Seven Sharp hosking Ignorant

Sharp Bigotry at Seven

Gareth MorganTreaty85 Comments

The announcement by New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd that he is not standing again, is a tragedy. By all accounts Andrew has been a good leader of the community and the fact that his withdrawal is over the visceral nature of some of the locals’ reactions to one of his initiatives, reflects more poorly on the public of New Plymouth than on Andrew Judd.

The matter, of course, was Andrew Judd’s initiative to create two wards on the council for Maori representation. The poll initiated by the local Grey Power group drew an 83% rejection of that idea. As it happens we at Morgan Foundation didn’t think the idea was a good way to achieve the objective Andrew had defined either [read here], although we agree totally with his objective – namely to ensure his council meets its statutory obligation and gives Maori a greater say in resource management. Just to refresh, his objective was to ensure Maori have their rights – that are well established under Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi and ratified by the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, – respected and protected. Those rights include consultation on matters around resource management, some of which Local Authorities are charged with managing.

But sadly for New Plymouth, the loudest opponents to their Mayor’s initiative objected to Maori Treaty rights being respected, let alone protected. There was, in other words, a strong element of ignorance within that community as to the rights and entitlements of the treaty partner. That was clear not only in the nature of the contributions to the public debate that the Mayor held in December 2014, but in the aftermath. The ugliest demonstration has been, as he says, the cowardly, bigoted and gross reaction he and his family have been subjected to in response.

It’s as though the hillbillies never left Taranaki, that New Plymouth hosts more than its fair share of village idiots. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that it’s the old and grey that led the opposition, given they were never taught civics or the history of New Zealand way back when they were in school. But the message sent to the young people of Taranaki, who by and large have been, is abysmal.

That would be bad enough but to then see that bastion of redneck radio Mike Hosking abusing his position as an announcer on taxpayer-owned television, was too much. To have him spew his personal preference that Maori should try standing for election if they want their rights of consultation respected, is simply unacceptable. Using State-owned media to amplify the ignorance of bigots is surely something the managers of TVNZ should be held accountable for. It is not informing the public, it is simply a shock-jock using his position to amplify ignorance – the very thing Andrew Judd has been fighting on the streets of New Plymouth.

The post-1975 Treaty of Waitangi process appears to have gone straight over the heads of many pakeha, particularly in the provinces. The blame for that has to be with the politicians of both parties, who have endorsed the process but failed to inform the constituency of the implications. They have enabled the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal to establish the treaty principles and yet here we have State-owned television fuelling public witlessness by allowing staff to present their personal unadulterated bigotry as informed opinion. If the State broadcaster is going to allow announcers to popularise their role by injecting personal comment and opinion into commentary then it’s incumbent upon the business to ensure the opinion is informed.

The time is overdue for a Treaty of Waitangi Commissioner to augment the role of the Race Relations and Human Rights Commissioners and specifically censure deliberate denigration of the treaty. How on earth can we expect the agreement to be honoured when the bigotry and ignorance of the Far Right is allowed to encroach on the standards of public broadcasting?

Hosking’s pathetic “clarification” on Friday where he argued he wasn’t a racist but repeated his assertion that if Maori need to assert its rights it needs its people to stand for election, simply confirms his ignorance of what Maori legal rights are around resource management and protection of taonga. It does not require that they have political representation at all, it requires that Local Authorities obey the law.

Hosking needs to educate himself with what the legislation requires. Of course that assumes his employers seek him to be a neutral and informed presenter. However if his aspirations are far lower – just to maximise his appeal to the redneck radio’s crowd – then I understand why he wouldn’t give a toss, the begrudging correction simply was to protect ratings. If he had any guts he’d apologise to Maori for being so uninformed and abusing the taxpayers that own his employer. Fat chance.

