RNZ, te reo Māori and Brash

Ki te tangata?

An increased use of te reo Māori on Radio NZ has been a talking point for some time.

It doesn’t bother me, but I think it is overdone at times.

But it has bothered Don Brash. Late last month:

There was a response by Emma Espiner at Newsroom: The threat of Te Reo

It’s become a running joke among friends and family that my husband, vampire-like, feeds on and grows stronger with each criticism of his use of Te Reo in his role as co-presenter of RNZ’s Morning Report. What’s less of a joke is the sustained attempts by some, who agree with Brash, who are fighting against the use of Te Reo and against Guyon and RNZ in the form of BSA complaints and letters to RNZ’s managers, CEO and Board.

I dislike the ‘old white men’ argument where one simply says those three words and the offending viewpoint is rejected because of its provenance without any further need for debate.

It’s good to see her saying this.

What’s interesting to me as a Māori woman, is the way that my Pākēhā husband has been able to champion Te Reo into the mainstream in a way that it would be impossible for me to do, were I in his position. As a Pākēhā man with a powerful role in the New Zealand media he has a position of extraordinary privilege from which to challenge the status quo. He has strong support in this endeavour among the leadership of RNZ, most importantly from other noted Pākeha man, CEO Paul Thompson.

Over at TVNZ Jack Tame is cutting a similarly admirable path on the flagship Breakfast show.

The complaints about Te Reo being used in mainstream media give me great heart looking to the future. This positive response might surprise some, but I believe we can view these people (and they’re always the same people) as the rearguard of progress.

As society shifts, they will continue to yap at our heels and protest, but the trend for Aotearoa is against bland mono-culturalism and fearful mono-lingualism.

A decade ago it was Māori Television. Today, it’s using Te Reo on Morning Report and Breakfast TV and putting macrons in newspapers.

In ten years time these things will be completely normal and there will be another battle, which the rearguard will again resist and lose.

There is definitely a trend. In the main I am fine with this. But not so Brash – and Kim Hill wasn’t fine with Brash over it.

She interviewed him on 2 December, if ‘it can be called an ‘interview’: Don Brash – Ragging on Te Reo

He has weighed into the debate about the use of Te Reo in the past few weeks, saying he’s “utterly sick” of the use of the language by RNZ reporters and presenters.

I haven’t listened to that, but I saw a lot of comment about it. It is still being talked about.

Karl du Fresne: Don Brash didn’t stand a chance against Kim Hill

The first was to think he could criticise a high-profile Radio New Zealand presenter on Facebook and get away with it. The second and much bigger mistake was to accept an invitation to explain himself on Kim Hill’s Saturday morning radio show.

Inevitably, Brash was savaged. It was as close as RNZ will ever get to blood sport as entertainment.

Brash described Espiner’s flaunting of his fluency in te reo as “virtue signalling” – in other words, displaying one’s superior moral values.

For this offence against the spirit of biculturalism, the former National and ACT leader was summoned for a discipline session with Radio NZ’s resident dominatrix.

The result was entirely predictable. Hill was acerbic and sneering from the outset.

She didn’t bother to conceal her contempt for Brash and neither did she bother to maintain any pretence that this was a routine interview, conducted for the purpose of eliciting information or expanding public understanding of the issue.

It was a demolition job, pure and simple – utu, if you prefer – and I doubt that it was ever intended to be anything else. Its purpose was to expose Brash as a political and cultural dinosaur and to punish him for criticising Hill’s colleague.

Perhaps, but it could have been more than that. Hill may have also thought that Brash was a political and cultural dinosaur.

Then du Fresne gets to the crux of his complaint.

Here’s where we get down to the real issue. RNZ is a public institution.  It belongs to us.

The public who fund the organisation are entitled to criticise it. But can we now expect that anyone who has the temerity to do so will be subjected to a mauling by RNZ’s in-house attack dog? Or is this treatment reserved for despised white conservative males such as Brash, to make an example of them and deter others from similar foolishness?

