Saturday, 6 August 2005

Nationalists and Turia declare intentions

Tariana Turia's Maori Party has finally seen the release of substantive policy, and as expected it makes for interesting reading. The Herald has obtained a copy of the "Maori Party Policy Areas: candidate policy information pack" which for the first time clarifies Maori Party policy for those of us outside their policy committee and candidate list, and confirms that their policy is to be racist, separatist and stridently nationalist.

At the same time the National Front's national director, one Sid Wilson, has announced there will be NF candidates in the 2008 election running on a platform "promoting independent natinal sovereignty for New Zealand." Perhaps Turia's Maori Party and Wilson's bigotted thugs could form a coalition, as they do seem to have much in common. Separatism and virulent nationalism seem to be cool with both.

Turia's party policy, which the Herald reports a "spokeswoman" is at pains to distance the party from -- these are "talkling points only" she says -- includes planks making it compulsory for bureaucrats to learn Maori, compulsory for schoolchildren to learn "matauranga Maori," compulsory for property owners to consult "iwi and hapu authorities" when they wish to do anything on their land; a polcy platform that calls for energy rationing, the establishment of a "Maori council for immigration," and the prohibit of foreign tauiwi from buying freehold land.

It is a policy platform for the stone age, an age in which one senses Mrs Turia and her fellow separatists would be right at home.


  1. "The Maori Party wants to make it compulsory for all 300,000 public servants to learn Maori.

    It is part of a range of policies which include requiring new migrants to swear allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi."


    See what I mean, Hector?

  2. "Stone age" - I think that epithet should rightly be attributed to Mr Ashraf Chaudray MP.

    PC: I know you are thinking about a Treaty response to my comments in a previous post, but you've gone and made some more comments in this post that need addressing too.

    I read your link to Perigo's piece about the Treaty and did not find it wholly factual, let alone convincing.
    "It is touted as the founding document of the nation. It was never intended to have such a grandiose status." - This is the most outrageous one. Of course it was. The guy who authorised Hobson said it was, Hobson said it was, the people who signed it knew it was, it was in practice (until the hard-core racists cemented their rule). Indeed it could not be anything but the founding document.
    "As a founding document, it is woefully inadequate. There is too much that it doesn't say. What it does say is capable of contradictory interpretations." - It was effectively a set of principles that everyone could agree on at the time. Given the mandating process and the numerous parties involved it is a good start. The fact it was never revised of followed through in the spirit in which it was initiated is something we can work on. Most constitutions, if not all, are open to interpretation, Perigo's own constitution is open to the same criticism.
    "These ambiguities have permitted the creation of a grievance industry costing current generations of taxpayers, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, thousands of millions of dollars" - Taxpayers pay for Crown debt on an inter-generational basis - is this wrong too given they are also "innocent"? If the Crown is a party to a wrong-doing then it's liabilities are also inter-generational. Over two billion dollars!? Really? Where's the evidence for that?
    "the resurgence of that most insidious of diseases — tribalism: blind loyalty to one's own, blind hatred for any other. The subordination of one's own individuality to an accident of birth." - Hatred? It has provided solidarity amongst Maori more than division. How families, and groups of families can be described as a disease is a well, rather Pol Pot view of the institution of the family. Likewise Pakeha families and their family farms and trusts etc. are also a disease on Perigo's reading.
    "In part it was tribal warfare that the Treaty was designed to rescue Maori from" - That's why it was signed. It was as much a Maori peace compact under the referee of a neutral umpire as it was the establishment of a British colony. I would have thought Perigo would have appreciated that.

    But back the points in this post:

    What are the concerns with "nationalism" that you have in relation to the Maori Party?

    What is wrong with limiting land purchases to only people who have rights to be in the country?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.