Te Pati Māori's election slogan is “Aotearoa Hou”, which, roughly translated, means “A New Day”. NZ First’s slogan is “Let’s take back our country”. This, in essence, is what the 2023 General Election will be about.
Are New Zealanders still capable of imagining a brighter future, or are they, indeed, desperate for a return to the better country they remember. Most of the other party slogans are variations on these themes. National wants to get New Zealand “back on track”, for the Greens “the time is now”, while Act is promising “real change”.
Labour’s slogan, “In it for YOU”, stands out by being determinedly agnostic about New Zealand’s future direction of travel. All the voters are being asked to do is place their trust in a clutch of politicians who are in the game solely for their benefit. (By which, presumably, they mean the voters’ benefit, not their own!)
A number of political scientists have pointed out the lack of ambition in Labour’s slogan. Traditionally, the Party has focused voters’ attention on the need for change. It has also favoured collective over personal pronouns – as in the upbeat slogan of 2017, “Let’s do this!”
Rather than linking Labour and the people in a combined effort for national improvement, the “In it for YOU” slogan conjures-up the image of a gaggle of well-meaning do-gooders (many on salaries of nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars) desperately anxious for YOU to believe THEY are without sinister, ulterior or selfish motivation. Labour: A party of altruists, pure as the driven snow, and they’re doing it all for YOU, baby!
It’s a dismal admission of failure, but one which has been implicit in the Labour Party that emerged from the splits and divisions of the Rogernomics era. When Labour was a party of 100,000 paid-up members and financial supporters, “we” had real political heft. To be a member of the Labour Party was to be a member of an organisation that had transformed New Zealand’s economy, society and culture.
By 1990, however, Labour had been reduced to an organisation of fewer than 10,000 members. Most of these looked upon the party as a sort of social club in which, if they were lucky, they might have their photo taken with the prime minister. These folk actually hated political debate – it only led to unpleasantness. When the minority of political careerists who actually ran the party called upon these stalwarts to guard Labour from dissidents and traitors they were only too happy to oblige.
The present Labour Government constitutes a grim demonstration of what happens to a political party that no longer possesses the transformational impulse that animated its predecessors. (Even the Fourth Labour Government, albeit from the wrong end of the telescope!)
Having been handed the reins of government by Winston Peters in 2017, the party that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had carried for nine years, almost entirely on the strength of their own prodigious political competence, took less than five years to demonstrate a heartbreaking degree of political ineptitude. Not even an unprecedented (under MMP) parliamentary majority, delivered in recognition of Labour’s initial success in handling the Covid-19 crisis, could help it get whatever “this” was, done.
If this Labour Government really is in the business of government for us, then we can be forgiven for wondering just how much worse-off we might be if they were actually in it for somebody else!
That the National Party can think of no more inspiring slogan than to get the country “back on track”, is evidence of how far it, too, has fallen since the days when John Key (state house boy made good) promised New Zealanders a “brighter future”. National’s current metaphor portrays New Zealand as a train derailed, and itself as the maintenance gang with both the engineering expertise and the heavy-lifting machinery needed to get things moving again.
All of which would make perfect sense if New Zealanders were confronting a more conventional economic and social crisis – one screaming out for remedial action. But, is that the mood? Or is it, rather, that instead of a derailment, New Zealanders are gripped by the conviction that the train they are on has been surreptitiously re-directed towards a destination they were not told about, and would not have chosen if they had been.
The problem with National’s slogan is that it offers the voters no possibility of travelling in a new or different direction. The best they can hope for is that National will convey them in the same direction as Labour, only with a little more attention to their health and safety. The party might just as well have inscribed “National – we’ll get you there in one piece” on their billboards.
Act’s invocation of “real change” – especially in the context of presenting itself as National’s hard line/hard core coalition partner – merely confirms to voters that David Seymour intends to get them to the Right’s neoliberal destination at top speed, ignoring the safety regulations, and without making any further stops.
Having arrived at the terminus, however, it will soon become clear to the travelling public that National and Act have not taken them anywhere they haven’t been before. That Act’s “real change” is really just (big) business as usual – and, maybe, even worse.