Either way, Hill’s dismemberment of Brash was a brazen abuse of the state broadcaster’s power and showed contemptuous disregard for RNZ’s charter obligation to be impartial and balanced.

I presume Brash was given some sort of right of reply in the interview. I don’t know if he was given a decent chance to defend himself.

This is nothing new, of course. The quaint notion that RNZ exists for all New Zealanders was quietly jettisoned years ago. Without any mandate, the state broadcaster has refashioned itself as a platform for the promotion of favoured causes.

I often listen to Morning Report, it looks at a wide range of topical issues in far more depth than most other media, and generally seems reasonably fair and balanced.

Interviewers do sometimes push their guests hard – but this is essential, in politics in particular. It is a sign of a healthy democracy.

But Brash has a perfectly valid point. Whatever the benefits of learning te reo, it is not the function of the state broadcaster to engage in social engineering projects for our collective betterment – for example, by implying we should all emulate RNZ reporters and start referring to Auckland as Tāmaki Makaurau and Christchurch as Ōtautahi.

Social engineering? That seems over the top. RNZ is not making me use te reo Māori, and I generally don’t. Also, I learn something from their use if it. That’s a good thing.

There’s quite a bit on RNZ I don’t want to listen to. If so I turn it off (increasingly frequently when John Campbell gushes over the top in another crusade).

RNZ does many things very well and my quality of life would be greatly diminished without it, but no one will ever die wondering about the political leanings of many of its presenters and producers.

RNZ is often referred to as ‘Red Radio’.

Some of the RNZ presenters have fairly obvious political leanings, to varying degrees. That’s normal in any media. I can make no judgement of their producers, I don’t listen to them.

But te reo Māori is cultural, not political, so du Fresne seems to be confused.

Brash criticised Guyon Espiner in particular, someone who seems more balanced and non-politically leaning than most journalists in politics.

Du Fresne’s article has morphed from a grizzle about the use of te reo Māori, to a grizzle about Kim Hill doing a tough interview on the poor Don Brash, to a grizzle about some radio presenters appearing to favour one side of the political spectrum.

I could go to The Daily Blog or The Standard and find plenty of claims that media is far too right wing. This is just lame ad hominum from them, and that is what du Fresne resorted to in trying to conclude his argument against the use of te reo Māori on RNZ.

Perhaps that should be ad hominum/ad feminum (Latin seems to be a sexist language).

Or should it be ki te tangata? What about ki te wahine? (Māori seems to be a sexist language)

But at least du Fresne is talking about it. RNZ successfully getting a point across. You will inevitably annoy some people when you try and make cultural progress.

68 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  December 17, 2017

    Sitting here in London this whole argument seems to me to be pretty silly and a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. Brash is an idiot, Espiner can be a virtue signalling twit, but the basic point here is twofold.

    Radio NZ is a public broadcaster, Maori is an official language of New Zealand, so therefore what is the big deal if some of the broadcasters on the station wish to speak in Maori? It should be acceptable, and it shouldn’t be something that is controversial.

    I don’t like Espiner, I wouldn’t listen to him, but if I were to listen to any broadcaster in NZ and they used Maori (or Te Reo if you prefer) I wouldn’t care, it should not be something for anyone to score points off. I am as comfortable of having someone speaking Maori on air as I would be of seeing more of local TV programmes being done in NZ Sign Language (also an official language of NZ).

    • Blazer

       /  December 17, 2017

      your Green credentials get better…by the..day.

      • I don’t see any Green connection here at all.

      • Missy

         /  December 17, 2017

        Green credentials? What, because i think there is nothing wrong with national broadcasters actually using the official languages of the country?

        Wow, the bar is pretty low for ‘Green credentials’ if that is the case.

    • Mefrostate

       /  December 17, 2017

      Why wouldn’t you listen to Espiner? He’s one of the best interviewers in the country.

