I wonder, do people who support Maori wards not see what the antis are on about? Anybody who wants to be involved in the running of the city or town simply has to stand for election. We live in a so-called democracy so let's keep things democratic.
It has been clearly demonstrated with MMP how useless and hard to get rid of unelected people can be. We do not want or need unelected people, no matter who they are or where they are from, negatively influencing our daily lives.
I bet very few would object to Maori wards if they were elected officials. Remember, you cannot get rid of unelected people no matter how badly they perform.
A city or town council isn't in place to right real or perceived wrongs of the past: that's the government's job. A council is elected to run a city for the ratepayers in the main, and at a secondary level for others who live in the district.
Councils were not around when any wrongs were carried out in the past so they should not be expected to spend their elected terms beating their breast about the past. We deserve an elected council who will run a city efficiently and cost-effectively and, when possible, profitably. I know I am a dreamer.
A Bourne, Bethlehem.
14 comments
Great
Posted on 05-01-2018 11:31 | By MISS ADVENTURE
But Councils, staff and those elected appear to be such simple folk that they just can not help themselves but interfer in what has already been well and truly over settled.
Got it wrong again
Posted on 05-01-2018 14:29 | By waxing
A Bourne continues to get it wrong. Maori wards are about ensuring that there is participation by Maori in all matters of local government, rather than simply consultation (often after a decision has already been made). This involves all issues, not just past grievances. In his argument that anyone can stand in council seats, perhaps he might tell us how many Maori have actually been elected in Tauranga or the Western Bay? He can't argue that councillors represent everyone, since Cr Lally won't respond to my question about his consultations with Maori to get their points of view. And where does this unelected nonsense come in? Maori elect their Maori councillors. And hasn't he observed recent local government elections where councillors and mayors have most certainly been dumped?
@ waxing
Posted on 07-01-2018 09:50 | By Captain Sensible
Maori get to vote in any elections just as non-maori. Going by your "logic" it would be impossible to explain how some councils have elected a Chinese or a trans-gender as their Mayor. This fact plainly shows that if the candidate is good enough, they will get votes. Stop hiding behind your abhorrent racist privileges and get elected like all the other candidates do. Your continued sense of entitlement is ugly and undemocratic.
@ Captain
Posted on 07-01-2018 16:30 | By waxing
You have no logic. You base everything on your prejudiced views usually expressed in a highly emotional way with your "logic" constantly changing the goalposts of any discussion. Simply because you refuse to recognise the founding document for this country doesn't entitle you to describe all other views as "ugly" and "undemocratic". You refer to two examples which are highly exceptional. Tell me please how many Maori have been elected as Mayors or Councillors, especially in the Bay of Plenty. And by the way, I remind you for the umpteenth time - I am not Maori.
@ waxing
Posted on 08-01-2018 14:51 | By Captain Sensible
Tell us where in your so-called "founding document" that maori are entitled to any more than all other New Zealanders. Your continious expectations of race based entitlement is indeed really greedy, dishonest and ugly. Do you think you are better than me because I am guilty of that unique NZ crime of being born without maori blood? If a maori candidate was a good candidate, they could be elected and skin colour or gender has nothing to do with it....as I have proven. I do not vote on race and would be more than happy to vote for a part-maori mayor here as long as he promised equality ( a concept you obviously detest), honesty, cut down on spending, and had no hidden race based agendas. I just don't understand why in 2018 you still consider an election as some kind of race based competition.
@ Captain
Posted on 08-01-2018 22:24 | By waxing
I've already told you where - refer the Traty's Preamble. but you consistently don't read it (or can't) or chose to ignore it. No I don't as a Pakeha think necessarily that I am better than you but I sure can discuss something a lot more rationally than you. And what have you proven about electing Maori candidates? What Maori have been elected Mayors or Councillors in the Western Bay of Plenty? I don't understand why in 2018 you still don't understand NZ history and still just keep pushing your prejudices.
Waxing
Posted on 09-01-2018 08:50 | By the roofer
I have read the preamble and see nothing that gives Maori privileges. Maybe you can quote? So you are saying if its written down then it is ok for Maori to get extra rights and privileges than the rest of us? Spoken like a true 'r' word.
@ waxing
Posted on 09-01-2018 10:12 | By Captain Sensible
I have just re-read the Treaty preamble and can see nothing about maori getting extra rights and privileges. Maybe you can be more precise about what it says. Also, is your preamble the original or the "reinterpreted" version dreamed up after all the signatories had died? How cowardly ,not to mention illegal, to wait until all parties had died before reinterpreting a document.
@ Captain
Posted on 09-01-2018 19:20 | By waxing
From the original English of the Preamble: "HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property ........". Now I can understand that you two won't be happy about "just rights and Property" and will dispute what it means. But Queen Victoria knew what was being intended and knew what was being attempted by the Grey settler government. Which is why she instructed Grey in writing that "you will honourably and scrupulously uphold the Treaty of Waitangi".
@ transparent waxed
Posted on 14-01-2018 17:12 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Property, now thre is an interesting word, the english word of "property" means and I quote "a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively". Possessions means "visible power or control over something, as distinct from lawful ownership; holding or occupancy as distinct from ownership". Perhaps you grasp of part maori, translations and even English is something short of that desired hence the dream like notions latched onto in your commentaries? You need a fundamental rethink here, your stance/ground has already crumbled from beneath you.
@misadventure.
Posted on 15-01-2018 19:22 | By waxing
The Concise OED defines property as "(a) something owned; a possession, esp. a house, land, etc. (b) Law - the right to possession, use, etc. (c) possessions collectively, esp. real estate". You then manage in your confused way to confuse a noun with a verb. In the context of your and my definitions, possession(s) is a noun, NOT a verb and is defined as "something owned..". You've shot yourself in the foot again in a further attempt to justify your extreme emotional views.
@ waxing
Posted on 16-01-2018 15:27 | By Captain Sensible
Protect their "just rights and Property" .....the ability for the first time in their life, to own property, to sell or buy property. The same rights as all New Zealanders, and the same right we still have. What do you think it meant???! Stop being so greedy and accept that you are no more deserving than any other Kiwi. And BTW, rather mischievous to use today's meaning of property when it was written in 1840!! You must use the context in which it was written, anything else is fraud!
@ private
Posted on 17-01-2018 15:42 | By waxing
What irony. You are the one using today's definition of property and rights! However in fact there is not that much difference except for the collective nature of Maori ownership in 1840. They certainly knew the boundaries of their lands and didn't need little white pegs to tell them. And you are the one telling them what their "just rights and property" were and are. Greedy colonial arrogance by you that reveals your real reasons for not wanting to accept the Treaty.
Right the wrongs?
Posted on 21-01-2018 11:36 | By MISS ADVENTURE
If Councils had to address all that was wrong and try to put it right then I am sure that they would get nothing at all done ever. There is so much that they do wrong that they themselves have already created a huge backlog themselves.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.