Deconstructing NZ First’s slogan presents a much more intriguing proposition. “Let’s take back our country” invites the voters to participate in a daring act of political intervention. Rather than sit back passively as the ship-of-state sails on into a worsening storm, Winston Peters is inviting the voters to turn him into their Fletcher Christian. With them at his back, he will storm the bridge and take back control from the neoliberal Captain Blighs who stole the good ship “New Zealand” from them forty years ago, and under whose command it has become less-and-less seaworthy. “Let’s take back our country” is nothing less than an invitation to electoral mutiny.
It is only Te Pāti Māori, however, which is offering the electorate the prospect of something entirely new. Only the Māori Party which is willing to take the necessary next steps beyond the Greens’ plaintive warning that “the time is now”.
As Te Pāti Māori has demonstrated with its radical tax policies, the intention is to strike at the very heart of the neoliberal status quo. Tinkering, argues Deborah Ngarewa Packer and Rawiri Waititi, is no longer enough, the system under which 2.1 million New Zealanders earn less than $30,000 per year, must be brought down. It’s a metaphor as old as politics itself. Out of darkness a new day must dawn. New Zealand must be re-made. “Aotearoa Hou.”
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
133 Comments
Vote National - and nothing will change as it hasn't changed for 25+ years, old status quo again. Neither National nor Labour or NZ First have any vision for the future, so what is in NZ for the younger generation, just the continuing failures of the past 8 elections.
Unfortunately, we do a bad enough job at training locals in skills required en masse in a first-world economy and we continue to undervalue the ones we do.
My broader sector is witnessing an exodus of talent, while the government & media spin their BS of net brain gain. My small team of 15 or so is facing a tough time attracting 2-3 worthy applicants just to replace retiring/exiting engineers and maintain staffing levels.
Can't imagine the level of frustration someone faces trying to set up a technical shop here in NZ or even worse when growing their business here, unless it involves low-skilled manual labour.
Just the usual tribalism. Most people these days don't vote for a particular party for the outcomes, just for whatever image they may want their "political affiliation" to portray to others.
Vote National if you want people to think you're aligned with successful business people, vote Labour if you want people to know you're kind and caring. Anyone who disagrees with your political party is the enemy.
I've often wonder if people that only vote for one party have a secret desire for a totalitarian regime - e.g. if only our party could rule forever and never be replaced, then that would make me happy because I have complete control over society with my political views.
Any sane person should be able to see that political parties rise and fall and the benefit of democracy is that they need to be replaced to keep the system working.
But it scares me a little when people say they only ever vote for one party - as a say above, are they secretly desiring a totalitarian system? (shouldn't they move their views with the changing political winds of time, as party members change, their ability rises and falls)
Nothing wrong with a Dictator, think about it its more about the person than the title. Problem is only corrupt assholes get to the top, but then I find that in life in general, even at work in a small company of 30 people so you can only imagine what it takes to get to the top where billions of dollars are in play, there are literally skeletons in the closet when it comes to people like Putin.
Dictatorship always ends in failure because there’s no error correction mechanism. We have evidence from the >2000 years of trial and error that constitutes our post-enlightenment Christianity based culture.
I'm genuinely worried about the decline of liberalism, and the recent rise of orthodoxy in the political and social scene.
Considering CT's history, to put the boot into Labour like this speaks volumes! But then he largely goes on to disparage the others too.
Personally I'm not about slogans, and frankly I've not seen one sentence from any of the parties which would provide even a modicum of hope for the future. We seem to be destined to become the South Africa of the South Pacific where racism and crime re the dominant themes while the politicians enrich themselves at the expense of the people.
I agree - the tax proposals of every other party are not only unworkable, but if implemented would be detrimental. A tax free threshold of $15,000 plus an LVT to offset is the only plausible and responsible proposal out there.
https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system
Kate remember your history. GST at 12% was supposed to fully replace PAYE. Did it? It is now 15% - where is PAYE sitting?
If we open the door to LVT, there is no surety that politicians will also enact the tax thresholds. In fact our history strongly suggests they would never do it. But on the policy promise, if we put them into Government to do the job, but they don't keep their promises, there is no way to get rid of them.
What do I hear you say? Politicians not keeping their promises - that wouldn't happen would it? Not ever, not likely..... YEAH RIGHT!