      And how is it virtue signaling to literally learn Maori?

  2. Gezza

     /  December 17, 2017

    Or should it be ki te tangata? What about ki te wahine? (Māori seems to be a sexist language)

    As is sometimes also the case with “Man” in English, “tangata” means man, individual, person, or human being, depending on context.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  December 17, 2017

    How do you define cultural progress?

    • With difficulty. For better or worse culture always progresses, usually slowly through retention of historic practices.

      Perhaps in this context multicultural progress is a better label.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 17, 2017

        I think it is meaningless. You can have progress for individuals, for groups and for nations. That’s all.

        • Gezza

           /  December 17, 2017

          That’s correct, Sir Alan, but sometimes the group can be people belonging to a particular culture, (or religion).

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 17, 2017

            Exactly. And that is how it must be viewed and judged. So I wonder how te reo on RNZ is functioning. Is it increasing Maori audience? Giving non-listeners needed emotional support? Supporting Espiner’s marriage? Annoying the non-Maori audience? Improving the latter’s virtue self-image?

            Inquiring minds want to know.

  4. Corky

     /  December 17, 2017

    It boils down to Brash having a viewpoint as valid as his opponents. The difference is the way two opposing sides argue their point… many of those opposing Brash become personal and vindictive.

    This argument is a little more serious then many suspect. Above you will see what I assume is a Police vehicle. Even if that vehicle is only for promotional purposes, we have a problem. The Police are meant to apply the law without favour. They must make their identify known at all times when dealing with the public. Good luck if you are a foreigner wanting help. Even someone from Remuera may get confused.

    Those who think Brash and his generation of supposed mono cultural racists are on the decline are only half right. It’s true a younger generation is more at home with Maori culture. However, with the demise of Brash and co will go much knowledge of how New Zealand was rorted by the treaty reparation process and the concerted effort of schools and public organisations to inflict stoneage protocols on modern society.

    Trust me, simmering racial tensions still abound in New Zealand. One major incident and
    Espiner is toast, while bumbling old Don will gain currency again. Brash is playing a smart game. Always polite, never getting personal to my knowledge. Just waiting for his big break. That may come as an attachment to the global revolt against liberal lunacy.

    • Blazer

       /  December 17, 2017

      don’t like the chances of a foreigner…who lives in..Remuera.

    • Gezza

       /  December 17, 2017

      1. Brash is a doddery old monocultural bigot – and while you try to portray his wilful Pakeha ignorance as a virtue he insults thousands of individuals – an entire ethnic & cultural group with his attacks on Maori language & culture – as you do – and he does so publicly, often, & as a (now largely irrelevant) public figure. So of course he gets criticised back by right-thinking, informed critics.

      2. The Treaty Settlement process is not a rort. It’s an inadequate but generally honest & well-intentioned effort to try & recognise the many wrongs done to Maori, make amends & give compensation, and return stolen lands or lands they were chested out of where possible. The fact is, most Pakeha recognise that & support it.

      3. You’re Maori-bashing as usual. Maori bashers & Pakeha bashers are a pain tbe arse.

      • Gezza

         /  December 17, 2017

        * pain in the arse. (Worth repeating again anyway, imo!)

    • Missy

       /  December 17, 2017

      “Above you will see what I assume is a Police vehicle. Even if that vehicle is only for promotional purposes, we have a problem. The Police are meant to apply the law without favour. They must make their identify known at all times when dealing with the public. Good luck if you are a foreigner wanting help. Even someone from Remuera may get confused.”

      I agree with reference to the markings, but there is no reason why the wording cannot be in Maori, it is after all an official language and should be used by Government organisations. As long as the markings are consistent then people will know it is a police car no matter what is written on it.

      In Ireland they don’t put Police in English on their cars – or their jackets – but you still know they are police.

      • Corky

         /  December 17, 2017

        I must disagree with you, Missy.