Sharp Bigotry at Seven was last modified: May 7th, 2016 by Gareth Morgan
About the Author

Gareth Morgan

Facebook Twitter

Gareth Morgan is a New Zealand economist and commentator on public policy who in previous lives has been in business as an economic consultant, funds manager, and professional company director. He is also a motorcycle adventurer and philanthropist. Gareth and his wife Joanne have a charitable foundation, the Morgan Foundation, which has three main stands of philanthropic endeavour – public interest research, conservation and social investment.

85 Comments on “Sharp Bigotry at Seven”

  1. nice one G….keeping it 100… it’s time for more honesty in our public debate …that means confronting bigots like Hosking and those that enable with their silence… especially when they are part of the state e.g. TVNZ management… I’m sure if they somehow had the imagination to link the rhetoric in their charters and their HR codes of conduct…to the messages they let get pushed out to our community…..they might have pause for thought… or are they simply craven addicts to ratings…….?How about an intervention to help them realise they would get ratings with balanced journalism and current affairs also…. it wouldn’t be the end of their little world to try doing their job in a way that honours their profession and “all” the people of our country…

  2. When the TVNZ article talks of votes to have Maori at the Council table, the reporter says, “This result mirrors similar votes all around New Zealand”, so it is unfair to say that this racist sentiment stops at Awakino or the Whanganui River. Indeed, Mike Hosking ends with intimating that the whole of “middle New Zealand” think like this. And the provocative line that Christians are quoting him chapters from the Bible is taken out of context – it seems that many pakeha in New Plymouth want to get in on the act, even spitting at him in the supermarket when he is with his children. No, Gareth, members of every echelon of white New Zealanders around the country would act just as badly, given the chance. Why don’t you put the cats on the back burner (not literally) and run your own poll?

  3. Just Gareth Morgan trying to buy the Maori vote. Hosking is merely the mouth piece of Key; who made it clear prior to Waitangi day he has no respect for Maori or the treaty .

    1. What is he trying to buy the Maori vote for? If he said something that affirmed your own views would you then think he was trying to buy your vote? Articulating an informed and educated opinion on an issue can be used for increasing the well-being of a society, rather than for selfish means.

      1. I also think he is misguidedly trying to buy the vote of my own demographic. He is seriously out of touch with the real world .

        Nor does he affirm my views . That the old boys club is attempting to barbarously bash bigoted policies upon the people. He confirms them.

        1. What do you think is a positive way forward with regards to ensuring Maori have a strong voice in our society?

    2. So you don’t like Morgan calling Hoskings out as being a meddling, right-wing prat, even though you seem to agree with Morgan’s opinion? That’s … a bit confusing.

  4. Mike can be very self-opinionated at times and dismissive of subjects that deserve more discussion. On this issue, I didn’t actually see it, though I have seen Mike’s explanations of his thoughts on the matter. The subjects of Maori sovereignty is important for NZ to discuss, though the behaviour of some Maori alienate lot of people in the community. This to me is a great shame as they are projecting an image that garners little sympathy and in doing so, do a great disservice to Maori in general. I suspect that if it were not for the actions of early white settlers Maori of today would be a far more law-abiding group. This would be impossible to prove, so it’s hard to say anymore, except to say that in my opinion we as people tend to be a product of our environment.

    1. “…Maori of today would be a far more law-abiding group”? Seriously?! The majority of Maori are law abiding, but unfortunately the only ones you read about in the media are the ones who attract more attention from the media…it sells. Mike Hosking may not be racist (I’m sure he has a few token Maori “friends”), but he is ignorant and he is certainly a bigot; that Hosking completely fails to understand this issue (i.e. Maori right of representation on matters pertaining to the ToW, specifically Article 2) merely highlights his ignorance. If Hosking cannot keep his ignorance in tow, then he needs to be removed from his position.

  5. Well said Gareth – for someone who is obviously very articulate and obviously intelligent, Mike Hoskings obviously does not research his subject before his rants. And let us not forget that a year ago I heard Mike Hoskings devote his afternoon radio show to climate change denial – says it all.

