|
|
Post by fish on Sept 24, 2024 21:16:13 GMT 12
afaik labour created some kind of list of 'maori businesses' a business needs to prove it is 50?% owned by 'maori' to get on this list it is handed out to all gov. owned/run? companies and they are instructed to direct a certain amount of their spending towards 'maori businesses' on the list i have a friend who is a 'builder' and employes a varying number of carpenters etc for commercial and private construction his father is 'maori', his mother non-maori, so he is 'maori', he owns his building company with his non-maori wife because his family is registered? with an 'iwi?' he qualifies as a maori-owned business and hopes he can get extra work out of gov. for building projects etc. 2020 electio nmanifesto Labour will support Whānau Māori enterprise and opportunities through a progressive procurement policy that would set a target for Māori business procurement.
We want to back our whānau in business and help build their financial, governance, and leadership skills. To help do this we will support whānau Māori enterprise and opportunities through a progressive procurement policy that would set a target for Māori business procurement and facilitate greater strategic alignment of business support for Māori SMEs. It would also consolidate targeted access to finance to grow Māori enterprise and support Māori to access and deliver training and development opportunities for existing and emerging employment or enterprise initiatives.
www.labour.org.nz/maori-manifesto
jacinda said she'd build houses...but she didn't...instead she did things she carefully didn't go into the 2017 election talking about
deep structural change to how nz was run
www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/employment-strategy/maori-employment-action-plan/why-we-need-this-action-plan
It is funny, because all major organisations are required to have policies around corruption and bribery, and make their staff do mindless eLearning modules on said policies. Forming a requirement to spend money, especially public money, on certain business for reasons other than commercial value is in contravention so many requirements and laws it just isn't funny. I am very surprised that such a policy can even get past the Attorney General for breaching so many other laws around non-competitive behaviour, corruption and racial discrimination. But yeah, does sound like an Adhern special. I guess Watercare adopted the policy during the Goff years of Auckland Council. I wonder how many other CCO's have the same requirements? No wonder the natives are kicking up so much about the proposed Treaty Principles Bill, they have a lot of easy money to loose... |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 25, 2024 0:03:58 GMT 12
Now that Māori are finally getting a long-overdue boost after over 150 years of brutal discrimination, the white racists are popping up to whine and cry foul. Where the hell were they when they were needed? Oh, right—they were busy stomping on Māori rights and enjoying their own privilege while upholding unwritten, de facto white race-based biases and policies that kept them on top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 25, 2024 6:33:10 GMT 12
So the solution to Racism is more Racism.
Sorry, not going willingly down that track.
Its not just "white" that don't support racism
Your prejudice and racist attitude's are showing, your entitled to have them, I'm entitled to not agree with them.
Policies and bias towards competence is exactly what this country needs, if Maori cant foot it against and Indian or Asian dont blame the Indian or Chinaman, and its not a valid reason to dumb down requirements to let Rangi have a go at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 25, 2024 7:29:34 GMT 12
I don't think the solution to past discrimination is more racism, and that's not what I'm advocating for. But it's important to recognize the systemic inequalities that still exist. The purpose of policies aimed at uplifting Māori isn't about 'dumbing down' or promoting racism—it’s about leveling a playing field that’s been tilted for far too long. Competence should be the standard, but how do we expect fairness when some groups have been denied the same opportunities and resources for generations? It’s not about blame—it’s about correcting historical wrongs and giving everyone a fair shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 25, 2024 11:10:38 GMT 12
I don't think the solution to past discrimination is more racism, and that's not what I'm advocating for. But it's important to recognize the systemic inequalities that still exist. The purpose of policies aimed at uplifting Māori isn't about 'dumbing down' or promoting racism—it’s about leveling a playing field that’s been tilted for far too long. Competence should be the standard, but how do we expect fairness when some groups have been denied the same opportunities and resources for generations? It’s not about blame—it’s about correcting historical wrongs and giving everyone a fair shot. Do you think Tau Henare should even say he wants a Maori to be in the job though? Obviously he can say whatever he wants, but that's an absurd statement imo. I want the best person in the job, if they happen to be from a savagely colonised minority that cross dresses and identifies as a road cone, that's fine, as long as they are the best person. Years ago when Tipene O'Regan (at least I think it was him) was asked if someone from Ngai Tahu was going to be their CEO after the big treaty settlement he said - I want the best person we can get in the job. ie - nothing to do with race. And who was their first CEO? A honky from Merivale of all places, the Remuera of Christchurch. “If there is ever someone Ngāi Tahu needs to build a monument to, it is Sidney Boyd Ashton,” says Uncle Trevor. “ Without him we would have been broke so often it isn’t funny.”
ngaitahu.iwi.nz/opportunities-and-resources/publications/te-karaka/history-never-repeats/Clearly he was all about MEI. Merit. Excellence. Intelligence. Why watercare would be any different is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 25, 2024 13:28:23 GMT 12
Do you think Tau Henare should even say he wants a Maori to be in the job though? Obviously he can say whatever he wants, but that's an absurd statement imo. Did he actually say that? it's not in the article that fish linked. What is in the article is that: a board, unanimously recommended a Māori candidate for the role. But the appointments committee agreed Williamson's amendment behind closed doors. So they challenged the appointment in court arguing it was procedurally unlawful. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 25, 2024 14:45:35 GMT 12
One has to wonder why 'The Appointments Committee' doesn't have the power to make appointments.
One has to wonder why 'The Appointments Committee' is being dictated to by an unelected race based panel.
The arguement by those opposing the Treaty Principles Bill is just getting schizophrenic.
Calls anyone 'white racists' for calling out race based privilege apportioned to Maori, but in the very next breath says that more racism isn't the solution to past racism. Schizo much?
Surely, if more racism is not the solution, then we should enshrine in law that everyone is equal?
Then the country could move on and focus on rebuilding social and economic harmony?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 25, 2024 19:17:50 GMT 12
One has to wonder why 'The Appointments Committee' doesn't have the power to make appointments. One has to wonder why 'The Appointments Committee' is being dictated to by an unelected race based panel. They aren't being dictated to. They didn't follow the rules they are required to follow. You, me, Joe Bloggs or anyone else had the right to challenge the appointment process becuase they broke the rules, pretty simple really. I don't understand how you are failing to grasp this, given how much value you seem to place on wanting everyone to be equal in a democratic society. The arguement by those opposing the Treaty Principles Bill is just getting schizophrenic. I can't speak for others, but personally I do not oppose a Treaty Principles Bill, but I do oppose the proposed principles that ACT have put forward, and I know that many others oppose these as well. Surely, if more racism is not the solution, then we should enshrine in law that everyone is equal? Then the country could move on and focus on rebuilding social and economic harmony? Because everyone is not equal. I also am struggling to understand why you cannot understand this very simple fact. You know that Maori have been marginalised for over 100 years. Yet you think that now, after all that abuse that they should just accept it and make do with what they have been dealt. That's not equality, that's just maintaining the status quo and keeping you and I in our priviledged positions. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 25, 2024 21:08:41 GMT 12
Do you think Tau Henare should even say he wants a Maori to be in the job though? Obviously he can say whatever he wants, but that's an absurd statement imo. Did he actually say that? it's not in the article that fish linked. What is in the article is that: a board, unanimously recommended a Māori candidate for the role. But the appointments committee agreed Williamson's amendment behind closed doors. So they challenged the appointment in court arguing it was procedurally unlawful. Good call, I don't know if he did say that. But the point remains, whatever the MSB is and whoever is on it, shouldn't be calling for the head honcho of an advertised position to be of a certain race. Change that situation around to say, someone in council calling for the new CEO of an organisation to be Ngati Pakeha and the sky would definitely cave in. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 25, 2024 21:18:28 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 26, 2024 0:09:28 GMT 12
Did he actually say that? it's not in the article that fish linked. What is in the article is that: a board, unanimously recommended a Māori candidate for the role. But the appointments committee agreed Williamson's amendment behind closed doors. So they challenged the appointment in court arguing it was procedurally unlawful. Good call, I don't know if he did say that. But the point remains, whatever the MSB is and whoever is on it, shouldn't be calling for the head honcho of an advertised position to be of a certain race. Change that situation around to say, someone in council calling for the new CEO of an organisation to be Ngati Pakeha and the sky would definitely cave in. Wait, wait, wait, I see where you are going with this and what end of the stick you have gotten, they didn't call for the position to be that of a certain race.The candidate that they put forward was Maori. They didn't say, we want it to be a Maori person, we don't care who, but it has to be someone Maori - which if I am correct seems to be how you interpreted it? They put forward an actual candidate, a real person, who they thought met the requirements of the position, who, of course, also happened to be Maori. Then the councillors didn't follow due process when making the appointment and so their Maori candidate didn't even get a look in, and so here we are. Fundamentally this is the problem that Maori continue to face, they got tossed to the bottom of the pile, they didn't even get considered and the process which was put in place to ensure that everyone got a fair crack at the job was thrown out the door, the white guys literally gave the position to their white mate. This is the very problem - this is what has been happening to Maori for the last 150+ years. And we have just seen it happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 26, 2024 5:48:15 GMT 12
Wait, wait, wait, I see where you are going with this and what end of the stick you have gotten.
I think technically you have a point, they didn't call for the position to be that of a certain race, but, the candidate that they put forward was Maori - and could only ever be Maori.
They're a 'Pro Maori Organisation' (nothing wrong with that), but they were never ever going to recommend anyone other than a Maori candidate.
So they've cut out ~83% of the population based on race.
That's my gripe.
Choose the best person, skin colour is irrelevant.
In the application for judicial review, chair David Taipari said a panel had unanimously recommended a Māori candidate for the role, but the appointments committee has agreed Williamson's amendment behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 26, 2024 17:09:00 GMT 12
Apart from the comedic 100+ years call that is just so much more marketing bullshit than the truth....which comes as no surprise, money has a habit of screwing with truth, reality and transparency.
I'm not entirely sure many in this thread actually understand why Seymour made the bill. Ducky sure doesn't and I don't think he's alone.
What do you think Seymour wants with this bill?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 26, 2024 17:49:33 GMT 12
Apart from the comedic 100+ years call that is just so much more marketing bullshit than the truth....which comes as no surprise, money has a habit of screwing with truth, reality and transparency. Serioulsy? Are you just not good at maths? The treaty was signed in 1840. 1. The last time Maori had land confiscated was in the 1960's. 2. In the 1970's kids were still being punished in school for using Te Reo in their lunch breaks!! I could go on... Both of those are Maori rights that the Crown promised to protect. So I don't know where you learnt to do maths, but when I went to school, that's over 100 years since the Crown made its promise. I'm not entirely sure many in this thread actually understand why Seymour made the bill. Ducky sure doesn't and I don't think he's alone. What do you think Seymour wants with this bill? How about you answer my question first? Which I have already asked and no one on this forum has answered. What do you think are appropriate principles for a future Treaty Principles Act? Or are you just following Seymour and accepting what he put forward cause he's the expert? For the umpteenth time, I don't disagree with having parliament define the treaty principles, I disagree with the principles that ACT has proposed. I even gave some suggested principles. If we're going to have a debate about what should go into a Treaty Principles Bill and what would make for a good list of principles then surely this is a good place to start? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 26, 2024 18:09:39 GMT 12
Didn't know there was a quiz. The thread is discussing racism, not Seymour's bill so haven't been watching that closely.
The treaty is written and it contains no Principles.
Can I suggest as most know there are no principals nor sees any need for them, bar you of course, your question is moot.
If you want principles then that means modifying the treaty. If you try to do that again without taking the country with you you'll end up exactly where we are today.
And as I mentioned and you confirmed in your last post, are you sure you understand what Seymour is trying to achieve? Nothing you have written suggest you do.
|
|