        1- As I understand it, Gardia ( shortened version of full name) have always been known and branded as such since their inception. Our police have always been known and branded as
        ”New Zealand Police’ basically since their inception( with some minor changes).

        2- Yes, you are correct, most people should realise what a police car looks like from its markings, and the general look of the vehicle. But that’s not good enough. You must always take the lowest denominator into account. English is a universal language. Police is a word most will understand, and allows for no second guessing. The New Zealand Police car above could pass as a community patrol vehicle.

        3- Personally, I don’t have a problem with police vehicles being identified in Maori. What I have a problem with is the process of why they are now marked in a Maori.

        • Gezza

           /  December 17, 2017

          What was the process?
          It’s good thing imo. Pakeha learn the transliterated Maori word for Police.
          If your speeding ticket was all in Maori, maybe then you’d have some grounds for whining.

      • Blazer

         /  December 17, 2017

        I thought poms called the Police…the..’filth’…

  5. Corky

     /  December 17, 2017

    Just an amendment to my above comments. I didn’t mean to convey the Treaty reparation
    process wasn’t needed, or was unjust. My point was the process was rorted by Maori, the Waitangi Tribunal and the law fraternity.

    Those wanting to understand how this rorting was enacted, need look no further then the Ngai Tahu settlement. The litany of historical settlements, and triple dipping is unbelievable.
    Of course, few bother to research, therefore no one is held to account and Don Brash and I are racists.

    • Gezza

       /  December 17, 2017

      My point was the process was rorted by Maori,
      What? All of them? Every hapu? Every iwi? Every Maori?

      Of course, few bother to research, therefore no one is held to account and Don Brash and I are racists.
      Well, I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s nothing to be proud of! You need to stop forever classifying people into the tiny number of boxes your limited perspective can cope with, imo.

  6. artcroft

     /  December 17, 2017

    In South Auckland the correct term for the police is “Popo”.

    • Corky

       /  December 17, 2017

      What happened to the rose garden? You are meant to be dead.

      • Gezza

         /  December 17, 2017

        True. What happened Arty? Did you get arrested, or are ya a piker?

      • artcroft

         /  December 17, 2017

        Madam Zeroni of Madam Zeroni’s Seance services advised the Great Beyond is crowded and hideously expensive this time of year. I May look into to it again in June. But no promises.

        • Gezza

           /  December 17, 2017

          Did you check both places out? Heaven’s above the clouds – cooler up there – be a good place be in the heat of summer. In June you might be wanting to end up somewhere warmer?

    • Blazer

       /  December 17, 2017

      In Remmers its…’the ..fuzz’!

  7. patupaiarehe

     /  December 17, 2017

    I really don’t understand what Don’s problem is. He has lived in this country for several decades longer than I have, but by his own admission, doesn’t understand the very minimal amount of Te Reo that is spoken on RNZ, yet I do. IMHO, he should just shut his mouth.

  8. Will someone tell me what an “official” language is?

    Kim contended that it was in the RNZ charter to promote The Reo… whatever “promote” means. But if it means that they should drop in the odd well-recognised Maori term I don’t think anybody would mind. In fairness to Don Brash he stated that he didn’t mind that or even whole Maori sentences if they were repeated in English so he could learn from them. What he objects to are a string of words that to him are just nonsense. Kim responded that they were at least pleasant to listen to.

    I would say that is an acquired taste.

    • Mefrostate

       /  December 17, 2017

      NZ has two official languages with legal recognition: Maori & NZ Sign Language.

      English actually has no legal status, but is recognised as de facto.

      I agree that there’s a matter of taste as to whether a non-speaker finds Maori pleasant or annoying. I personally like hearing bits of it, even though I don’t speak it, as it’s part of my cultural heritage & identity as a NZer. I have no idea why Brash’s opinion on this particular issue should be given more weight than my own.

      Certainly one of his strongest points is that it’s the lack of understanding that is his problem. But the logical conclusion of that argument, combine with RNZ’s charter, is for RNZ to use more Maori (with translations) not less. But I don’t hear Brash making that argument, which is why I don’t take him as genuine on this matter.