I wasn't aware rates were given back to taxpayers in the form of a tax-free threshold on income (per TOP's LVT tax switch policy) - I thought they were spent by Council's for services (and possibly the odd vanity project).
LVT and rates are comparable in that if you own land then you cannot avoid paying them - I call that fair.
They have a chance; will they win Ilam or get over 5%? Maybe, maybe not. There are now three parties all after a wealth or land tax so the idea of taxation reform being needed (because the status quo is unfair) is gaining more and more acceptance.
I’ve been flirting with the idea of voting TOP, but I’ve got to say, having run some numbers on their tax calculator here https://taxswitch.nz
This is pretty cooked:
I earn 150k pa and my wife earns 115k. We own a home with a land value of 1.4m (lol fake news). Based on these figures we would pay an additional $4,148 per year (or $80 each week).
Fine with me if it helps sort out our insanely housing-distorted nightmare economy (even though we bought our first home in early 2021 and have a juicy rates rise to look forward to…)
BUT. I ran the numbers again, retaining my 150k salary but reducing my wife’s to $60k pa. This is a realistic scenario as she is keen to work part time for childcare reasons. In this scenario, our tax would increase MORE than when she was on $115k pa - to $6,748 more per year (or $129 each week).
Needless to say, that is mental and a big turn off for me. That seems like a completely perverse unintended consequence that would hurt a LOT of families where you have one relatively high earner and one relatively low earner due to having children.
I can’t vote for that.
I ran it too - and yes, that makes no sense - earn less money; pay more tax. I put your wife in at nil salary as well - and of course it gets worse.
It would be great if interest.co.nz were to interview TOP about this, as it does look like a real issue/problem that needs explaining.
Looks to me like a fatal flaw if indeed the calculator is correct.
Yes because the LVT helps to pay for the reduction in PAYE, so if you're not earning but still living on the land it doesn't make a difference to the LVT.
It's meant to go back into the hands of people that don't own land. Unfortunately we can't have any tax change to have all winners and no losers.
I am the same tax wise, I will end up paying more but I believe in doing something different because what we have is not fair. I get it, it's hard, it's the "I got this the hard way and I worked so hard, anyone else can, so I shouldn't have to pay anything else, I own it, MINE MINE MINE".
I think you might miss the point.
Good tax proposals need to address both horizontal and vertical equity. What is effectively happening to the household example above, seems to me to be an unintended consequence, or a calculator error.
Best thing to do is to enter the numbers into the calculator yourself to see the effect of lowering the household income - and subsequently increasing the amount of tax paid overall.
That cannot be the way TOP intended it to work out. I suspect the algorithm needs work - a few more parameters needed in order to avoid this sort of perverse outcome.
No ways. The land tax is passable but not under any circumstances based on the current land values as used by most/all? councils for rating purposes. Land value a complete mess based on personal experience. Too heavily into CC, not far off alarmism with promoting ETS even further for the international speculators.
A fall does not concern me. Its the relative land value between almost identical properties that is very concerning. To get it in a far better place than it is today the whole country needs to be re-evaluated which would take 5 years and probably around $100m, my stab in the dark. Also the property act would need changing to include other factors other than just recent land sale value. I may even write an article for interest to consider for publication based some anonymised real life values.
In any event what I'd propose would take a brave politician to champion it as it would be too much in the hard/messy/controversial basket
Wouldn't you just apply to have your land value adjusted to the 'correct' value? If the local body didn't agree and you were seriously out of pocket, then the option remains to sell it and avoid the tax and buy a piece of land with a value you did agree with? Possibly a provision to force Council to buy it at the 'inflated' value as a way of making sure they were honest...
I'd be really interested in an article from you, as I'd have thought land values would be pretty good in terms of relativity. Even a couple of example comparisons for two near equal land values, where you think one or other is out would be really interesting. No valuation system will ever please everyone.
One thing missing in the TOP equation is that they have not provided any information on how rural and rural residential properties would be valued for this tax. In fact, I got the feeling perhaps they wouldn't be subject to it - which certainly would be unfair. For tax purposes, I think all farms have to specify an area of land that is the 'home paddock' - I think that was the tax law back when we had a GST registered rural property.
