A wide variation in argument over the seats. Interesting to see the language of the court of appeal, the Waitangi Tribunal, kymlicka, and, apparently, Locke all thrown in:

So I'd just make the points that (a) its extraordinary how such discussions are dominated by both history and the Treaty, and (b) try to suggest why that makes it so difficult to debate the issues. Basically, both history and the Treaty hide the actual moral arguments behind words that gloss the vacuity, and hide the assumptions of any position they present

For instance, has anyone read the Court of Appeal judgement (Lands 1987) bringing the principles into the common law (well, sort of), without thinking,... what? Was one of the judges going through a messy break up? What's with all the psychobabble like 'partnership', 'reciprocity'. And what on earth was a judge doing commenting on our political institutions in such language (did they use it in cases on Bill of Rights?). I mean, how helpful is it for us to know, we are supposed to be in 'partnership'? what rights spring from that?

If you argue historically, then the history on which you base your argument is shaped by your morality (sometimes called presentist, or whiggish history). It's crap, and dooms most of our debates around the Treaty (especially given our deeply undone history e.g. the Treaty translation difficulties argument is stated without any historian having read, for instance, the translator's letters). In gross terms see Victorian history, Stalinist History etc, or the Waitangi Tribunal's inability to move beyond 'breaches of the principles of the Treaty.

The point is not that there are wrong historical views, but that these views are used to shape contemporary politics, when everything, including our moralities are different to the historical actors on the stage at that point in our past (e.g.signing the Treaty). Its completely anachronistic to import intentions at that point to what we do today. As Lord Macaulay once wrote - when title deeds are based on history, then the motive for falsification of that history is rather big (I paraphrase, obviously)

All this means that the Treaty arguments are massively holey in the best constitutional sense. My personal view is that since we find it, seemingly, extraordinarily difficult to say 'racism' in NZ, we can say Treaty instead, hence Treaty policy in health, in schooling, etc. and finally in Plt on the seats. Its sort of like 'equal opportunities' rather than 'sexual discrimination', with the added benefit that the arguments in the courts are so tenuous that we can inscribe any morality we wish on the Treaty at any given moment, and feel sure it supports us.

So without the aid of either history or the Treaty, why would you have the Maori seats, or not? Or will somebody defend the treaty or historical arguments as particular and not anachronistic?

(remembering that around 60 other countries in the world have reserved seat arrangements of some kind or another, most often on ethnic, or gender lines)

Oh dear, just to confirm that its not only the Govt who are good at this game, take a look at the TVNZ politics page.

" More spin doctors on govt payroll
" Jan 20, 2008 10:49 AM

" The National Party says in the past five years government agencies have taken on an extra 210 communications staff and contractors under the Labour-led administration....[next 3 paragraphs headed] National says... State services spokesman Gerry Brownlee says... Brownlee says...

Could they be any clearer that they are quoting direct from the press release?

An alternative perpsective may be that , when I worked in Wellington a few years ago I was always rather pleased that the communications staff managed to get our point of view across, so why should it bother me so when an opposition party does the same?

Last but not least, TVNZ has just managed the same treatment of the news release put out by Bill English on 'thestandard.org.nz'.

I despair. Is this really an election year; Public Address you are a beacon of light. Thank you

With the prizes gone, I need cringe less at the approximations I venture here; Perhaps they might, however, jolt some more accurate memories from those at the centre of things than I can supply with my moments at the peripherary of the Flying Nun years. Moments not mentioned, but surely deserving:
1. For sheer numbers of FN bands: Surely someone else noted the line-up at Canterbury Uni (perhaps other) Orientations in 1990-2(?). JPS (the small mercy of 'I like rain'), Bats, Clean(??) et. al. Anyone, anyone...
2. The most stupendous gig: Chills, Submarine Bells Tour, Christchurch (what was the name of the hall on the corner of Papanui and Bealey Ave):packed, bristling, and wierdly nostalgic all at the same time.
3. The wierdest gig: Bats at the Palladium (yes the Palladium) Night Nlub on a Sunday afternoon: after that, North by North truly does, still follow me around.
4. The Renderers at a party in Little River, Canterbury, a bonfire, and their spooky meandering jam session settling on the darkness of the bush.