Re: [pf] Future Dreams, Ongoing Struggles

· Gregg, in:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2002I/msg00444.html
  said: "it is good to think about the potential scenarios and have a reaction 
mapped out for them."

· An American (in Texas) has been asking about New Zealand, as part of his 
planning for various possible futures. I sent this to him @ 9 AM this morning. 
David Mac.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
{· I'm starting to write this at 6:25 AM, after my wife has left to catch the 
first bus in to work.  David.}

At 12:03 3/2/2002 -0600, JTS wrote:
> ... I don't expect you to do any kind of research in answering any questions. 
>... besides I am trying to get a feel for New Zealand from a resident's 
>perspective.
> ... As I understand it, New Zealand reformed Parliament about ten years ago 
>to be more representative, percentage wise, of the people's political views.  
>An electorate MP represents a geographic area and a list MP is representative 
>chosen based on the percentage of votes to a given political party. Correct?  
>Sorry for the grade school politics, but I have lived in the US my entire life 
>and only left the country for a few brief hours at a time.
>

[David MacClement: ]
http://www.nzgovtdirectory.com/directory/section1/parties.htm gives some 
history of the currently-registered NZ political parties, inc. the Greens.

· You're right about electorate MPs and list MPs, but the change occurred in 
the mid-90s. The first attempt at creating a coalition after an MMP election 
(1996) was a disaster, but the current coalition is doing well, IMO (though I 
don't know what effect it'll have on the minor party: the Alliance).


>What are the geographic regions that electorate MPs represent?  Would they be 
>the equivalent of a state or province in North America?  Do people relate 
>themselves to these "states" or just to the north island or the south or just 
>New Zealand?  How are the "states" governed?  By the electorate MP?   An 
>elected governor of some kind or just a bureaucracy? If it helps, I am 
>wondering if these political subdivisions are more analogous to a US state or 
>a county or something in between.
>
· From memory about 67 MPs at the next election will be from electorates (out 
of 120 MPs total). So there are about a quarter-million voters in each 
electorate, each with two votes.
  There is no connection with territorial/geographic "local" government (City, 
District, Region) - this is solely to do with Central Government. Some of the 
boundaries of the electorates change every 5 years, as people move within NZ; 
for example, 1/3 the NZ population now lives in the Auckland Region, so a big 
fraction of the electorates is also there.

· People generally think of themselves as Aucklanders, Wellingtonians, 
South-Islanders (comprising West-Coasters and Mainlanders), and Provincials 
(for all the non-big-city North-Islanders). Again, this is nothing to do with 
government, either Central or local.
  With less than 3.9 million people, New Zealand is about the size of one of 
the smaller third of US states (though it is a sovereign state), while Cities 
and Districts typically have 45,000 to 95,000 people. Elections for local 
government take place on one of the two years there is no Central Government 
election (3-year cycles); now-a-days by postal ballot. I would guess that 
Districts are analogous to counties in many parts of the USA.


>What are the requirements for becoming a MP or prime minister?  For example, 
>in the US, a presidential candidate has to have been born an American citizen 
>and members of congress have to meet certain minimum age requirements.
>
· Not born, but you have to be a citizen - I don't know about age requirements. 
We don't have that historical baggage, that the US national government system 
was set up to retain power in the hands of the same kind of people that set it 
up: moneyed land-owners and originally just men. We have had the occasional MP 
(and local councillor) who's 20yo or under. No property-ownership stated or 
implied, though usually some sort of "track record" of service to their 
community, seems needed.


>How are relations between Australia and New Zealand?  Perhaps comparable to 
>the relationship between the US and Canada?  How do New Zealanders feel about 
>Australians?  The American joke of referring to Canada as the fifty first 
>state come to mind . . .  As a general rule how do New Zealanders feel about 
>the US and its citizens?
>
· "relations between Australia and New Zealand ... comparable to ... between 
the US and Canada?" Yes, quite so. Though when I was living in Canada (40s, and 
60s-70s) there was a strong feeling of dislike for the "excessiveness" of US 
life and government - probably less strong and less widespread now.
  I believe there's a little of that in NZ in regard to Australia, but we each 
see the other like cousins: annoying sometimes, but generally "my kind of 
people". This started with the ANZACs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), 
a single unit fighting as one of the Allies in World War I. ANZAC Day is 
celebrated in both countries, here, the half-day of the (only) 
two-and-a-half-days of statutory complete holidays we have.