  6. I don’t know anything about this situation in New Plymouth, but Mike Hosking is always like that. Very pro National party, very white upper middle class views, always provides his opinion rather than reporting. I never watch Sharp because of that. Paul Henry is a bit similar, but at least he is a lovable rogue, and is quite happy to have a discussion on things – Mike just flat out tells you the way it is in his world. Really really missing John Campbell when Mike Hosking is what we are left with.

  7. Andrew clearly had courage, and a willingness to learn. Something that our Council in Hamilton has repeatedly declined to attempt. My hat is off to him, and it looks like New Plymouth will be poorer without him.
    Dave Macpherson, Hamilton City Councillor

    1. Kia ora Bro,

      The problem still remains is if your going to implement such a bold and controversial initiative that it needs lots and lots of planning and lots and lots of consultation with Maori and Non Maori.

      Andrew Judd’s way was stupid and poorly conceived. It put people on edge instead of having lots and lots of consultation.

      Again, I said a Statutory Body encompassing all groupings of Maori with a specific mandate would’ve been more appropriate!

  8. Maori trying to get elected representing a particular Maori viewpoint will never get elected, they will be elected if simply representing the majority culture, pakeha, I just wish the bigots like Hosking would put a couple of brain cells to good use understanding that a Maori viewpoint is different and it does need to be represented for what it is.
    I will never expect the likes Hosking to do this, I doubt he has the brain cells to spare.

    1. Exactly the point that people miss… the viewpoint of other cultures is different – neither right nor wrong just different.

  9. Thank you Gareth Morgan for your comment. I’m Samoan-Pakeha and a Christian & have grown up experiencing a lot of prejudice due to my ethnicity & faith e.g. “she has a touch of the tar brush”. I am glad that Andrew Judd has shared his story, and angry at 2 things: the prejudiced media headline (about Christians – the story wasn’t even about Christians!!), & Mike Hoskings.
    Unfortunately, most schools DON’T educate our children about NZ History or promote te reo Maori as required in our Curriculum. I’m a teacher & meeting many teacher trainees who have never experienced a visit on a Maori, never learnt about NZ History & Treaty from a Maori point of view & never learnt Maori language or culture at school – and the schools choosing not to do this, tend to be high decile schools.
    I enjoyed the interview by Willie Jackson with Andrew Judd. So, thanks again that there are people like yourself & Andrew Judd who write & speak well to talk about the ‘elephant in the room’.

    1. My mum got that call as a kid and she’s scotts pakeha… as far as we know anyway, brown eyes and dark hair… ; ) Sorry for the bigotry you have experienced…

  10. It’s clear that Hoskins is a buffoon, and an uninformed one at that. However, he is no more racist than the Treaty of Waitangi. To have a country where one race, any race, has greater rights than all others, is a racist travesty.
    We are all humans. Our Cou try and our laws should treat all New Zealand erstwhile fairly and equally.
    While Mike Hoskins certainly is a racist, it’s not surprising, since our country, from our founding document till today, is also racist. Hard to expect anything different

    1. This is bunkum.
      Do you have a nation in mind that espouses your supposedly utopic perspective, that is persistently welcome and well-receiving to newcomers and treats them immediately on equal terms with citizens?
      The Treaty is a mechanism of peace, business, integration, and adaptability, and was necessary in order for the existing people and the colonising people to move forward together.

      1. The treaty makes Maori subjects of the queen just like the rest of New Zealanders. However it gives them additional rights on top of that, based solely on their race. That is racist plain and simple.

          1. Diane, you are right that it enshrined their previous rights, but that is still racist. Those rights aren’t bestowed only on the Maori that were here at the time, that are given to all Maori down through time, simply because of their race. By any definition, treating any group differently than other groups, based on race, is racist.
            Whether Maori deserve their past rights is fair, is not for discussion, it’s whether All New Zealand erstwhile deserve those same rights.
            Over time, New Zealand is becoming more equitable to all by enacting laws with fairness and equality at their core. Voting and equal rights for women. Equal marriage laws and such. Is it time for all Kiwis to be treated fairly and equally or should we continue ue to have different laws for different groups within New Zealand.

