New Zealand may get referendum on changes to their democracy.

[soylentgreen]

It has been recommended that a referendum be held in which we get to vote on the seven points in this link. And for the record I would agree with all these points.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...ed-to-16-party-threshold-to-3-point-5-percent

An independent panel of experts has been considering public submissions on nearly every aspect of electoral law, commissioned by former Justice Minister Kris Faafoi in May last year.
The draft recommendations include:

• Lowering the voting age for general elections to 16 and extend overseas voting rules
• Extending voting rights to all prisoners, not just those sentenced to less than a three-year jail term
• Holding a referendum on extending the Parliamentary term from three to four years
• Lowering the party vote threshold from 5 to 3.5 per cent and abolishing the coat-tail rule
• Restricting political donations to registered voters, rather than organisations, and capping them at $30,000 to each party and its candidates per electoral cycle while reducing the amount that can be anonymously donated
• Rewriting the Electoral Act to modernise its language (e.g. eliminating references to faxes)
• Requiring the Electoral Commission to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

[joluoto]

It has been recommended that a referendum be held in which we get to vote on the seven points in this link. And for the record I would agree with all these points.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...ed-to-16-party-threshold-to-3-point-5-percent

Sounds like good ideas to me.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sounds like good ideas to me.

But apparently not one worth discussing on this site.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It has been recommended that a referendum be held in which we get to vote on the seven points in this link. And for the record I would agree with all these points.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...ed-to-16-party-threshold-to-3-point-5-percent

These are all outstanding suggestions, which would further advance New Zealand from its current position as the best hybrid prop rep system in the world.

I particularly like lowering the voting age, granting the vote to all felons, and restricting donations to individuals. I'm not sure about the Treaty of Waitangi: if this means autonomy for Maori regions it may leave them poor.

The Parliament has 49 party list members (not counting overhangs) so it should be possible to lower the threshold for representation all the way to 2%.

 

[soylentgreen]

These are all outstanding suggestions, which would further advance New Zealand from its current position as the best hybrid prop rep system in the world.

I particularly like lowering the voting age, granting the vote to all felons, and restricting donations to individuals. I'm not sure about the Treaty of Waitangi: if this means autonomy for Maori regions it may leave them poor.

The Parliament has 49 party list members (not counting overhangs) so it should be possible to lower the threshold for representation all the way to 2%.

The treaty of waitangi basically was an agreement that the maori would retain ownership the land and the pakeha ( whites) would have the right to govern. It is more complicated than just that but that is the gist of it.

Could lower it to 2% but that would mean we would need more seats in parliament which means more politicians. Before they lower the percentage I want to know how many more seats that willl create.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The treaty of waitangi basically was an agreement that the maori would retain ownership the land and the pakeha ( whites) would have the right to govern. It is more complicated than just that but that is the gist of it.

It is within the power of the Australian High Court to grant ownership of traditional lands, but this only looks good on a map. Most of the arable land and even a lot of the grazing land, has already been "alienated" by Federal law.

Did the Maori get a better deal? Undoubably! It goes right back to the British, and their understanding that invading and occupying mountain and forest land is not worth the loss of life and treasure. Most of Australia is plains and scant vegetation. Most of NZ is mountains or forest. It suited the invaders of Australia to brush the natives aside and take the land. But in NZ it was not so easy: Maori had a firm grip and to maintain colonies on the coastal land, the best course was a treaty.

Sadly for Australian Aborigines, there is no going back. They do not get a treaty. But they can still get common law ownership of some good land (in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia). Perhaps some day even their own State.

Could lower it to 2% but that would mean we would need more seats in parliament which means more politicians. Before they lower the percentage I want to know how many more seats that willl create.

My suggestion of 2% was based on 48 seats being "party list". So let's make it 2.1%

 

[soylentgreen]

It is within the power of the Australian High Court to grant ownership of traditional lands, but this only looks good on a map. Most of the arable land and even a lot of the grazing land, has already been "alienated" by Federal law.

Did the Maori get a better deal? Undoubably! It goes right back to the British, and their understanding that invading and occupying mountain and forest land is not worth the loss of life and treasure. Most of Australia is plains and scant vegetation. Most of NZ is mountains or forest. It suited the invaders of Australia to brush the natives aside and take the land. But in NZ it was not so easy: Maori had a firm grip and to maintain colonies on the coastal land, the best course was a treaty.

Sadly for Australian Aborigines, there is no going back. They do not get a treaty. But they can still get common law ownership of some good land (in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia). Perhaps some day even their own State.