In 2021 National were in a state of shameful self imposed disarray. Inexcusable really, and the electorate said so. This time around Labour are in a similar plight, a house divided cannot stand. If there was an element in the electorate in 2021 that strategically switched to Labour in order to stymie the Greens from being in a formal coalition with Labour then, and especially in rural areas, that opinion will hardly be likely to endorse a forthcoming coalition of Labour, breaking ranks with a fractious faction embedded therein. the Greens over ready to roar out of left field and TPM a plank of selective racial policies bordering on extreme. Provided National keeps its house in order they will have all the same advantage over Labour this time round that Labour had last time.
Those relying on the pension as their major source of income will be looking very favourably on those tax free thresholds from TOP ($15.000), Green ($10,000) and Māori ($30,000) parties.
The Māori Party tax-free threshold of $30,000 means a single/living alone pensioner will pay no tax at all on their super. And frankly, if they don't own their own home, they need it with rents being what they are.
And then, for students, the Greens $385/week guaranteed minimum income is a big pay rise - again making a whole lot of a difference to those studying away from home.
Tax could well be the major issue which swings this election one way or another. A lot depends on how well understood the different tax proposals are by the voting public.
We seem to be destined to become the South Africa of the South Pacific where racism and crime re the dominant themes
It sort of feels that way doesnt it? It seems almost inevitable now. Jacinda's legacy. I'm contemplating making the move to Australia regardless of election results before Australia realises what a mistake it made it conferring citizenship on everyone and decides to take it back. Then there will be nowhere to flee to.
I've never been a victim of crime and I have a great deal of knowledge (and hence respect) for te ao Māori. I think having grown up in the US has made a big difference to the fact I welcome so much of what is NZ's very diverse and accepting multi-cultural society. I could not contemplate going back to what I came from. One of our children lives there and we hope he heads back home before he gets too indoctrinated.
Im Pakeha, I really dont understand what all the hoohaa is regarding Maori. Personally I am proud of the diversity of our country. The word racist is casually thrown around when you dont agree with someone or something that favours someone of a different skin hue or culture.
The mere fact that you use the word they when referring to Maori is telling. I really think a lot of (and this is a stereotype) older white males need to stop yelling at clouds, and admit they just want to say, know your place boy. Casual racism at its finest.
What are you so scared of ?
The fact that you put serious concerns about what is happening in this country down to middle aged white males being causally racist is telling.
Why can I not refer to the word racist in the context I used it in, please explain? (I wasn't accusing anyone of it, if you read a bit more carefully), the Greens and TPM are constantly accusing others of it.
I don't like being accused of being racist by parties like the Greens or TPM simply because I disagree with their opinions, which in my opinion are often completely wrong.
When this Labour government came in, it went on a massive propaganda campaign, all these reports were given massive air time on TVNZ etc, all saying the reason why Maori have such high numbers in jail and crime numbers etc are because the system is basically over policing them and is racist.
So then they took us on a little experiment, of basically minimal policing and minimal sentencing if any in a lot of cases, and due to things like cultural reports etc this was especially focused on Maori.
But look where we are now, crime is rampant, businesses all over NZ shutting up shop, and now numerous Kiwi grown businesses now saying they are sick of operating in NZ anymore, and will move offshore.
But the worst part is, parties like the Greens and TPA have learnt nothing from this experiment and are just as adamant as ever in their opinions that the problem is not in their communities, but someone else's fault, so because of that total denial of any responsibility, the problems will never be fixed.
Good on you for feeling positive about NZ's diversity, I used to feel more positive too, but opinions from parties like the Greens and TPM and their constant need to shift blame for problems, have knocked any of that out of me.