      • Gezza

         /  December 17, 2017

        Don Brash is a dyed-in/the-wool, old-style, out-of-touch white guy who thinks learning Te Reo Maori is a waste of time and of no practical use, that Maori are getting too much attention & taxpayer money, & that everything done to redress genuine generational grievances & remedy the countless breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that began within a year of its signing is separatism, & they should just get over it. It’s casual racism, but he truly is just too thick to realise it, imo.

        The local Primary School, where I voted, is a large school with a roll of mostly (by far) Pakeha kids, and kids of immigrants from other countries, e.g. India, Cambodia (we have a large population, they keep the Catholic church here struggling on), Filipino, Chinese. But Maori-style art, motifs & Maori or bilingual signs are prominent everywhere. It just isn’t going to be an issue for the next generation. They’ll understand the prominence rightly given to Te Reo & things Maori because they are the first people of this land.

        I’d like more live English translations of Maori provided when its used on tv or radio, & on Parliament TV. In fact I intend to email Speaker Trev in the New Year to ask why this isn’t being done when all the MP’s in the Debating Chamber are receiving instant translations through their earpieces. I’ll report back.

        I don’t think translations will stop people wanting to learn Maori. In fact I think it might even encourage more to learn it.

  9. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    In ten years time these things will be completely normal and there will be another battle, which the rearguard will again resist and lose.
    ……………
    Very democratic view. It reminds me of David Cormack (ex Green Party staffer):
    David Cormack:
    No one thinks immigration is a good thing , which I think it is a good thing. You know they tend to come in and fill roles which we traditionally don’t fill. They add diversity and they’re human beings that we are talking about, and it is just so sick of our political parties using it as a dog whistle of populism which is so upsetting in the New Zealand political landscape.
    Lisa owen:
    “would they do it though if the public wasn’t interested?’
    David Cormack:
    That isn’t a reason to do something. You don’t do what the public thinks is right: you do what is right. They don’t necessarily mesh up.
    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2017/05/panel-david-cormack-and-heather-roy.html

    Some peoples view are worth ten time others.

  10. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    Gezza you sound like a Maori trougher – a good job as a “professional Maori”. The reason the Taranaki was invaded was because a hapu sold land when the Iwi should have been consulted.

    The fact is that this is just tokenism.
    —————–
    The changing face of New Zealand
    From Nine To Noon, 11:28 am on 10 October 2017

    The year they are predicting Asians will supercede Moari is 2023. So the recent population growth (immigration) is bringing those tipping points forward.
    Ryan: Weve had four years of record high. And that was not anticipated.
    Are we pretty much now just about the most diverse country on earth?

    Spoonley: Absolutely we are. One of the key elements of those projections is the growth of the Asian populations (and I want to pluralise that). And when you look at the country or a city like Auckland it is much higher than any comparative city. Not Vancouver, Vancouver is higher. But in terms of a city like Sydney then the proportion of Aucklands population that is predicted to be Asian is quite a bit higher than those type of cities. And by the way, we track across to London and we think, gosh, we are in quite a multicultural place here, but when you look at the total Asian population, the proportion relative to the local population we still beat them.
    ……..
    Multiculturalism began as an extension of the principle of the separation of church and state which aims to ensure no religious group is marginalised. Multiculturalism is a duplication and extension of that model repurposed to address cultural and ethnic tensions by separating nation and state. The state is just a vehicle for economic exchange with no assumed national mission and no people for whom the country exists. Under multiculturalism NZ belongs to everyone and no one in particular. This is in direct contrast to the idea that Maori are tangata whenua. The Chinese say “we are a family” but in NZ a Maori has no more status than a a Chinese tour bus driver with residency. To build this model they have had to erode the fact of a full and settled country of Maori and Pakeha [1840 to 1970’s].