My suggestion of 2% was based on 48 seats being "party list". So let's make it 2.1%

Much of australia was agricultural land to the natives. But when the colonialists showed up they destroyed what the natives had done and then introduced their methods of agriculture. Now most of australia is considered not agricultural land.

No that is crap. Considering the british went into those mountains and forests to fight the natives. The british lost because they did not invest an army of soldiers and the plain fact that the maori were better fighters than the british.
The aboriginals lost because they did not create a collective but instead fought as individuals or small tribes. And the fact that the british considered the natives to not be human and therefor treated as just a pest to be got rid of.

That is not how the aboriginals live. they are nomadic not settlers. America tried the same on their natives and basically it is just a slower form of genocide.

If they lower the percentage they will raise the number of seats. It is inevitable. 2% is to low. Even those ****ing christians could get a seat at that point and why would we want to give a seat to the weird shit parties.

 

[Bodi]

These are all outstanding suggestions, which would further advance New Zealand from its current position as the best hybrid prop rep system in the world.

I particularly like lowering the voting age, granting the vote to all felons, and restricting donations to individuals. I'm not sure about the Treaty of Waitangi: if this means autonomy for Maori regions it may leave them poor.

It doesn't. The Crown/current government, retains legal power. Maori have land rights... but not completely. Almost all of of their land was legally purchased. It was like the Native Americans though... they were pressured and manipulated. Most Maori tribes were singular. There was no Maori Nation prior to this and not all tribes signed the Treaty. Additionally, many tribes were divided and parts of the tribe sold land without the rest of the tribe agreeing. It is a mess and in the end, ownership is 9/10ths of the law.

 

[Bodi]

Much of australia was agricultural land to the natives. But when the colonialists showed up they destroyed what the natives had done and then introduced their methods of agriculture. Now most of australia is considered not agricultural land.

The desert of Australia used to be agricultural lands?

I think that you mean that Aborigines were farmers... not that the hostile wasteland of Australia was an Aboriginal Oasis of Agriculture.

 

[soylentgreen]

The desert of Australia used to be agricultural lands?

I think that you mean that Aborigines were farmers... not that the hostile wasteland of Australia was an Aboriginal Oasis of Agriculture.

Yes the so called deserts was land that aboriginals used to grow food and hunt animals in. Only the white colonialists thought of it as a desert.
Actually no. I meant that the aboriginals were farmers. Just not in the same way the colonialists understood farming. In fact the colonialists did not even consider it to be farming.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-1l1gv.html

Rather, Gammage argues, the first Australians worked a complex system of land management, with fire their biggest ally, and drew on the life cycles of plants and the natural flow of water to ensure plentiful wildlife and plant foods throughout the year. They managed, he says, the biggest estate on Earth.

 

[Bodi]

Yes the so called deserts was land that aboriginals used to grow food and hunt animals in. Only the white colonialists thought of it as a desert.
Actually no. I meant that the aboriginals were farmers. Just not in the same way the colonialists understood farming. In fact the colonialists did not even consider it to be farming.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-1l1gv.html

Sure... same as the Mojave dessert in CA. The Chiricahua and Navajo did the same in the South West... But it is still a desert.

 

[ldub23]

It has been recommended that a referendum be held in which we get to vote on the seven points in this link. And for the record I would agree with all these points.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...ed-to-16-party-threshold-to-3-point-5-percent

Sounds like more totalitarianism like under corona.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sure... same as the Mojave dessert in CA. The Chiricahua and Navajo did the same in the South West... But it is still a desert.

Only in white colonialist terms. And then only because the colonialists insisted on transplanting the english country to australia . Or as in the case with america.
The colonialists ignored what the natives knew.

I am always reminded of birk and wills australian explorers who died of thirst in the australian outback only meters away from a source of water that they did not know about because they considered their being white made them smarter than the aboriginals who could have told them there was water near by.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sounds like more totalitarianism like under corona.

You will have to explain that kind of reasoning.

 

[ldub23]

You will have to explain that kind of reasoning.

Simple, none of those points are designed to never allow totalitarian dictatorship again.

 

[Bodi]

Only in white colonialist terms.

Incorrect. It is in Scientific Terms.

There is nothing wrong with the desert.

Do you think that the Nepalese argue that the Himalayas are not mountains... that it is is just white European term?

And then only because the colonialists insisted on transplanting the english country to australia . Or as in the case with america.
The colonialists ignored what the natives knew.

I am always reminded of birk and wills australian explorers who died of thirst in the australian outback only meters away from a source of water that they did not know about because they considered their being white made them smarter than the aboriginals who could have told them there was water near by.