Well nothing changes works for me. Perhaps you need to think about the number of people out there who now feel screwed by Labour over the last 6 years and now feel way worse off and couple that to National supporters for whom "Nothing Changes" apparently. This is an election for National/ACT to lose, they really need to stuff up big time from here not to win.
they really need to stuff up big time from here not to win
Oh, I'm 100% confident in Chris Luxon's ability. All he needs to do is open his mouth
The lack of ideas and the uninspiring "let's bring in loads of immigrants and let's prop the housing market again" policy is a slow death to our economy. Luckily, it's hitching a leader as charming as a lettuce. Prefer this to the same policy getting a free ride over a charismatic leader (JK)
Ofc, Labour's overachieving in becoming unvotable as well, so guess it's a game of minor parties. Luckily, because at least these guys have some imagination
people out there who now feel screwed by Labour over the last 6 years and now feel way worse off
What no-one discusses is that under national we wouldn't have been better. Hospitals would've collapsed in Covid. Even longer lockdowns necessary. Would've been just as good as UK was with that blonde clown. Inflation would've happened anyway, maybe even stronger with tax cuts. Housing - worse for a wider number of renters (30-40%ish). Do you think a larger number of people at wits end would've made your day better? You run into them everyday, from daily shopping to online forums anyhow
Perhaps Luxon has now recognised his limitations in terms of public image. It is after all better to be bland and boring naturally rather than deceptively charismatic. Trouble is a leader, but more necessarily a Prime Minister, needs to be able to think on their feet and have some agility and conviction around the media these days. Bill English was poor in this regard when he took over from Shipley but later developed well as a deputy leader then into Prime Ministership. Actually he would have been of quite some value to have around now in my opinion.
Sick and tired of hearing about the leader needing charisma. We just had 6 years of "Charisma" and where did it get us ? You need someone that can do the job, not one that stands up and says all the right things and sounds great then fails to deliver on everything.
"works for me"
What about what is going to work for the financial and social stability of the nation as a whole?
Or is voting always what is right 'for me' in the short term, without broader consideration for what is going to be right for the nation as a whole and for the long term?
(and I'm not aligning myself with either politicial party in this view as I can see the pro's and con's of both sides of the political forum)
Both sides of the politican forum are viewing issues of 'what is right for me' without consideration for how what is right for me might be very detrimental for other people in society - then we wonder why there is a political divide, and why we have such financial and social instability - it is in part because people have become too focus on themselves and not what is right for society as a whole.
Kennedy's quote from the 60's comes to mind around thinking what we can all do for our country as opposed to what our country can do for us.
But it appears that everyone just wants political parties to cater for their personal needs (e.g. increased socialism for the poor, or more tax cuts for the rich) instead of saying, 'how can we create the conditions where we work together as a nation to increase the pie for everyone?" (i.e. in a spirit of community and cooperation with shared ideals and prosperity - instead of relentless self interest and fear of the future (FOMO) and the resulting repression of other parts of society which furthers the political divide.)
This is going to take a painful paradigm shift - as a lot of the political views of people i meet are based upon fear - not courage to do the right thing. People are scared that there isn't going to be enough in the future for them to get by, so they are becoming increasingly selfish/self interested. We need to stop this. if they are poor they want more socialism, if they are rich they want to pay less tax.
As the scriptures say...."How good and pleasant it is when people live together in unity" (psalm 133).
How do we change this everyone? Honest question because it is a real problem.
'Back on track' is hilarious given they seem to think four lane highways will pave their way to the 9th floor;
The status quo of other regions walking back on transport projects due to funding constraints while Wellington gets LGWM funded at 60% CG contribution (and without being slugged by a regional fuel tax either) isn't exactly a desirable, or credible alternative either.
The way of the future in Welly is public and active transport. The cycleway from Miramar to the city is amazingly wide, safe and a beautiful ride to boot! Wellington has always been attractive to a young population and LGWM plans would have upped this attraction significantly. Cars are so yesterday in the mindset of many Wellingtonians;
https://figure.nz/chart/rT19o0ObUFdbv5d5
I do wonder what this obsession with been able to drive/ride to the airport is , in both Auckland and Wellington.The comparative number of people having to travel there is small, of course , both schemes would service fairly large residential areas as well. but where are all these people driving to /from , and in Wellington , where are they going to park at either end?
Election has become a game to fool voters.
Not single party has changed NZ's reliance on primary sector AKA resource exploiting, real estate sector AKA people importing, education sector AKA people import, and tourism AKA people importing.
If one checks NZ's export profile and GDP profile, their structures remain pretty much constant over the last 40 years! What have those elected parties done?