>What role does the UK currently play in New Zealand politics and how do the 
>citizens of New Zealand tend to feel about it?  I know that NZ was originally 
>a British colony and is still a constitutional monarchy, but does that have 
>any practical implications or is NZ essentially self-governed.
>
· In order of preference, when New Zealanders go to other countries, it's to 
Australia, the UK, and then the USA. And NZ and Oz have a tradition of 
18-to-28yos doing a year or two of "OE": their Overseas Experience. (This is 
one reason why Australasians are better than Americans - they generally have a 
much better grasp of how the world works, from personal experience.)
  This OE is usually taken in (in order) (1) the UK and Europe, (2) the USA and 
Canada, and (3) in third-world countries, like India and South-East Asia.

· When I was growing up in NZ in the 50s and 60s, there was much use of the 
phrase "the mother-country", referring to the UK. And there is still quite a 
lot of interchange between the élites of the two countries (e.g. judges, to get 
high in status, like to work in the judicial system in the UK).
  Also, up until about 15 years ago, the UK took a major part of NZ's exports 
(mainly primary produce like meat and fruit). But that has changed since 
de-regulation in the mid-80s. When currencies are quoted in the (radio) 
business news, we get the exchange rate with:
Australia,
USA,
UK,
Japan, and in the last couple of years:
the Euro.

· My short answer to your: "What role does the UK currently play in New Zealand 
politics ... is NZ essentially self-governed?" is: yes; there's even a 
movement, reflected in government, to replace the "court of last resort" - the 
Privy Council, consisting of UK Law Lords (House of Lords) - by something more 
Australasian. The Privy Council is the last vestige of colonisation, and it 
hasn't gone (to date) largely because New Zealand as a nation is founded on The 
Treaty of Waitangi between Queen Victoria's representatives ("The Crown") and 
most Maori tribal leaders, in 1840. It established Maori rights, together with 
the right of European settlers to live here, and while it was ignored for about 
100 years by the NZ Government, those abuses (wars, land confiscations) are 
gradually being redressed. Yet the Maori are reluctant to give up their right 
to appeal NZ Government decisions to The Crown - the Privy Council in London.


>My understanding is that the NZ population is primarily of European descent.  
>The Maori (is Maori politically correct or is there even another name?) are 
>also a significant percentage of the population.  How are relations between 
>the two groups?  How about other ethnicities that are clearly in the minority? 
> While the US has certainly gotten better, it has a bitter history of negative 
>race relations going back to the European settlers giving the Native Americans 
>a very bad deal, to bringing African natives over as slaves.  Japanese 
>Americans were thrown into interment camps during World War II.  Even today 
>race issues are prominent in US politics.  Sadly, the Native Americans number 
>so few now that they are often left by the wayside.
>
· See above. Maori were reduced (by wars, disease, and assimilation) to (from 
memory) 5.5% of the NZ population, but are currently at about 13% and 
increasing. That's people who label themselves as "of Maori heritage" on the 
census.
  There's a further ~6% who are Pacific Islanders - Polynesians - some of which 
are born in their Island with NZ citizenship. This fraction is increasing fast 
- Auckland has a larger population of some of these than their home country.

· Maori is their own name for themselves; sometimes the spelling uses marks to 
indicate the long vowel, a.
  When I was first in NZ, in the late 40s, most "pakeha" (whites) thought of 
Maori, if at all, as ditch-diggers, meat freezing-plant workers and forestry 
workers. They were never as different as the indigenous people in most 
countries are from the new-comers. They were at least as capable navigators of 
the trackless ocean as Europeans (the explorers of history), and the British 
Army held them in high regard during the mid-1800s Maori wars in NZ - they were 
often under-estimated by British officers. They were always great entrepreneurs 
- settlers in Auckland in the first half of the 19th century were welcomed by 
the Maori there, as a marvellous market for goods and Maori expertise.

· You've used the wrong word here: "Japanese Americans were thrown into 
interment camps during World War II."    Many people make that mistake.
Internment camp - internal;
you bury your dead in the ground (terra): interment.
      Your point, though:
  I don't know about Japanese New-Zealanders - probably the same; I do know 
that German New-Zealanders and pacifist New-Zealanders were jailed and treated 
harshly, in both world wars. (Harsher than in the UK, in the case of the 
pacifists.)

· There are an increasing number of Asians (Japanese, Indians, Chinese, 
Koreans, Vietnamese) in certain parts of Auckland - we're very cosmopolitan 
these days, but not all traditional NZers see this as a good thing.


· ".. race issues are prominent in US politics." We now have two official 
languages, in dealing with government, though it's not as all-pervasive as 
French in Canada. And while there are still a quota of electorate seats (7) 
reserved for Maori, the left-wing political parties (plus The Greens), have 
candidate selection policies recognising (at least) the need to have _some_ 
Maori as candidates. The Greens go so far as to try to arrange their list to 
ensure that: (1) women are elected in equal numbers, (2) Maori are at least 
represented, when there are sufficient Green MPs to do so, and (3) gay and 
lesbian people are treated no differently from anyone else - elected on merit.
  Currently the Labour Caucus has a Japanese and a trans-sexual.


>How about "natural disasters"?  Is NZ affected by tornados, hurricanes, 
>earthquakes, or flooding?
>
· The two tectonic plates: Pacific and Indo-Australian, meet (one goes under 
the other) on a diagonal line through New Zealand. See:
http://www.gns.cri.nz/earthact/earthquakes/index.html for some record of the 
effect of this.

· Global warming will have several effects on NZ, one of which is that more of 
the North Island will get tornados and hurricanes than in the past. And the El 
Niño - La Niña cycle dumps enough rain sometimes to create floods in places; 
nothing more than news-worthy, though.


>What about the wildlife?  Are there many poisonous or dangerous critters? Are 
>there snakes, rats, or mice in NZ?  I ask because such creatures are not 
>native to some small islands, but have been introduced by humans.
>
· No snakes, no dangerous critters, though some people are scared of katipo 
(red-backed) spiders, which have a poisonous bite, fatal for some. Walking 
through the NZ bush ("tramping") is a great pleasure for anyone, young women as 
much as anyone else. If you're a parent, and your home backs onto some wild 
bush, you don't worry if your kids go exploring. However, you give them some 
training, about wearing suitable clothing (in case they get lost and stay out 
alone through a night or two), and leaving some general information about the 
direction they're going in, in case they break a leg or have concussion, and 
have to be searched-for. New Zealand risks are significant, but at a level 
where encouraging your children to take risks is a normal part of raising kids 
here.
  
· Yes there are mice, rats, and wild pigs (plus deer etc.) introduced by 
originally the Maori immigrants (rats: kiore) and later Captain Cook and other 
visitors: whalers, sealers, fishermen, and settlers alike. In the last ~100 
years there have been others; first rabbits - a threat to farming in parts of 
the South Island - and possums, and more recently ferrets and stoats. The NZ 
ecology developed with no significant ground-level threats, so several bird 
species became flightless, and are now under risk of extinction.


>How distinct is NZ culture?  For example, the US typically ignores the rest of 
>the world, but is influenced by some Canadian culture like entertainment and 
>Europe to an even lesser degree.  I imagine NZ culture is influenced by 
>Australia and the US, but how much is distinct?  Do you hear music by NZ bands 
>on the radio or see NZ TV shows or is it largely Australia and the US you find 
>on these media?
>
· As indicated above, NZ has links with other English-speaking countries, 
cultural as well as historic and trade. Up until 50 years ago, the main 
cultural influence was (Australia and) the UK, but the US materialist culture 
has just-about taken over most of the world (including NZ) by now.

· Every few years there's social and political discussion about preserving and 
fostering a New Zealand identity, perhaps by quotas for NZ productions and 
music on the media. Even without legal quotas, you do get to hear quite a lot 
of NZ stuff on the radio, including on commercial stations. I can't tell you 
about TV - I (and a small minority of others) haven't watched TV for many years.


>Okay, I have probably bombarded you with enough questions for the moment.
> ...
>Thanks again,
>JTS
>
· That's OK. Feel free to circulate (or publish) the above as far as you wish; 
just make sure my name is mentioned; the readers can then put:
"David MacClement" (including quotes) into a web search if they wish.
  I believe what I've said would be agreed-to by most New Zealanders.

David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d @ bigfoot.com [remove spaces]
http://davd.tripod.ca/ ; http://davd.tripod.com/GrAPR-020201.html

_____________________________________________________________
Get your free web-based email today ---> http://mail.thames.net.nz

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.a3mWwt
Or send an email to: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================