UMR- make sure you don’t poll many Maori.
Michael Cullen has flicked out a media release today - see update below - saying that UMR polled 750 people on the Foreshore and Seabed Act in December, and 56 percent of them have said the Act strikes a balance between the rights of Maori and the rest of the population. Most Maori do not support the Act.
Of Maori, 34 percent considered the Act deprives Maori of rights they should have, whereas just 7% of non-Maori thought so.
But of the 750 polled, just 65 were Maori. And I bet most of those polled don`t even understand the legislation and a majority don`t even have strong views either way. If just 15 percent of the poll were Maori, Cullen would not have put out a release, for reasons that are obvious.
The Treaty of Waitangi is partnership, and F&S Act, while with an eye on the treaty, was opposed by most Maori. In a day celebrating a vision of cooperation and partnership, of Maori and Pakeha working together to build something new, Cullen puts out a media release knowing full well the majority of Maori and a good minority of non-Maori will disagree with its contents.
UPDATE
Nigel, in comments, maintains the Treaty has nothing to do with partnership.
The landmark 1987 Court of Appeal case New Zealand Mäori Council v the Attorney General saw the special relationship between the Mäori people and the Crown as one of an ongoing partnership, requiring the partners to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith towards each other.
Cullen, in his recent speech said,
"What is sometimes very slippery about the concept of partnership is who the partners are. Again in my view it is abundantly clear they are the government (or the Crown) and Maori, whether whanau, hapu, or iwi. That is who signed the Treaty."
I have long considered that the Treaty is not a partnership between two races as has sometimes been argued, but that does not stop Maori and non Maori working together as mentioned in my post.
However, I do not agree that the F & S Act is about redress as I do not think that past wrongs are adequately addressed.
2 comments:
The treaty has nothing to do with partnership. There are three articles:
1. Establishes government by the Crown
2. Guarantees protection for Maori property rights (no problem at that time since governments used to respect everyone's property rights)
3. Guarantees equal treatment under the law
The partnership concept directly contradicts articles 1 and 3, and is not required to satisfy article 2.
I agree that F&S is crap though. According to the treaty, all property should be owned by someone, either the Crown or Maori, with full and exclusive title to do with as they please.
Dave
I went to the Act part's F&S conference in parliament last year, I enjoyed it though I felt a little out of my depth.
It seemed to me that I was one of the few non-lawyers there and everyone seemed to know everyone else too.
The point that i walked away from was that the speakers from the Maori side were all godd thoughtful and credible people and well established both in life and achievements and relationships with that room.
They all seemed to give the impression that the Maori owned the whole country and we (non-Maori) stole it off of them.
there was also an undercurrent from some of them that we were 2nd class citizens as they as the tanga whenuea (sic) were the top bods.
now I wasn't born Kiwi so haven't that baggage (just me own) but being in this company in that place did make me wonder if this will ever be sorted ever.
just an observation.
best
Mike
Post a Comment