He's not wrong though. Speaking of the Chinese political party, human rights aside, they've done pretty well economically speaking from Deng Xiaoping onwards to transition the country from an undeveloped agrarian one to a respectable high tech world player. Can we see similar progress in the NZ economy make up? All I see is more of the same Xing Mo enumerated above
I feel for the average Maori person who believe that TMP actually care about them. TMP only care about the Maori elite who are mainly based in Wellington, and in the powerful Iwi. They are going to be disappointed once again in this election by their so called leaders.
Totally correct just like all the treaty payments don't go to the Maori on the street or not in the right lineage yet they get told whiteman screwed them. Look at Te Huehue family in Taupo all the close family members get the scholarships etc but if not related but still in the iwi but far removed you are screwed
So it turns out the Māori's are no better than the whitemen then ? Pretty much runs across the board doesn't it. Ask the blacks in South Africa if they think they are now better or worse off. Many had very menial jobs but at least they had jobs and they will tell you they are now even worse off. Corruption and greed doesn't recognise skin colour as it turn out.
That's why I said Wellington, Te Kooti. The Treaty of Waitangi allowed these Maori to move there 20 - 30 years ago, maybe 40, they stayed, had kids, their kids still live there (mokupuna now), they now want to stay but Treaty of Waitangi coming to the end and they want new positions in Wellington so that they and their ilk can keep their collective noses in the same trough. Government funding is easy money, its not about the people, it's all about their own needs.
Rawiri Waititi I assume? I was curious, but didn't know where to start. Took a punt on the Companies register. Goes back to 2005 when he sold up some shares, his address at the time (I won't post here) is on Te Atatu Peninsula with an RV of $1.8m. Consent issued in 2003, no sales history.
He (Rawiri) like Mahuta and co will have their snout firmly ensconced in the taxpayers trough - and you know it! Also, don’t conflate wealth with elitism.
P.S. how’s your cognitive dissonance going when you clearly do well harvesting the treasures of a western system while be-crying it’s racist genocide structure that should be handed over to ‘the partners’ to turn it into central Africa!
What experience of the party machine and/or the people within it, do you have that gives you the qualification to make this statement?
I'm really curious - or are you just making it up?
Interesting how so many people on the outside seem to be taking notice of TPM. It seems they have grown to be a greater threat in the minds of many. Somehow that suggests to me they must be doing something right.
Just their stupid policy(s). If you look at their wealth tax set up a high net worth New Zealander would be up for up to 162% income tax.
So, my experience is either they are stupid and can't do the math, or no one ever checked their work, or they think it is a good idea.
One of the above is correct. So, my experience is that they are dimwits. Looking at their behavior in parliament and in other public engagements seems to confirm these assumptions completely.
My question was to QuickFox's post reply to your initial post. So, I wasn't critical at all of what you said, as it was opinion - whereas QF implied he/she had some insider knowledge about their MPs motives about who they are representing - suggesting it is only the Māori elite (i.e., those in existing positions of power).
All well and good having a snatchy slogan but when the rubber meets the road all political parties are lacking more mouth and trou. Than achieving long term results. Actually the country has gone backwards since MMP was first introduced and will continue to do so.
More state or less state? More good paying jobs or less good paying jobs [outside the public sector]? Better families or more state intervention? Do we really want the anti private property lot telling us what to do, or do we want to be able to get on with trying to make our own lives better?
Soros has got a lot to answer for - rich, opinionated & dangerous.
I know whom I'm voting for.
Re Maori seats no. Because look at the amount of so called Maori in parliament who got there threw the standard party either voted in or on list so shows they can get in and there is no racism by voters towards them. Again we really have to look at who is classed as Maori. My great grandmother was Maori but I class myself as a NZer and as my surname shows my male lineage which majority of people and countries follow shows me as Scottish heritage so that my lineage. And I have worked with and for alot of kiwis with that same mix and feel that way.
Depends on how it is interpreted.
My main take out is 'equal rights' for all. Citizenship, representation, status under the law. I "think" Maori have this although acknowledge that Maori tend to get longer custodial sentences than non-Maori for similar offences (the data is very old and I suspect it may have changed?).
Maori are at the bottom of the social heap. And this won't change in the next generation, or that following. You can debate the causes and offer solutions but there will be no change.
Let's just agree to disagree.
When treaty was signed neither party even dreamt of votes for all and especially not all women nor young adults who had never held a permanent job. So the treaty as written and understood by the signatories is long gone. Taking the best respectful interpretation of it makes sense - applies to UK's magna carta or the USA's declaration of independence. Time to have a clear legal interpretation of what it actually means today - something agreed by Maori, Pakeha and importantly immigrants from both commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries.
Because they are undemocratic, one person one vote should be the goal, before MMP they made some sense because gave a minority a say, but why not have Chineese seats, Indian seats hell we should just base our on ethnicity. It was probably a form of gerrymandering anyway.
I think you are the one who is racist, believing just because of the color of your skin you get to have more say than other people. What if we had a seats reserved for white people based on the portion the population that was white. Sounds incredibly racist to me.
If its such a small thing that gives no significant advantage based on race why not remove it. Why have the extra complication, advertising and administration cost if its insignificant.
The clever thing about the Maori electorates is that they *are* one person, one vote. But you avoid the situation (admittedly more of a risk 50 or 100 years ago than now) where Maori are not represented in Parliament in numbers that reflect the population. So Maori are guaranteed 'a say' but without having more electoral influence than anyone else. It's a very fair solution to a delicate problem of democracy in my opinion.
The creation of the 4 Maori electoral seats may have been the first real attempt to recognise Te Tiriti. https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/research-papers/document/00PLLawRP03141…
Ki Ora Te Kooti
I envisage that some time in the future we will basically be one people. I would like to see a time when all kiwi, who wish to, can become a valuable member of an Iwi. In the past, pakeha were welcomed into various Iwi because of some skill they had, usually fighting or knowledge of guns, but the basis could still apply. This way the Maori could conquer the colonialists, a takeover from within, subtle but effective, and these pakeha would be trained in the correct manner and procedures. We have come a long way in the past 100 years but there is more to do.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I really don't pretend to have any great wisdom on the subject QF. I have seen it a number of times first hand where pakeha not just invited in because of skills, but because they became friends, family and grew to be respected. Hapu marry into pakeha families and all are welcome with open arms. That's why i included the link to Sir Norman Perry. From my perspective we are already one people, but you have to understand that under this relationship there is still trauma and it is real. The other point is that Maori aren't a homogenous group like they are so often referred to here, that is so intellectually lazy.
From your link, the Maori seats were created because you had to be male and personally have land to be eligible to vote, and Maori generally owned land communally. It effectively gave Maori the vote where they didn't have it. It could be argued that Maori seats were no longer needed once everyone got the vote irrespective of what you owned.
Was just reading a Ronald Regan quote and it feels very applicable in the current political environment we find ourselves in (globally).
"I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me"
This rings true to me when I look at the current democratic party in the US, and same with the current Labour government.
At the moment I feel alienated from all of our political parties. Can we have something rise up please that is somewhere in the middle between the current national and labour parties? (i.e. not so extreme in either direction)
Labour really need to define who they mean by "You". Because actions speak a lot louder than slogans. They clearly didnt mean those who they excluded from society because they refused to take an experimental vaccine. They didnt mean those citizens they prevented from returning to their country during a global pandemic. They very clearly don't mean those who they have excluded from receiving medical care because of their skin colour. They most definitely don't mean the victims of crime when they refuse to send rapists and other violent offenders to jail. Just who are the "you" they refer to?
The Maori Party's intention is to decolonise the country, starting by driving out the top 10% of taxpayers and working their way down. Soon the definition of wealth for their wealth tax will be "you own a fridge that wasnt paid for by WINZ". Imagine what a country primarily made up of beneficiaries and low income immigrants who couldnt get a visa for anywhere else, will look like.
What do people think of when they are told "[I'm/we're] in it for you"? For me, it brings up trust issues and in extreme cases betrayal. It's something someone says when something they have done has not worked out well for you and you start questioning their intentions or maybe competence(, so they produce this phrase to reassure you). If I keep thinking about it there's also a we know best attitude attached to this phrase. Most of all it says to the public it's not implicitly obvious that we are "in it for you" so we have to explicitly state it.
It's a really weird phrase for an election slogan to me (like a Freudian slip). Does it work for anyone here?
Yeah National would never do anything to acknowledge that Maori hold a special status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of New Zealand and have an interest in all policy and legislative matters.
Oh wait - https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
From your link:
"Will Māori get a veto right on government decisions? The Treaty of Waitangi continues to be the basis for the Crown-Māori relationship. In some instances this does involve mutual agreement on proposals, notably Treaty claim settlements, but right of veto is not conferred."
So, nothing about overriding Te mana o te wai statements there.
What will be the top priorities for the voting public this round? For me it is that all NZ’ers should pay their fair share of tax. Based on their means and income. This has never happened in our country to my knowledge. A small segment of our society pays less than others. This should be addressed. It goes against my sense of fair play. I will be voting accordingly.
The problem is taxing the rich is hard, they are the ones that have the expensive accountants and lawyers, the will find loopholes in your tax system faster than you can pass laws, and if they can't they will just leave for a place can, and NZ will get nothing.
The people who will end up paying is not the ultra rich, it will be people in the middle that can't afford to restructure there affairs to bypass the tax laws.
Having complicated tax laws will only make accountants richer.
A great summary of the lack of choice that voters face at this election. Acts policies are similar to the UK conservatives and the UK is in a total mess. National don’t seem to stand for anything apart from keeping the wealthy wealthy. Labour are a basket case who have demonstrated that they can’t turn policy into action. The Greens lost me on the day of the Posie Parker rally when they advocated for violence against women (stomp on a Terf banners). That leaves TOP (a safe bet but will only get 1 MP at most) or TPM. I quite liked the tales of early Pakeha Māori, I don’t want a divided country, so perhaps we should all join our local Marae if they will have us.
Winston least he has the political know how has been there and knows how the system works. TOP hasn't been in parliament even close has great ideas but totally different to actually getting them pass. My concern with Winnie is his age and who replaces him and what direction the party then goes. As we have seen from this govt
TOP need to win an electorate to get that first seat and representation in the house. From there they will be able to build on the party vote in subsequent elections to get greater representation just like ACT did with Prebble (from memory). But unlike ACT in that it has taken them 25 odd years to build significant support ~15%, TOP will acquire support far quicker as it has become quite apparent that ordinary New Zealanders have become extremely disillusioned with mainstream parties.
The country has been wrecked and sold down the road to the baby boomers. it’s complete inter generational theft and no political parties are addressing the issue.
- No university fees
- No inheritance tax
- Free capital gains (tax loopholes for unproductive use of capital)
- No increase in the age of entitlement for superannuation.
NZ is a lost cause and has gone to the dogs.
I have to reply to you kos because you are wrong, wrong and wrong again.
No university fees - you couldn't even go to university without demonstrating you had the brains for it. Today it's more like a babysitting service.
There certainly was a huge inheritance tax that reduced what was inherited from their parents. I know of families that borrowed heavily to pay the tax, then the farm values and income plummeted while interest rates shot up. They lost everything.
Capital gains are only released if you sell the asset and don't replace it. They are more likely to benefit boomers children, inheritance tax free.
The age of super was raised during boomers working life by 5 years.
But the boomers certainly grew up with better music.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but something I’ve perceived the media and former labour supporters doing lately is gently trying to erode the support for ACT/National. I think they know labour is finished, and they're hoping to introduce a third coalition partner to stonewall any policy changes a new government could make. It’s one of the inherent weaknesses of MMP governance (and why I think lowering the threshold is a bad idea). Come on guys, we’ve seen what an unadulterated Labour/Green left wing coalition did, now lets give the other guys a fair go.
One of the things I dislike about a change of government - is that we then get (a minimum of) three-years solid worth of excuses that the previous government is to blame. Many (including this LAB government) do it for numerous terms. Had to turn off a Megan Woods interview on the weekend because our housing crisis was all National's fault.
Te Pāti Māori's policies are basically that nothing is the fault of Maori, everything must be blamed on colonialism or Treaty of Waitangi breaches.
The problem is these arguments don't stack up, other countries that were colonized by England like Wales, Ireland, India didn't go on to have problems with gangs and violence in their populations.
If Maori keep being so intent on blaming other things for their problems, then they will never solve the ones that only they can actually solve.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.