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 18, 2017

      All the new immigrants are simply swelling the ranks of Pakeha … in direct harmony with Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and with Maori remaining, as always, tangata whenua …

      Fictitious phantom fear-mongering ‘False Flag’ problem solved.

      • sorethumb

         /  December 18, 2017

        “All the new immigrants are simply swelling the ranks of Pakeha”
        ……………
        Leaving aside the economic and environmental effects, what of the social effects? I don’t think there is anything in the theory behind multiculturalism that says immigrants will be Pakeha. Is a Japanese migrant a Pakeha? In fact multiculturalism provides state resources to foster ethnic identities. Pakeha are a distinct people [1840 to 1970] . 90% of Maori have Pakeha ancestry.

        The present generation of Maori leaders abide by the agreement of their ancestors to allow immigration into New Zealand from the countries nominated in the preamble of the treaty, namely Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom. But, for any variation of that agreement to be validated, they expect the Government to consult them as the descendants of the Crown’s treaty partner. The Human Rights Commission endorsed that position with its recommendation to government that the Treaty of Waitangi should be considered in any decisions on immigration policy. The Commission’s advice was not properly heeded.
        Ranganui Walker.

        • Gezza

           /  December 18, 2017

          * Ranginui Walker.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 18, 2017

          I would say the Commission’s advice was quite properly rejected.

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 18, 2017

            Okay, according to many Maori nowadays, there are three categories, hapu iwi Maori – tangata whenua – European – Pakeha – and non-Maori – all the other ethnicities ….

            Doesn’t change what I was trying to say one iota, though I may not have made it clear.

            Hapu iwi Maori are the tangata whenua ‘partner’ in the Tiriti o Waitangi relationship. Pakeha and non-Maori are the other ‘partner’, under the jurisdiction of The Crown.

            Like all relationships, its an ongoing one … a work in progress …

  11. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    How many Maori want to learn Te Reo? How much of this is from bonkademics?

  12. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    The loss of Te Reo is a tragedy but being swamped by foreigners should be “celebrated”? How PC!

  13. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    But te reo Māori is cultural, not political, so du Fresne seems to be confused.
    ……………
    This article sets out to investigate a language-planning project carried out by a dissident Israeli political group known as the Young Hebrews (otherwise the ‘Canaanites’) from the mid-twentieth century on. Language-planning, defined as ‘the authoritative societal assignment of scarce resources to language’1 or as ‘efforts to influence language behaviour’,2 is much more than that. Yasir Suleiman points out that ‘behind the immediate or declared aims of language-planning proposals’ there are ‘underlying motives’,3 which are ‘ultimately aimed at non-linguistic ends’.4 Robert Cooper details them as follows: ‘consumer protection, scientific exchange, national integration, political control, economic development, the creation of new élites or the maintenance of old ones, the pacification or cooption of minority groups, and mass mobilization of national or political movements ’.5 Language-planning should be understood, then, as attempting to resolve socio-cultural issues via language.
    https://watermark.silverchair.com/fgx028.pdf?

  14. sorethumb

     /  December 18, 2017

    Gezza / December 17, 2017

    1. Brash is a doddery old monocultural bigot
    ….
    calling someone monocultural is bigoted. It is like someone who studies German and French calling someone who studies engineering monocultural.

    Definition of bigot
    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (*such as* a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    • Gezza

       /  December 18, 2017

      He’s living in a bicultural country. So are you.

      Tell me more about the professional sex therapists you mentioned – the bonkademics?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 18, 2017

        Multi-cultural. Bi-lingual.

        • Gezza

           /  December 18, 2017

          Bi-cultural, multi-ethnic.
          You can stick multi-culturalism where the sun don’t shine.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 18, 2017

            Rubbish. We have Chinese, Indian, Samoan, Tongan, Rarotongan, various European, British, Kiwi, South African, Australian, American, Greek, South American, and various Maori cultures in New Zealand.

            • PartisanZ

               /  December 18, 2017

              What about bicultural multiculturalism …?

            • Gezza

               /  December 19, 2017

              No we don’t Alan. Not here anyway. Look at what happens to their young children and those born here. I see it around here. They’re as kiwi as anyone else. As they should be if we want social harmony to be preserved. There’s no colour bar or cultural bar with the boyfriends and girlfriend around here, and they all sound just like kiwis. Many of them belong to cultural groups though. Their parents like them to, & I have no problem with that. But if they want to experience their own culture they go back to where their parents came from. As they should do.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 19, 2017

              Immigrants are essentially bicultural as they integrate. Following generations move the balance. The picture is fluid, not static.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 19, 2017

              No, Gezza. Immigrant children move between two cultures and often two languages. They belong in the Kiwi culture but also in their parents’ culture at the same time. They experience their parents’ culture here and incorporate some of it into their own lives and that of their children.

            • Gezza

               /  December 19, 2017

              What they do Alan, over a couple of generations, is assimilate. It’s when they don’t, can’t, or won’t, that you get enclaves & trouble.

            • Gezza

               /  December 19, 2017

              Anyway, late enuf for me. I’ve got a gig at a Rest Home tomorrow and have to do an hour or so practice at least before then.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 19, 2017

            Curious that what you prescribe for immigrants is somehow different for Maori? They are to stay out of the melting pot as some kind of fossil species?

          • sorethumb

             /  December 19, 2017

            Two cultures in one space is an artificial construction. If there is good will they will over time merge into a common culture.

            I can understand how Maori feel, culture is a bit like staring in a movie, with a set and characters; bi, or multi is like several movies being filmed in the same location.

            Blending Te Reo on Morning Report is not the answer. One language always knocks out another. They exist primarily for communication.

            Maori lost when large numbers of Pakeha arrived. The ship pretty much had a full crew when Labour decided the “infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in the future”.

            Greg Clydesdale
            As places like Browns Bay are turned into high rise centres, natural elements will be replaced by man-made structures; parking and access to the beach will become more difficult, and the gentle beach culture will be replaced by something very different. Intensification represents a significant change in New Zealand’s life-style, as stand alone dwellings have been, by far the most popular form of dwelling (Auckland Regional Council 2003). But does change signify a cost? In Australia and North America, there is strong evidence of community resistance to intensification in an effort to preserve the character and heritage of neighbourhoods. This suggests that to at least part of the community, it is a very real cost, but how widely are those values shared?

            One simple way to assess whether intensification is a cost or not, is simply to compare what people are prepared to pay for a stand alone housing unit compared to what they will pay for a multi-dwelling unit. There is a need for more research, but an indication can be provided from an interview with a local real estate agent who stated:
            It is hard to make a direct comparison because values can vary from suburb to suburb and street to street within those suburbs, but a stand alone building can be 30-90% more than an equivalent one in a unit. To get the same price, townhouses have to have other features like a view or very modern interior (Mahon 2006).

            The fact that people are prepared to pay substantially more for a stand alone dwelling suggests that intensification has a very real cost.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 19, 2017

              The fact that people are prepared to pay substantially more for a stand alone dwelling suggests that intensification has a very real cost.

              No, it suggests that sharing one plot of land amongst many people via vertical layering has a significant cost advantage which is hardly surprising. Therefore those who do not need a garden area for children or leisure are happy to economise.

  15. sorethumb

     /  December 19, 2017

    Gezza / December 19, 2017
    The Treaty. It’s a contract.
    ….
    Smart Talk at the Auckland Museum: The Treaty of Waitangi
    Paul Spoonley sounds broadly supportive of Maori except, he says nothing about the Treaty and Maori rights to be consulted over migration. He is a supporter of high migration and ethnic diversity which supports my thesis that the tokenism of Te Reo on the Morning Report town square is partly a response to a rapid switch in demographics.

  1. RNZ, te reo Māori and Brash — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition