional circumstances. These people are not going to suffer costs as a result, I’ll ensure they’re looked after.

Will you indeed, Whinlayson? How? The idea that he would be personally paying is ludicrous. Whinlayson needs to be open and publicly forthcoming about where he plans to get the money from. If he’s rifling the public purse, then we’ll know . . .

Perhaps some 1Law4All member could invite the media to inquire of Whinlayson where he’s getting the money from and how he’s going to decide just who does and doesn’t get “exceptional circumstances” travel and accommodation booking expenses reimbursed? One thing’s for sure, those decisions will be 100% racist based!

Amongst the weirdest aspects of Whinlayson’s behaviour in all these matters is – despite being a lawyer – he accepts hearsay* from part-Maori as absolute truth.

Earlier this year, the travel plans of a 1Law4All member were disrupted when Parliament went into urgency and the cost of the flights to attend an aborted Select Committee Hearing were wasted.

Could that 1Law4All member be “looked after” by the Treaty Settlements Minister for suffering that travel expense wasted money, perhaps?

Stop laughing!


Media Release from NZ First

Race-based Appointments Inserted In Taranaki Bill

NZ First does not want race-based appointments taking hold in this country, NZ First Leader and Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters said today. “New Zealanders should be very concerned about the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill – it hands power to iwi by giving them six decision-making roles on a local authority without being elected.

“This law will force the Taranaki Regional Council to appoint six iwi members, three on the Policy and Planning committee, and three on the Regulatory Functions Committee.
“They will not be elected, but nominated by iwi, need not be subject to an iwi vote, and they will be paid for by the ratepayers.

“This is electoral apartheid. “All this is in Clause 31 of the Bill. “The clause in part comes from the Local Government Act 2002, but this government has changed a critical word which allows for racial preference without an election.

“Instead of stating a local authority “may” appoint people from the outside, it states that the council “must” appoint members nominated by the iwi. This has been done by stealth. “The government and the Maori Party are in cahoots on this.

“The perpetrators have the nerve to slide this under the noses of the people of Taranaki.  “It was New Plymouth that gave a resounding “no” vote to creating a Maori ward on the local council.  “It was a landslide with 83 per cent saying “no”.

“This government told New Zealand it did not want race-based policies either when it campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”, but it has gone back on its word.  “The country is being steered by National toward race-based appointments. “The extraordinary reaction from the National Party relates to their pique at being found out. “That’s why we voted against this bill in Parliament today, which passed its second reading 108 votes to 12.”


The Manawatu Bill creates an “Advisory Board” to the Manawatu–Wanganui Regional Council to provide advice in relation to freshwater management issues concerning the Manawatu River catchment.

All that’s being revealed bears out the takeover by stealth of NZ’s fresh water by part-Maori interests and their government sycophants. A little here, a little there, until it all theirs and not yours.


∗ Hearsay: when a person asserts what somebody else said, when that somebody else is not available to confirm that assertion to be true.

 

 

 

The Maori Seats

THE MAORI SEATS

By Reuben P. Chapple

The public debate New Zealand needs to have about the future of the Maori Seats can only happen when the mainstream media does its job and explains to New Zealanders why there are separate Maori seats in the first place. Only then can the country decide whether there is a valid argument for their retention. If not, they must be abolished.

When the Maori Representation Act was introduced in 1867, the right to vote rested on a property qualification, and was restricted to property-owning males.

It is now widely held that the Act was introduced because Maori were disenfranchised by their multiple ownership of land. This is incorrect.

Maori in possession of a freehold estate to the value of twenty-five pounds – even if “held in severalty” – were entitled to vote.

The real problem was the disputed ownership of customary Maori land which had not yet become subject to a registrable proprietary title, the proof of the then prevailing electoral requirement.

When the 1867 Act was still at the Bill stage, the view was expressed in Parliament that the Maori Land Court (established in 1865) would have resolved all these questions within five years.

The Maori Seats created by the Act were thus intended as an interim measure for five years only. It was hoped that by this time enough Maori would hold land under freehold title to remove the need for separate representation.

However, in 1872, the temporary provision was extended for a further five years. Before that period expired, the Maori Representation Continuance Act 1876 decreed that separate representation would continue “until expressly repealed by an Act of the General Assembly.”

In effect, the 1867 Act gave Maori the manhood franchise 12 years before European males were accorded the same right. It was not until 1879 that the Qualification of Electors Act introduced European male suffrage as an alternative to the property qualification.

Universal suffrage in 1893 removed the property qualification. It extended voting rights to all New Zealanders, subject only to an age qualification. Any practical reason for separate Maori seats had entirely disappeared.

However, “politics as usual” has kept the Maori seats in place for 120 years past their use-by date. The bottom line: politicians have always liked the fact that a separate Maori constituency could be pork barrelled in return for political support.

When Parliament finally reviewed the Maori seats in 1953 along with a major re-alignment of Maori electoral boundaries, the vested interests of both Labour and National meant the issue was yet again quietly shelved.

In the 1946 General Election, the two parties were tied for general seats. It was only Labour’s hold on the four Maori seats that enabled it to remain the government.  National, for its part, feared that cutting the Maori seats would bring thousands of Labour-voting Maori flooding onto the general roll in its marginal rural electorates.

In the 1980s, the Maori seats were increasingly linked with the independence aspirations of Maori nationalists, and turned into a political hot potato.  Pressure exerted by these groups meant that after the MMP electoral system was introduced in 1993, the number of Maori seats became tied to the number of New Zealanders electing to register on the Maori roll.

Several well-publicised taxpayer-funded enrolment drives meant these seats have increased in number from four to seven. Yet in the last two general elections, just over 50 percent of those registered on the Maori roll even bothered to vote, suggesting non-voters probably only signed up as a throwaway statement of cultural identity after being bailed up in a shopping mall by someone with a clipboard.

If the number of Maori seats depended not upon the number of people on the Maori roll but upon those who actually voted in the last election, there would be just four Maori seats.

Under MMP, the existence of the Maori seats gives rise to parliamentary ‘overhang.’ This occurs when a party wins more electorate seats than their party vote entitles them to.

In the 2008 election, the Maori Party gained 2.24 percent of the party vote, which entitled them to three Members of Parliament, but won five Maori seats. That meant that the Maori Party created an overhang of two additional seats, giving us 122 MPs in the 2008 Parliament, not 120.

This ‘overhang’ means the number of confidence votes needed to form a government increased from 61 to 62. The inflated representation of the Maori Party through ‘overhang’ thus gives it disproportionate leverage in coalition talks, should the highest polling party find itself unable to form a government in its own right or with other coalition partners.

It is hardly surprising that the Maori Party wants to set in concrete and expand an institution which gives it an easy ride into Parliament, and (because of the ‘overhang’ effect under MMP) excessive influence once it gets there.

The spectre of the racial tail wagging the majority dog gets worse the more Maori seats there are. For this reason, the Maori Party’s demand for the Maori seats to be entrenched in law with all 18 year olds of Maori descent placed automatically onto the Maori roll poses a serious threat to our representative democracy.

It is today widely believed that the Maori seats have some kind of quasi-constitutional status and should be retained as long as Maori activists want them. This is arrant nonsense.

The Treaty of Waitangi does not provide for separate Maori political representation. Nor is there any constitutional basis for its existence.

What the Treaty does provide for is that all New Zealanders, irrespective of cultural affiliation, ethnicity, religious belief, or indeed any other distinguishing characteristic, will enjoy equality in citizenship. This means the universal suffrage subject only to an age qualification that has been in place since 1893.

In Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, Black American academic, Thomas Sowell records the downstream effect of government policies promoting group rights. Sold to the public as promoting inter-group harmony, Sowell found that wherever such policies have been tried, they invariably expanded over time in scale and scope; benefited already advantaged members of the preference group (those with the smarts to work the system); and led to increased rather than decreased inter-group polarisation. In many places they have brought about decades-long civil wars killing and maiming thousands of people.

David Round, a law lecturer at the University of Canterbury, is the latest in a long line of commentators to have preached the danger of identity politics:

“Are we to be a nation, or merely a collection of disparate tribes and cultures all fighting for our own self-interest, heedless of the greater good? Every society has different elements and interests, but for the greater good these interest groups should be encouraged to sink their differences as much as possible and join in the same great common enterprise. The unthinking celebration of diversity which has recently begun to darken our national life carries a very dangerous potential to tear our country apart.”

Entrenching separate Maori political representation permanently embeds a self-anointed racial aristocracy into the fabric of our nation. Whether we should retain the Maori seats is therefore not a matter to be decided on our behalf by politicians. The New Zealand public should be given the opportunity to make a call on this matter by way of binding referendum after hearing both sides of the argument.

Maori Seats Fast Becoming Redundant

Mike’s Editorial: Maori seats fast becoming redundant

By: Mike Hosking | Wednesday, June 19, 2013

I have good news if you’re feeling Maori.

The Maori roll is open and all you need to join is the sense that something about you might be a bit Maori. Very few other things in life work this way.

Things of significance tend to require absolutes like age, proof of experience, things like that. To vote you need to not only need to be 18, you need to prove you’re 18. Same goes for driving a car, getting married, entering restricted movies. But for the Maori role, nothing as complex is necessary. If it feels right, then sign on the dotted line.

Sadly not many are which for those advocates of the roll must be a bitter disappointment. Because if they don’t get enough numbers, they don’t get another seat and their entire cause is based around boosting the Maori presence in Parliament. What I’d like to think is happening is that your average Maori has worked out that under our current system, their people have never been better represented.

Of course in a free society under any system, there is a very good argument to be made that no particular race should be given any particular advantage over another. It’s like arguing for specific seats for woman or new immigrants. Maori have always had the opportunity to run for Parliament. Why they wanted to be segregated out has always struck me as odd given they were arguing at the same time for fairness and an even hand.

But even if you had a soft spot for Maori seats under First Past the Post, how can you possibly now under MMP? Rightly or wrongly, MMP has delivered on at least one aspect of its model of representation. Minorities, both in race and party, have flourished. There have never been more small players in terms of parties. There have never been more races and minorities represented. It is a veritable potpourri in there these days. My suspicion is that the bulk of us see that and therefore any inclination we had to further segregate things out is fast disappearing.

If all you ever wanted was a fair suck of the sav, you’ve got it. Maori are involved in every aspect of political life. From list MP to electorate MP. From minor party to major party. From newbie to heavyweight. From spokesperson to Cabinet minister to leader. If access and accessibility is what you were after, Maori have got the lot.

They control things, run things, decide things and influence things. They’re in government, they’re in opposition and they are on all sides of the house. The case for further representation, by specialist or specific electoral support unavailable to other races, is now closed. Because given the reality ,it’s racist. We wouldn’t want that would we.

Photo: Edward Swift

Update

Just found a second article on the same thing – and, printed in the Dom Post of all places. Call me suspicious, but I think something’s up.

As we all know, the Press, at least the main big publishing houses and TV channels, are organs of the state, in behaviour, if not by state ownership. They are used to sway public opinion, instill ideas and gain public support for otherwise unpopular moves on behalf of the government.

The main papers, like TV, have been very reluctant to print anything even remotely anti the treaty or the gravy train industry for a long time now. Not only that, but they print a lot of the lies told about our history by the revisionists and separatists as if they were fact.

When the National Party came back into power it was on a campaign of abolishing the Maori Seats. They then totally failed to do that, and instead went about making the whole situation worse by pandering to Maori radicals.

Now we have two articles, about the same issue, coming out at the same time, in papers that have previously refused to publish anything like these if sent in from the public.

So what are they up to? My feeling is that abolishing the Maori seats may be seen as a way to soften the public up to a variety of other things the Maori radicals want – such as entrenching the Treaty of Waitangi into our constitution, which would be a whole lot worse for the majority of Kiwis, but is what Pita Sharples and his ilk would dearly love to achieve.

Be wary, the government never gives us anything we want, without taking much more with the other hand!

Editorial: Tide may be going on Maori seats

OPINION: As voters in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti electorate contemplate who they want to replace Parekura Horomia as their MP, they, and voters in the six other Maori seats, are being asked to make a decision that will have more long-term consequences.

For the past three months, the Electoral Commission has been running its regular census-year Maori electoral option. The exercise allows already registered voters in the seven Maori electorates to choose whether they want to be on the Maori or the general roll – the only opportunity they get to switch – and will determine the number of Maori seats for the next two elections. The results so far have been intriguing.

The latest available figures show that since the process began on March 25, there have been 4830 new enrolments from voters identifying as Maori. Of those, 3357 opted for the Maori roll and 1473 for the general roll. At the same time, 6774 people switched from the general to the Maori roll – just 47 more than the number going the other way.

That compares to the result of the last Maori electoral option in 2006, when 14,294 Maori voters switched from the general to the Maori roll and 7294 went the other way.

Not surprisingly, the Maori Party is alarmed. It had high hopes that this year’s electoral option would deliver at least one more Maori seat for the 2014 and 2017 elections, but is now warning that defections to the general roll could yet see the number reduced.

In response, Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell has prepared a private member’s bill that would require all those who identified themselves as Maori when they registered to vote to be placed on the Maori roll. Those who want to be on the general roll will be able to opt out, but it is not clear when.

If it is at the time of enrolment, then Mr Flavell’s bill, should it be drawn from the ballot, would change nothing, as Maori voters already get to decide which roll they want to be on when they register. If it is only during the electoral option, then Maori voters who want to be on the general roll would have to wait up to five years to switch, something that would be a grossly unfair denial of their right to choose.

There is no denying that the Maori seats have historically ensured political representation for Maori. For many decades since their inception in 1867, they were virtually the only vehicle for Maori to enter Parliament.

However, the Maori Party confuses Maori representation with the survival of a party built on racial lines when it says the seats are the key to Maori having a political voice. That stopped being so with the advent of MMP, which has brought assemblies that much better reflect New Zealand society.

Today, at least 19 of the 121 MPs are of Maori descent – almost 16 per cent of the total, and slightly higher than the proportion of Maori in the general population at the last census.

Therefore, while a move away from the Maori to the general roll might threaten the existence of a party dedicated to Maori interests, it does not threaten Maori representation. If anything, it is a positive sign that more and more Maori are identifying themselves, for political purposes, as New Zealanders first, and recognising that they share the same interests and concerns as Kiwis of all races.

%d bloggers like this: