Reclaiming the language of ‘Māorification' from the gutter
Comment: Somewhere between the polar extremes of re-indigenisation not having gone nearly far enough and conspiracies of a 'Māori elite' preparing to take over, the dubious term Māorification has found a new niche.
Last month a primary teacher's disparaging social media use of the term, criticising a NZ Teaching Council submission opposing the Government's failed Treaty Principles Bill, resulted in threats of deregistration.
The context was that the council made a submission on the bill on behalf of teachers, but it did not represent her view. She was 'fed up with the indoctrination going on in the education sector. The Māorification of school life is going too far.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scraping the bottom of the barrel
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they often do. That is precisely what we have seen politically this week when it comes to the behaviour of our politicians. As if Leader of the House Chris Bishop's ill-conceived and poorly controlled ramblings at the Aotearoa Music Awards about a Stan Walker performance featuring Toitū Te Tiriti banners and people waving tino rangatiratanga flags weren't enough, the country had to endure even ghastlier behaviour in Parliament on Thursday. The debate about whether to endorse the recommendation to suspend three Te Pāti Māori MPs really showed New Zealanders the worst of Parliament. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi have now been barred from the House for seven days, 21 days and 21 days respectively for performing a haka in Parliament during debate last November about the waste of time, energy and money that was the Act party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill. Their intimidatory behaviour towards Act MPs then was at the core of the complaints considered by the Privileges Committee. Despite efforts by Opposition parties to reduce the length of the recommended suspensions, the government on Thursday ratified the committee's recommendations for punishments which, in the case of Ms Ngarewa-Packer and Mr Waititi, are the most severe ever handed down to MPs. While there can be little doubt that the behaviour of the three MPs last November was threatening and failed to meet the standards of Parliament, the severity seems unnecessarily vindictive. Interestingly, an RNZ poll of just over 1000 people, with a margin of error of 3.1 %, now shows that most respondents – 37% – think the punishment is 'about right" while 36.2% consider it too harsh. It is 'too lenient" in the minds of 17.2% of those surveyed. Of Labour Party supporters, 8% believe it should have been tougher, as do 3.8% of Green Party followers and, surprisingly, 9% of Te Pāti Māori supporters. The poll shows 54.2% of respondents either support the penalties or think they were too weak, a reflection of the government's view. While the impromptu haka by the three was seen by some as unacceptable and a breach of parliamentary protocol, it was Ms Ngarewa-Packer's foolish mimicry of shooting Act MPs which was the worst and most intimidatory action that day. The second she put her two fingers together, made the pretend gun and pointed it at Act leader David Seymour and colleagues marked the start of this whole sorry saga – though of course it can also be argued the real start came with the introduction of Mr Seymour's divisive Bill, allowed to happen by a prime minister too focused on stitching up a coalition deal with him at the top. The inciting incidents, the response and the reactions this week leave a stain on the reputation of Parliament. Some of the grandiloquence in the House on Thursday was vituperative and unwarranted. NZ First leader Winston Peters went way too far when he likened Mr Waititi's moko to scribbles, though he did apologise after the Speaker's intervention. Mr Waititi also stepped over the line by bringing a noose into the House. It was a bit rich for Mr Peters to tell RNZ it was a sad day in Parliament when he played a significant role in making it that. Parliament is no place for shrinking violets. We have seen that time and time again. It has had more than its share of biffo and nastiness over the years, which never led to suspensions anywhere near the length of those rubberstamped this week. Let us hope we don't see the like of this miserable drama again. Saw that coming It was always going to be a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us". The implosion in recent days of United States President Donald Trump's simpering friendship with Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been both highly predictable and highly amusing. Mr Musk has become increasingly caustic and is now calling for Mr Trump to be impeached. In turn, the president wants all Mr Musk's government contracts to be cancelled. When two such massive egos meet, there can only be one winner. Who that will ultimately be remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's be honest, the feud provides some much-needed light relief.
1News
12 hours ago
- 1News
David Seymour defends role in Oxford Union 'stolen land' debate
Newly minted Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says his self-funded trip to participate in the Oxford Union is worth doing despite his growing workload back home, because the world can learn from New Zealand's experience. Seymour has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. Oxford Union claims to be the "most prestigious debating society in the world'', on its website. Established in 1823 with a commitment to freedom of speech and expression, the union's members largely remain University of Oxford students. The Deputy Prime Minister has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Seymour was opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates RJ Hauman and Art Arthur. The proposing side are historian Aviva Chomsky, Palestinian peace activist Nivine Sandouka and Australian Senator and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Mehreen Faruqi. Both sides will also include a student speaker. "I believe we're one of the most successful societies that there are in a world that is very troubled in many ways," Seymour told 1News. "A country like New Zealand that does practise the rule of law, that has sought through treaty settlements to right the wrongs of the past, that does welcome migrants." Seymour said he thought the invite was a prank until he saw that Labour MP Willie Jackson had participated in a debate at the union last year. He is opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates. (Source: Breakfast) On now being linked to the group of distinguished people that have spoken at Oxford Union events, Seymour said humour was his best chance for standing out. ADVERTISEMENT "Albert Einstein's been here, so I'm not the smartest.,They've had people like Elton John, so I'm not the most famous and I don't know if I'll be the funniest, but that's probably the best area to compete," he said. Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson critical of moot Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi has criticised Oxford Union's debate topic of "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land," saying discussing topics like this under the principle of freedom of expression is "ultimately dangerous". Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi. He says this principle creates "opportunity for more embedded stereotypes which will damage not only current generations but also future generations of indigenous communities who are in the process right now of reclaiming and reviving their own identity, culture and political authority". Kapa-Kingi helped lead the hīkoi to Parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which failed at the second reading in Parliament. He's also been critical of Seymour participating in the debate, saying it's problematic. ADVERTISEMENT "He has neither the qualification nor the lived experience to talk either about illegal immigration or the colonisation of indigenous cultures, particularly through the theft of land… "Also, given David Seymour's most recent track record in terms of the Treaty Principles Bill and most recently the Regulatory Standards Bill, direct attacks on indigenous rights, tangata whenua (Māori) rights in Aotearoa, this is a provocative move inviting him to partake in this debate concerning those exact rights.' Kapa-Kingi said he questions the integrity and credibility of the debate, perceiving the event as a "deliberate attempt to incite what will inevitably be hateful rhetoric, damaging rhetoric to indigenous communities". Parliament punishment, free money?, getting wicked again (Source: 1News) Kapa-Kingi said Māori with formal qualifications and lived experience would be a better pick to take part and 'carry the kōrero with respect, honour and in a way that's genuinely productive and genuinely thought-provoking". Seymour has rejected the comments, saying everyone is allowed to share their perspective on an issue. "I think that they need to start respecting each person's dignity and right to have views and share them, instead of trying to say that some people are less able to express a view which seems to be exactly what they believe.' ADVERTISEMENT Seymour claimed the protest group divides society "into victims and villains and we should each know our place". "Well actually I think that we all get a time on earth and should be able to make the most of it, share the ideas that are important for us, throw away the ones that we don't like." A long history of distinguished guests As well as debates, the Union has a long history of hearing from distinguished people from around the world. This has included Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa and Malcolm X. Controversial speakers have also been invited over the years, sparking dramatic protests. New Zealand's most famous Oxford Union debate moment came in 1985 when former Prime Minister David Lange responded to a student speaker that he would answer his question, "if you hold your breath just for a moment... I can smell the uranium on it as you lean towards me!" David Lange at the Oxford Union event in 1985. (Source: TVNZ) Lange won the debate, arguing that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" and drawing international attention to New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