They all died in creek beds and at waterholes... it was vitamin deficiency that they died of. They respected the Aborigines enough to use their style of food for the journey.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Much of australia was agricultural land to the natives. But when the colonialists showed up they destroyed what the natives had done and then introduced their methods of agriculture. Now most of australia is considered not agricultural land.

Well yes. Aborigines knew how to use roots and herbs which were just poison to the British. They also hunted the unique wildlife which was adapted to the vegetation. Even today, it would be far more practical to farm kangaroos than to farm cattle, but Australians won't buy it. Actually kangaroos is a very low-fat meat, and not at all bad tasting (I've eaten it.)

No that is crap. Considering the british went into those mountains and forests to fight the natives. The british lost because they did not invest an army of soldiers and the plain fact that the maori were better fighters than the british.

We don't disagree that much. Maori put up a fight, and the terrain favored them. I stand corrected that the British tried, however invading without occupying is pointless, and the British could see that occupation was "not worth the lives and treasure."

The aboriginals lost because they did not create a collective but instead fought as individuals or small tribes. And the fact that the british considered the natives to not be human and therefor treated as just a pest to be got rid of.

It was all about land. As long as Aborigines gave up land, and retreated to land which (for now) the British did not want, there was no reason to slaughter them. But when Aborigines disputed ownership (even just by taking animals) they got a taste of White Man's Law: "power issues from the barrel of a gun."

That is not how the aboriginals live. they are nomadic not settlers. America tried the same on their natives and basically it is just a slower form of genocide.

"Slower?" America's native wars were far more violent, with far greater causalities on the Native American side.

My take on it is that Native Americas were not so ignorant of what European concepts of land ownership would do to them. Rather than being a huge isolated island, they had information connection to South America where the Spanish (mostly) devastated native populations. Europeans were tolerated in the Northeast, furthest from this inter-tribal communication. But as they spread West they encountered Native Americans with horses and even guns.

There is a bright side though. Plenty of good land in the North and North-West of Australia was never alienated. Most of the population of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal. They will never have their own country, but they could some day have their own State.

If they lower the percentage they will raise the number of seats. It is inevitable.

Not seeing how that is necessarily bad. 120 is a very small Parliament by global standards.

2% is to low. Even those ****ing christians could get a seat at that point and why would we want to give a seat to the weird shit parties.

Weird shit voters deserve representation, just as much as anyone does. Would you rather have a two-party Parliament, like the United States?

 

[Ug make hammer]

The desert of Australia used to be agricultural lands?

No, but even before European invasion forced them there, some Aborigines lived in desert regions.

Finding water is obviously the hardest part. But there are some plants, and where there are plants there are animals.

I think that you mean that Aborigines were farmers... not that the hostile wasteland of Australia was an Aboriginal Oasis of Agriculture.

Yes they were farmers, and graziers. They used fire to flush out animals, then speared them or trapped them.

In the long history of Aboriginal Australians, it is possible that they caused the deserts. Looking at North Africa and the Middle East, which have also certainly been occupied for tens of thousands of years, we see deserts where (without Man) there would probably be tropical rainforests. Where coastal precipitation keeps vegetation alive, Australia is fertile enough (despite old soils that do not favor European crops). But there's a lot of desert, which might actually be the result of too much fire husbandry.

Or it could be brute geography. Australia is a large square island, fertile around the coasts.

 

[soylentgreen]

Simple, none of those points are designed to never allow totalitarian dictatorship again.

And that would be a problem because....?

 

[soylentgreen]

Incorrect. It is in Scientific Terms.

There is nothing wrong with the desert.

Do you think that the Nepalese argue that the Himalayas are not mountains... that it is is just white European term?

They all died in creek beds and at waterholes... it was vitamin deficiency that they died of. They respected the Aborigines enough to use their style of food for the journey.

In this case it is not the science that is the problem. It is the fact that the colonialists tried to pretend that the english style of farming is the only style. Hence large areas of land considered non arable weas the same land the natives farmed.

How strange that they would die of vitamin deficiency on the same food that the natives live quite well on.

 

[soylentgreen]

Well yes. Aborigines knew how to use roots and herbs which were just poison to the British. They also hunted the unique wildlife which was adapted to the vegetation. Even today, it would be far more practical to farm kangaroos than to farm cattle, but Australians won't buy it. Actually kangaroos is a very low-fat meat, and not at all bad tasting (I've eaten it.)



