It is clear that in recent times, with the Maori seats resulting in
the election of electorate MPs that have no respect for the (British) institution that is the NZ House of Representatives, that the
rationale behind these seats needs to be reconsidered.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is clear that many
actions of the Crown were in direct conflict with the notion that
Maori were granted equal rights as British citizens. As with other
countries, the British empire was generally ruthless in suppression of
the rights of those who inhabited lands that the British conquered
through superior military capability. In NZ this continued with the
'NZ wars'.

The Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 as a temporary means of
ensuring that Maori were represented in Parliament. The clear belief
here is that this was the only way of doing this - that no Maori could
win election any other way, perhaps because Maori had no right to vote
as landowners in non-Maori electorates. The establishment of these
seats was part of the establishment of a Maori electoral roll. While
these seats and the Maori electoral role were subsequently made
permanent, the original intent should never be forgotten.

In modern times, Maori have gained access to the general electoral
roll because eligibility to be on that roll was widened beyond the
original European property owners. For some time now, Maori have had
the right to be on either the general roll or Maori roll.

We are now at a point where the arrival of British settlers is so long
ago that there is no-one who can claim to be purely of Maori descent -
anyone who has Maori ancestors in their family tree will also have
some non-Maori ancestors.

Equally many Maori have been selected and elected in non-Maori seats,
meaning that the original reasons behind the establishment of the
Maori-only electorates is no longer applicable. There is therefore no
rational reason to continue with these seats, neither is there any
rational reason to continue with the Maori electoral roll.

The time is well past to abolish both the seats and the roll.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:13:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

It is clear that in recent times, with the Maori seats resulting in
the election of electorate MPs that have no respect for the (British) >institution that is the NZ House of Representatives, that the
rationale behind these seats needs to be reconsidered.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is clear that many
actions of the Crown were in direct conflict with the notion that
Maori were granted equal rights as British citizens. As with other >countries, the British empire was generally ruthless in suppression of
the rights of those who inhabited lands that the British conquered
through superior military capability. In NZ this continued with the
'NZ wars'.

And subsequently - there have been a number of claims into relatively
modern times - recently for example it was found that some government departments were not offering buildings and land to Maori before
selling on the open market when the first option to purchase had been
granted to Maori.

The Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 as a temporary means of >ensuring that Maori were represented in Parliament. The clear belief
here is that this was the only way of doing this - that no Maori could
win election any other way, perhaps because Maori had no right to vote
as landowners in non-Maori electorates.

With hindsight, that was clearly imposed with the intent of excluding
Maori since many did own land - just in a way that was 'foreign' to
the British settlers. We have moved on a long way from then. The
number of Maori electorates was initially slightly higher than the
proportion of adults , but is now clearly lower.

The establishment of these
seats was part of the establishment of a Maori electoral roll. While
these seats and the Maori electoral role were subsequently made
permanent, the original intent should never be forgotten.

Governments for the past many years have indicated that the Maori
seats will be kept until there is agreement with Maori generally on
doing away with them - such consultation is consistent with the
Treaty.

In modern times, Maori have gained access to the general electoral
roll because eligibility to be on that roll was widened beyond the
original European property owners. For some time now, Maori have had
the right to be on either the general roll or Maori roll.

We are now at a point where the arrival of British settlers is so long
ago that there is no-one who can claim to be purely of Maori descent -
anyone who has Maori ancestors in their family tree will also have
some non-Maori ancestors.

Right from the arrival of English / American ships to NZ shores there
have been people stay in New Zealand. Many whalers were 'adopted' by
Maori, who were generally helpful to early settlers. They
intermarried, and in many cases they and their children were
subsequently regarded as Maori - there were no DNA tests; the modern
equivalent would be a child adopted by a Maori couple would be
regarded as Maori, regardless of the genetic origins of their birth
parents.

Equally many Maori have been selected and elected in non-Maori seats,
meaning that the original reasons behind the establishment of the
Maori-only electorates is no longer applicable. There is therefore no >rational reason to continue with these seats, neither is there any
rational reason to continue with the Maori electoral roll.

The time is well past to abolish both the seats and the roll.

I am sure your opinion is shared by at least some others - but not yet
enough to prompt action from either the government or Maori. As the
ACT and National parties know, there are advantages under our
relatively new MMP system from voting 'strategically' for parties,
hence the arrangement in one Auckland seat where for a long time
right-leaning voters were encouraged to vote for the ACT candidate for
the seat, and for the National Party for the list. The only surprising
aspect of that arrangement is that is appears to still be followed
while ACT is starting to side-line National on many policy issues, and certainly does not need the assist to stay in parliament. I suspect
that at the next election there will be a move away from ACT in that
electorate because of the damage they have already done to the
reputation of the National Party. The Maori seats may however see more arrangements where a Maori Party candidate is elected to the seat, but
voters are encouraged to vote for the Labour party to increase the
number of list seats for a party that has consistently supported
Maori.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:46:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:13:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

It is clear that in recent times, with the Maori seats resulting in
the election of electorate MPs that have no respect for the (British) >>institution that is the NZ House of Representatives, that the
rationale behind these seats needs to be reconsidered.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is clear that many
actions of the Crown were in direct conflict with the notion that
Maori were granted equal rights as British citizens. As with other >>countries, the British empire was generally ruthless in suppression of
the rights of those who inhabited lands that the British conquered
through superior military capability. In NZ this continued with the
'NZ wars'.

And subsequently - there have been a number of claims into relatively
modern times - recently for example it was found that some government >departments were not offering buildings and land to Maori before
selling on the open market when the first option to purchase had been
granted to Maori.

The Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 as a temporary means of >>ensuring that Maori were represented in Parliament. The clear belief
here is that this was the only way of doing this - that no Maori could
win election any other way, perhaps because Maori had no right to vote
as landowners in non-Maori electorates.

With hindsight, that was clearly imposed with the intent of excluding
Maori since many did own land - just in a way that was 'foreign' to
the British settlers. We have moved on a long way from then. The
number of Maori electorates was initially slightly higher than the
proportion of adults , but is now clearly lower.

The establishment of these
seats was part of the establishment of a Maori electoral roll. While
these seats and the Maori electoral role were subsequently made
permanent, the original intent should never be forgotten.

Governments for the past many years have indicated that the Maori
seats will be kept until there is agreement with Maori generally on
doing away with them - such consultation is consistent with the
Treaty.

There is no pan-Maori organisation that represents the whole of
Maoridom so such a negotiation is simply not possible. If it were
possible, Maori agreeing to abolish the Maori seats is on the same
level of absurdity of expecting Turkeys in the USA to vote against the abolition of Thanksgiving.

In modern times, Maori have gained access to the general electoral
roll because eligibility to be on that roll was widened beyond the
original European property owners. For some time now, Maori have had
the right to be on either the general roll or Maori roll.

We are now at a point where the arrival of British settlers is so long
ago that there is no-one who can claim to be purely of Maori descent - >>anyone who has Maori ancestors in their family tree will also have
some non-Maori ancestors.

Right from the arrival of English / American ships to NZ shores there
have been people stay in New Zealand. Many whalers were 'adopted' by
Maori, who were generally helpful to early settlers. They
intermarried, and in many cases they and their children were
subsequently regarded as Maori - there were no DNA tests; the modern >equivalent would be a child adopted by a Maori couple would be
regarded as Maori, regardless of the genetic origins of their birth
parents.

Equally many Maori have been selected and elected in non-Maori seats, >>meaning that the original reasons behind the establishment of the >>Maori-only electorates is no longer applicable. There is therefore no >>rational reason to continue with these seats, neither is there any
rational reason to continue with the Maori electoral roll.

The time is well past to abolish both the seats and the roll.

I am sure your opinion is shared by at least some others - but not yet
enough to prompt action from either the government or Maori. As the
ACT and National parties know, there are advantages under our
relatively new MMP system from voting 'strategically' for parties,
hence the arrangement in one Auckland seat where for a long time >right-leaning voters were encouraged to vote for the ACT candidate for
the seat, and for the National Party for the list. The only surprising
aspect of that arrangement is that is appears to still be followed
while ACT is starting to side-line National on many policy issues, and >certainly does not need the assist to stay in parliament. I suspect
that at the next election there will be a move away from ACT in that >electorate because of the damage they have already done to the
reputation of the National Party. The Maori seats may however see more >arrangements where a Maori Party candidate is elected to the seat, but
voters are encouraged to vote for the Labour party to increase the
number of list seats for a party that has consistently supported
Maori.

The vagaries of MMP are not relevant to the abolition of the Maori
seats. In a Parliament with all major parties having Maori MPs in the
house, Maori are as well represented in Parliament as any other
racial group. Note that of the 3 parties in Government, 2 of the 3
leaders identify as Maori.

The abolition of Maori seats is a rational outcome to the reasons they
were established no longer being in existence.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 25 May 2025 11:41:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:46:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:13:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:

It is clear that in recent times, with the Maori seats resulting in
the election of electorate MPs that have no respect for the (British) >>>institution that is the NZ House of Representatives, that the
rationale behind these seats needs to be reconsidered.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is clear that many >>>actions of the Crown were in direct conflict with the notion that
Maori were granted equal rights as British citizens. As with other >>>countries, the British empire was generally ruthless in suppression of >>>the rights of those who inhabited lands that the British conquered >>>through superior military capability. In NZ this continued with the
'NZ wars'.

And subsequently - there have been a number of claims into relatively >>modern times - recently for example it was found that some government >>departments were not offering buildings and land to Maori before
selling on the open market when the first option to purchase had been >>granted to Maori.

The Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 as a temporary means of >>>ensuring that Maori were represented in Parliament. The clear belief >>>here is that this was the only way of doing this - that no Maori could >>>win election any other way, perhaps because Maori had no right to vote
as landowners in non-Maori electorates.

With hindsight, that was clearly imposed with the intent of excluding
Maori since many did own land - just in a way that was 'foreign' to
the British settlers. We have moved on a long way from then. The
number of Maori electorates was initially slightly higher than the >>proportion of adults , but is now clearly lower.

The establishment of these
seats was part of the establishment of a Maori electoral roll. While >>>these seats and the Maori electoral role were subsequently made >>>permanent, the original intent should never be forgotten.

Governments for the past many years have indicated that the Maori
seats will be kept until there is agreement with Maori generally on
doing away with them - such consultation is consistent with the
Treaty.

There is no pan-Maori organisation that represents the whole of
Maoridom so such a negotiation is simply not possible. If it were
possible, Maori agreeing to abolish the Maori seats is on the same
level of absurdity of expecting Turkeys in the USA to vote against the >abolition of Thanksgiving.

Just as there is no pan-European / Asian organisation that represents
those groups of New Zealanders, but we do at times manage to get
agreement across all groups and political parties. The advantage of
the Maori Seats is that without them, Maori may end up like Social
Credit - getting a minority vote in most electorates but very few
seats . . .

In modern times, Maori have gained access to the general electoral
roll because eligibility to be on that roll was widened beyond the >>>original European property owners. For some time now, Maori have had
the right to be on either the general roll or Maori roll.

We are now at a point where the arrival of British settlers is so long >>>ago that there is no-one who can claim to be purely of Maori descent - >>>anyone who has Maori ancestors in their family tree will also have
some non-Maori ancestors.

Right from the arrival of English / American ships to NZ shores there
have been people stay in New Zealand. Many whalers were 'adopted' by
Maori, who were generally helpful to early settlers. They
intermarried, and in many cases they and their children were
subsequently regarded as Maori - there were no DNA tests; the modern >>equivalent would be a child adopted by a Maori couple would be
regarded as Maori, regardless of the genetic origins of their birth >>parents.

Equally many Maori have been selected and elected in non-Maori seats, >>>meaning that the original reasons behind the establishment of the >>>Maori-only electorates is no longer applicable. There is therefore no >>>rational reason to continue with these seats, neither is there any >>>rational reason to continue with the Maori electoral roll.

The time is well past to abolish both the seats and the roll.

I am sure your opinion is shared by at least some others - but not yet >>enough to prompt action from either the government or Maori. As the
ACT and National parties know, there are advantages under our
relatively new MMP system from voting 'strategically' for parties,
hence the arrangement in one Auckland seat where for a long time >>right-leaning voters were encouraged to vote for the ACT candidate for
the seat, and for the National Party for the list. The only surprising >>aspect of that arrangement is that is appears to still be followed
while ACT is starting to side-line National on many policy issues, and >>certainly does not need the assist to stay in parliament. I suspect
that at the next election there will be a move away from ACT in that >>electorate because of the damage they have already done to the
reputation of the National Party. The Maori seats may however see more >>arrangements where a Maori Party candidate is elected to the seat, but >>voters are encouraged to vote for the Labour party to increase the
number of list seats for a party that has consistently supported
Maori.

The vagaries of MMP are not relevant to the abolition of the Maori
seats. In a Parliament with all major parties having Maori MPs in the
house, Maori are as well represented in Parliament as any other
racial group. Note that of the 3 parties in Government, 2 of the 3
leaders identify as Maori.

The abolition of Maori seats is a rational outcome to the reasons they
were established no longer being in existence.

That is your view, but it may not have the support of a majority of
MPs in the House - such a decisions also needs to be agreed by a
sizeable proportion on non-Maori voters, and I suspect that would not
be there at present.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:27:47 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 11:41:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:46:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:13:28 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:

It is clear that in recent times, with the Maori seats resulting in
the election of electorate MPs that have no respect for the (British) >>>>institution that is the NZ House of Representatives, that the
rationale behind these seats needs to be reconsidered.

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is clear that many >>>>actions of the Crown were in direct conflict with the notion that
Maori were granted equal rights as British citizens. As with other >>>>countries, the British empire was generally ruthless in suppression of >>>>the rights of those who inhabited lands that the British conquered >>>>through superior military capability. In NZ this continued with the >>>>'NZ wars'.

And subsequently - there have been a number of claims into relatively >>>modern times - recently for example it was found that some government >>>departments were not offering buildings and land to Maori before
selling on the open market when the first option to purchase had been >>>granted to Maori.

The Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 as a temporary means of >>>>ensuring that Maori were represented in Parliament. The clear belief >>>>here is that this was the only way of doing this - that no Maori could >>>>win election any other way, perhaps because Maori had no right to vote >>>>as landowners in non-Maori electorates.

With hindsight, that was clearly imposed with the intent of excluding >>>Maori since many did own land - just in a way that was 'foreign' to
the British settlers. We have moved on a long way from then. The
number of Maori electorates was initially slightly higher than the >>>proportion of adults , but is now clearly lower.

The establishment of these
seats was part of the establishment of a Maori electoral roll. While >>>>these seats and the Maori electoral role were subsequently made >>>>permanent, the original intent should never be forgotten.

Governments for the past many years have indicated that the Maori
seats will be kept until there is agreement with Maori generally on
doing away with them - such consultation is consistent with the
Treaty.

There is no pan-Maori organisation that represents the whole of
Maoridom so such a negotiation is simply not possible. If it were >>possible, Maori agreeing to abolish the Maori seats is on the same
level of absurdity of expecting Turkeys in the USA to vote against the >>abolition of Thanksgiving.

Just as there is no pan-European / Asian organisation that represents
those groups of New Zealanders, but we do at times manage to get
agreement across all groups and political parties. The advantage of
the Maori Seats is that without them, Maori may end up like Social
Credit - getting a minority vote in most electorates but very few
seats . . .

A lie - they have those seats now. Seymour elected in Epsom, Peters
on the NZF list, and a bunch of other MPs.

In modern times, Maori have gained access to the general electoral
roll because eligibility to be on that roll was widened beyond the >>>>original European property owners. For some time now, Maori have had >>>>the right to be on either the general roll or Maori roll.

We are now at a point where the arrival of British settlers is so long >>>>ago that there is no-one who can claim to be purely of Maori descent - >>>>anyone who has Maori ancestors in their family tree will also have
some non-Maori ancestors.

Right from the arrival of English / American ships to NZ shores there >>>have been people stay in New Zealand. Many whalers were 'adopted' by >>>Maori, who were generally helpful to early settlers. They
intermarried, and in many cases they and their children were
subsequently regarded as Maori - there were no DNA tests; the modern >>>equivalent would be a child adopted by a Maori couple would be
regarded as Maori, regardless of the genetic origins of their birth >>>parents.

Equally many Maori have been selected and elected in non-Maori seats, >>>>meaning that the original reasons behind the establishment of the >>>>Maori-only electorates is no longer applicable. There is therefore no >>>>rational reason to continue with these seats, neither is there any >>>>rational reason to continue with the Maori electoral roll.

The time is well past to abolish both the seats and the roll.

I am sure your opinion is shared by at least some others - but not yet >>>enough to prompt action from either the government or Maori. As the
ACT and National parties know, there are advantages under our
relatively new MMP system from voting 'strategically' for parties,
hence the arrangement in one Auckland seat where for a long time >>>right-leaning voters were encouraged to vote for the ACT candidate for >>>the seat, and for the National Party for the list. The only surprising >>>aspect of that arrangement is that is appears to still be followed
while ACT is starting to side-line National on many policy issues, and >>>certainly does not need the assist to stay in parliament. I suspect
that at the next election there will be a move away from ACT in that >>>electorate because of the damage they have already done to the
reputation of the National Party. The Maori seats may however see more >>>arrangements where a Maori Party candidate is elected to the seat, but >>>voters are encouraged to vote for the Labour party to increase the
number of list seats for a party that has consistently supported
Maori.

The vagaries of MMP are not relevant to the abolition of the Maori
seats. In a Parliament with all major parties having Maori MPs in the >>house, Maori are as well represented in Parliament as any other
racial group. Note that of the 3 parties in Government, 2 of the 3
leaders identify as Maori.

The abolition of Maori seats is a rational outcome to the reasons they
were established no longer being in existence.

That is your view, but it may not have the support of a majority of
MPs in the House - such a decisions also needs to be agreed by a
sizeable proportion on non-Maori voters, and I suspect that would not
be there at present.

Why not? Lets start with a timid leader of both National and Labour. Understandable for Labour given their dependence on Maori MPs.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)