          2. Removing peoples way of life by force which is what colonists have done is racist…. full stop.
            Rights are human constructs with no existence in reality, they are just words….
            A culture exists in reality and to attempt to suppress and control by force (colonialism), apartheid, etc) just does not work….. the world today is continuing evidence of that.
            Cooperation and communication works…. that is what the Treaty has offered us and we can be grateful for that…
            Marcus, that we are becoming more equitable is certainly debatable…. look at the poverty we now have and the shift of wealth from the many to the few……

          3. You have the wrong interpretation – the treaty does not give maori any more rights than what you have today. I think you have confused the idea of getting extra benefits mixed up with making amends for the rights lost and the economic and social impact that comes with it over time . The treaty gained international legal status because it was not upheld as a legal agreement and abused by the crown.

            Maori have accepted that we can’t just take everything back, it doesn’t make economic sense and would be destructive to OUR country, we recognise that we are not in a position to fill all the important roles well enough.

            Laws born from inequity are not fair and equitable, the same laws which only shift when the voting public (who are not a true reflection of New Zealands total) can tolerate the change.

            I think you would be surprised to hear that everytime Moari gain access to a greater slice of the paradise we share, you too would also gain from that same access. The one exception would be the attainment of beneficiary status to one of the registered iwi bodies as that would require genealogical ties.

            Sadly NZ already has different laws for different groups and we do need to increase the enactment of fair and equitable laws as it is time for all Kiwi’s to be treated fairly and equally. I think the real question or debate is on what constitutes fair and equitable, internationally we are not meeting that standard even though we are one of the better countries at doing so – sadly we do have the potential to lead by a far greater margin.

          4. In this discussion, I’m not concerned with what’s happened after the treaty, but with the treaty itself.
            To paraphrase (I don’t have a copy of the treaty handy) Maori have all the rights of other citizens of the crown PLUS customary rights. Those customary rights are for Maori only. Getting into what defines someone as Maori is a separate issue also. I will note that in Canada, to be considered Native/First Nation, the person must demonstrate they are at least 50% Native/First Nation. I’m not aware that a similar rule is in place in NZ.
            Whether that was a reasonable concession at the time is open for separate discussion, but as those customary rights are only bestowed on people by race, by any definition, that is racist.
            Racism, in all its forms must be abolished.

          5. I hear your position but you definitely need to read more widely in order to get a greater understanding that customary rights are the polar opposite to being a form of racism.

            To suggest so is a common thread used by those who know better – very crafty people these people are (and I dont suggest this to be you) so others (and perhaps this is where you may fit in) take up the idea (as it is sensible and at face value a reasonable thought) and wave the banner on behalf of those who sit in seats of influence or power. In other words, influential people have given a lot of thought to this idea and used it to mobilise others with intent.

            Your position loses traction if we ask what constitutes race when it
            comes to human beings? Then we can arrive at the understanding that there is only one human race. And if we don’t ask that question, your position sounds plausible.

            Under your idea, If the treaty itself is racist then all trade agreements that NZ has entered into can also be considered as racist. They too have sections that give agreed advantages to each country involved with the purpose of protecting the citizens and their market.

            On almost all occasions in practice such rights provide a greater benefit for all NZ’ers. I.e. closing a beach for 6 months due to a death, leads to the food supply to replenishing itself significantly.

            On further thought customary rights are no different than the property rights that you and I live by today. As you need to ask what are customary rights and how are they realised?

            I hope you really do mean, racism under all forms does need to be abolished. As this suggests you are willing and therefore capable of changing your view as you get to understand more.

            Take care

  11. Hosking represents EVERYTHING that is wrong with New Zealand – the tut-tutting so called ‘disaffected’ showing no tolerance, respect or acknowledgement of those not him.

    Judd made a wonderful move that was ultimately defeated by fear & stupidity. Seven Sharp did a wonderful, respectful article & then this TWAT destroyed it with his pathetic editorial post article. I despise this bastard so much.