We don't disagree that much. Maori put up a fight, and the terrain favored them. I stand corrected that the British tried, however invading without occupying is pointless, and the British could see that occupation was "not worth the lives and treasure."



It was all about land. As long as Aborigines gave up land, and retreated to land which (for now) the British did not want, there was no reason to slaughter them. But when Aborigines disputed ownership (even just by taking animals) they got a taste of White Man's Law: "power issues from the barrel of a gun."



"Slower?" America's native wars were far more violent, with far greater causalities on the Native American side.

My take on it is that Native Americas were not so ignorant of what European concepts of land ownership would do to them. Rather than being a huge isolated island, they had information connection to South America where the Spanish (mostly) devastated native populations. Europeans were tolerated in the Northeast, furthest from this inter-tribal communication. But as they spread West they encountered Native Americans with horses and even guns.

There is a bright side though. Plenty of good land in the North and North-West of Australia was never alienated. Most of the population of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal. They will never have their own country, but they could some day have their own State.

Not really the point that the natives did not farm cattle. And aboriginals are actually as human as the english despite the english refusal to recognise that. If aboriginals can eat the food then the english could to.
The point was they did not farm animals how the english did. So that they could use the land that the english thought of as a desert.
No, the maori joined together to fight against the english . The word maori did not exist until the english showed up. The aboriginal never joined together as one tribe but instead fought as individuals and lost because of that.
The aborigines never had the concept of owning land. They were nomadic. The english just did not like the way they wandered where they pleased. And the majority lived on the coastal areas where the english wanted to settle. They had extensive walking trails through the deserts. And it was the english who disputed ownership. And killed the natives if they disagreed.

Agreed colonialism was an attempt to cause genocide.

You do realise the australian government is still arguing over whether their own constitution should recognise aborigenes
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...referendum-question-on-indigenous-recognition

Australia’s 122-year-old constitution has never acknowledged the Indigenous population as the country’s original inhabitants.

Not seeing how that is necessarily bad. 120 is a very small Parliament by global standards.

Not the numbers per se. but to who gets the seats might be the problem. Such a low percentage could allow some weird extremist groups a voice in parliament Or even worse time gets wasted because a one trick party gets in.

Weird shit voters deserve representation, just as much as anyone does. Would you rather have a two-party Parliament, like the United States?

We already have a libertarian party. How weird does it have to get when you got them. And no when we did have a two party system it was crap.

 

[Bodi]

In this case it is not the science that is the problem.

There is no problem.

It is the fact that the colonialists tried to pretend that the english style of farming is the only style. Hence large areas of land considered non arable weas the same land the natives farmed.

They seemed to make it work.

How strange that they would die of vitamin deficiency on the same food that the natives live quite well on.

It is because they prepared it incorrectly, not allowing the enzymes or whatever to be released because they did not make into paste, like the locals did.

 

[Grand Mal]

Sounds like more totalitarianism like under corona.

This is about New Zealand, right? Who's Corona?

 

[soylentgreen]

There is no problem.

They seemed to make it work.

Except of course that while the aboriginal farmed the land much of australia was arable. When the english farmed the land much of it was not arable.

No it does not work as the australian flora needs fire . The aboriginals understood that. The english did not. The bush fires australia has in midern times that destroy houses and kill people never happened with aboriginals as they the flora. the english did not even bother to try. they just surplanted it with their own english flora.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-1l1gv.html

• The Aborigines of 1788 could not have survived recent bushfires that killed dozens of Australians and destroyed houses, flora and fauna. Uncontrolled fire could wipe out Aboriginal food. People had to prevent it or die. They worked hard to make fire work for them. They burnt off in patches, knowing the sensitivities of different plant species and that timing was crucial. Evidence strongly suggests that no devastating fires occurred.

It is because they prepared it incorrectly, not allowing the enzymes or whatever to be released because they did not make into paste, like the locals did.

Which simply gives us another example of the arrogance and stupidity of the colonialists. They considered the aboriginals as animals to be shot on sight rather than learn from them.

 

[Bodi]

Except of course that while the aboriginal farmed the land much of australia was arable. When the english farmed the land much of it was not arable.

No it does not work as the australian flora needs fire . The aboriginals understood that. The english did not. The bush fires australia has in midern times that destroy houses and kill people never happened with aboriginals as they the flora. the english did not even bother to try. they just surplanted it with their own english flora.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-1l1gv.html



Which simply gives us another example of the arrogance and stupidity of the colonialists. They considered the aboriginals as animals to be shot on sight rather than learn from them.

You care a lot about desert farm land and blaming white people about stuff...