  12. “Using State-owned media to amplify the ignorance of bigots is surely something the managers of TVNZ should be held accountable for.” A good argument for privatising State-owned media. Or should the “Far Right” be excluded from the debate completely because the left are abhorred by the prospect of equality and one law for everyone, regardless of ethnic origin?

  13. i for 1 reckon that any body who stands for public must earn it – no handed on a plate because of race or creed – your just a sorry old man who thinks his opinion is important

  14. I would love to know Gareth’s family tree as I am sure we must be related, back in the Old Cymru
    ( my mother was a Morgan ! ) as I have just as vehement opinions as he does. Usually more sensible and sensitive, though. But I don’t like Hoskins

  15. Living in the north is a great place to check your inherent prejudice give me Hoskings for a week and I will blow him out with a few of the bros up here he will be as quiet as a lamb when he goes back if he gets back that is cheers

  16. Hosking exemplifies the racist attitude that Andrew Judd has decided to retreat from. That he uses his position to promote racist attitudes is just one of the reasons I will not watch his programme. Shame on you Hosking Go and educate yourself.You are so 20th century..

  17. Very, very, very disappointed and saddened by the whole New Plymouth demonstration of ignorance and bigotry. Couldn’t agree with your more on this, Gareth. Greypower in that provincial town should be ashamed of themselves on this one. As for Hosking, never watch him and never listen to him .. even Paul Henry is somewhat more intelligent.

  18. So support Andre Judd. And I would prefer if we could live in a world where Mike Hosking had no public voice.

  19. Great peice the TOW Commissioner was an interesting idea too. Perhaps i should be nicer to you Gareth lol

  20. Hi Gareth came to this on Facebook. A well written article. Mike Hoskings is definitely racist, as are most Pakeha institutions and most Pakeha. Your paragraph on the positions of both side of the political spectrum is entirely true, and uninformed editorial comment by Mike maintains the racist position. He’s a particularly strong face and voice of this racism. It is not overt racism but racism that comes about through complete ignorance of the facts of history. I have run Treaty training workshops for organisations. Organisations do these workshops only where they must fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. The surprise I see when Pakeha understand for the first time the literally 100’s of breaches of the Treaty that are actually Acts of Parliament is remarkable. The lights come on! Andrew Judd should withdraw his resignation, he gets the big picture. The grey power of Taranaki – Taranaki where some of the worst perpetrations of colonisation occurred – should read a book or ten on NZ history.

  21. Taranaki is my maunga and my ancestors have been here since 1856 but I despair of New Plymouth attitudes some of the time. I well remember seeing a dummy of David Lange hanging in Devon Street. Go well Andrew, the battle is not over and right will win.

  22. I think Maori do receive a pretty good representation in NZ media and there are very positive stories on the TV screens. Similar size communities are less well represented. It’s a sad and disturbing thing that Maori are overly represented in stories of crime, admittedly blue collar crime. My argument is that we rarely ask why. Is it because of historic discrimination, or a surge in numbers of Maori boys growing up without the steadying hand of a present father, or perhaps is it just statistics. Maori and the PI community are relatively young (a median age 10 to 15 years younger than the national average). In this case there are a relatively large proportion of young Maori and PI people in the community. I suspect we also have a problem with discipline. In the European and Asian community self discipline is normal where-as in other communities children grow up with more discipline administered from parents, some of which is now illegal. How to solve this problem needs to be faced by everyone in the community, including political organisations.

  23. Hoskings is more like a shock jock pretending to be a journalist. He is no different from Hone Harawira in that he is paid to say dumbthings that your average ignorant Pakeha lacks the courage to say. He is a bi-product of the shocking dumbing down of the media that has under our woeful and visionless New Zealand management.

  24. Declare the Treaty and all the bullshit that goes with it null and void! End the special treatment for Maori! One set of rules, one system for all!

    1. When someone says one rule, one system, etc, I wonder whose rules,
      system are they refering to? The original inhabitants system or the
      colonisers system? If China used their sheer numbers to come here &
      impose their system & religion etc how would we feel if they said
      ‘one rule, one system’ meaning THEIR system? As for the original treaty
      (Te Tiriti) 1840 and He Whakaputanga 1835, they are both recognised
      Internationally (International Law) and cant be made null and void. The
      Crown (NZ Company) has done a good job keeping it supressed but many are
      now waking up and learning about the power it provides EVERYONE in
      Aotearoa. Thanks to the brilliant minds of our Native ancestors we can
      all be free of this system full of corupt individuals.

    2. The treaty effectively was voided and done so wrongfully, so the system NZ abides to has nudged the crown to bring back some honor to their end of the bargain – it just so happens to be rolling out in our life time. The special treatment for maori has yet to begin neither have we asked for it – we have lived under one set of rules and one system and we know we can’t get full compensation without ruining the nation. We are each working with government to sort out how to best arrive at a settlement, some of us have been lucky and done so already. And thank you, we are doing quite well to live with all the bullshit that comes with it. So making that null and void is a great idea.

  25. Just to be brief in regard to TV media oh boy haven’t things been going south lately & yes isn’t Mike Hoskins a fantastic youthful looking 50 year old tory twat & in the mean while we also have Paul Henry aka mole man to deliver leanings that favour blue stocking camp. Although some might have negative views of Campbell Live but at least they did achieve some good in various communities by raising issues & coverage but with the replacement ‘Story’ I find these hosts very peripheral & follow through on very little plus readily opinionated on subjects.

  26. Apart from the specific treaty implications there is the comprehensive review carried out by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance that considered a wide body of submissions and evidence and recommended that 3 of the Auckland “Supercity” seats should be for Maori elected from the Maori parliamentary roll. (refer chapter 25). There is also a Human Rights Commission report on Maori representation in local government as well as NZ being a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All of which is lost on Mike Hosking and his tax paying funded employer.

  27. Mike Hosking has long been been known as the voice of National Party Policy on News Talk ZB so his diatribe on 7 Sharp was not in the least surprising. He has used that radio show to espouse “His Master’s Voice” while couching politics in lively yet shallow banter so his opinions as to this embarrassing affair in New Plymouth were depressingly predictable.

  28. The racist invariably introduces himself with “I’m not racist but … ” As for “being out of touch with middle New Zealand” that is precisely the place one needs to be. It’s a putrid core of bigotry which pulls it confidence from it’s mutual agreement to remain ignorant of anything resembling facts in order to spout their venom. Hoskings is just their nasty little cheerleader who not only maintains the status quo, but entrenches and validates it.

  29. Gareth, I’m struggling to understand why this article states five times that Hosking made these statements on a government-owned television station. Why? Bigotry is bigotry. It would have been no less worse if the statements had been made on a privately owned station.

  30. If local authorities are not obeying the law, why have they not been prosecuted? I don’t believe you.

  31. This is the complaint I lodged with the Broadcasting Complaints Authority

    The story entitled “Christians are quoting the bible to me – New Plymouth mayor resigns following racist taunts” that was screened last Thursday evening described how Andrew Judd and his family have been subjected to harassment and abuse as a result of Mr Judd’s attempts to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and create an opportunity for Maori perspectives to be acknowledged in his mayoral role. Andrew Judd explained that since becoming mayor he has made a concerted effort to better understand the Treaty of Waitangi and that these new understandings have made him conscious of how little he knew about our nation’s history and how poorly Maori have been treated. As a mayor he has tried to address this issue by making public his views about the need for people to better understand rights and responsibilities under the treaty however as a consequence of this thinking and his attempts to provide opportunities for greater Maori representation he has been marginalised from certain organisations and he has been regularly subjected to racist comments from a range people in his community.

    Seven Sharp hosts, Mike Hoskings and Toni Street each made comments following this story. In the first instance Mike Hoskings stated that Andrew Judd was “completely out of touch with middle New Zealand” and Toni Street commented that the problem was Andrew Judd did not make his views about Maori clear to people when he was elected. By naming Andrew Judd as the problem rather than acknowledging that the racist attitudes of the people Andrew Judd has engaged with as the problem is very concerning. These responses from Mike Hoskings and Toni Street effectively condone the acts of racism that were detailed in the story and as broadcasters they have a responsibility to highlight how unacceptable racism is rather than support and perpetuate it – which is what I have they have done in this case.

    In a country where many citizens are seeking the healing and reconciliation that is necessary for a genuine bicultural partnership, people of influence such as mayors and broadcasters have the opportunity to start and/or join conversations that might help move us towards a more equitable partnership. Andrew Judd started this conversation in his provence. In response to this Mike Hoskings and Toni Street joined the conversation and choose to identify their own perceived shortcomings in Andrew Judd (he’s out of touch and he did not communicate his views) rather than condemn the racism. Their decision not to condemn the racism sends a message that they support people who have clearly racist disposition. It is dangerous in any society to have broadcasters on primetime television sanction racism in anyway and we cannot afford to do this in New Zealand. As mentioned I believe their responses to the story perpetuates racism and is therefore a breach of the broadcasting standards.

    1. Toni Street commented that the problem was Andrew Judd did not make his views about Maori clear to people when he was elected.
      He claims he had an epiphany (post election).

      1. Yes jh – I agree Toni Street did comment that the problem was located with Andrew Judd rather than locating the problem with the people who were marginalising and abusing him. She failed to acknowledge that he became conscious through his mayoral duties of his own racial attitudes. If you take what she said at face value she essentially stated that he did not make it clear to people that he was a recovering racist before he was elected so he ultimately bought this on himself. She missed the point that he did not know that at the time of election he did not realise he held racists views and attitudes. In his own words he said he was ignorant.

        I notice that Mike Hoskings is copping a lot of flack and there are not as many people calling Toni Street’s response in to question. I’ve followed and admired her growth and progression through journalism – but I was deeply disappointed by her response to this issue. I’ve reviewed footage of the interview on Thursday and last night and she has done little to recover the respect I once held for her.

        I’m especially guttered in light of Miriana Kamo’s comments on Marae on Sunday which I’m sure you have seen. It seems that TVNZ have effectively asked their Maori broadcasters to front the issue and recover some of the audience that they may have potentially lost but…….surprisingly the people who caused the offence have not been asked to front at all.

  32. A quote from Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:

    “Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. [ ….]

    People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.

    So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background
    The Treaty is now holy writ seen as linking noble savage to modern society, where noble savage will use a distilled ecological wisdom to manage voracious industrial society. Ideas about justice were never based on societies where settlers occupied lands which were previously the exclusive properties of tribal collectives (at least I don’t think so).

  33. There was, in other words, a strong element of ignorance within that
    community as to the rights and entitlements of the treaty partner.
    more likely a rejection of the whole notion that the treaty is healthy for NZ society “going forward” (or “moving forward ” if you prefer).

    I don’t think it is racist to reject this notion. It implies affirmative action. Are we to believe a Maori with something to say can’t get elected because he is Maori? No, it is because he is using the back door (The Treaty) or appealing to unique (and by implication superior) cultural attributes.

  34. I’m happy to shelve my more radical views for the most part. Now that they’ve been stated they don’t need mentioning just yet. It’s only a great idea to have Maori representation on Council so long as it’s the law to do so. All we’re then asking for is Pakeha law to be applied. How can less favourable Pakeha have a problem with that? We’re asking for law abidance, although we really ought to be able to demand it. Then those in opposition can’t say “Maori are making us do this” but they can say “The law is making us do this.” They don’t have to like it, they just have to comply.

  35. “Of course that assumes his employers seek him to be a neutral and informed presenter.” He isn’t. He never has been. For one, he’s fully in the National supporters camp, that he should seriously not hold any broadcasting positions when it comes to the Elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *