Compensation should be managed by a third party to ensure all Maori benefit.?
|
On average, everyone is neutral with significant nonconsensus between 390 voters. |
|
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Compensation should be managed by a third party to ensure all Maori benefit.
You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.
Reasons To Disagreeriiighht - let someone else get paid by the treaty gravy train. I don't think so. 19 September 2005
A third party handling compensation would entail adminstration costs as well as more red tape for beneficiaries to weave through. I think it should be left for those who applied for the compensation to distribute to those entitled. 29 November 2005
Define 3rd party neutrality? How many persons would actually be impartial, not have a hidden agenda? Would they be politically appointed/motivated? Who determines the third party? What are their fees, and ongoing gravy administration costs? Compensation should be managed locally by those affected ie haapu not iwi, not govt as Maori have its own capability and it goes back to the TOW exclusive domain of all its assetts. 11 January 2006
There should be no 'one' party benefiting apart from all peaceful NZ'ders who wish to live for the future instead of the troubles of the past. Move forward, build bridges, get on with it. 21 February 2006
Like - WHO? UN? You MUST be joking! 20 May 2006
there should not be any more compensation for them there is more than them in the world 10 November 2006
There are no maori left just New Zealanders 16 November 2007
A third party is likely to benefit more than maori. 28 October 2008
Stupid concept. Third parties should manage the income of all MPs so that they don't buy anything bad. It's the same thing, and it is stupid. 2 December 2012
|
Reasons To AgreeThe only reason not to is fear that an independant third party would burst into a verse from a midnight oil song. 25 November 2005
A third party yes, in preference from churches who have a good track record. 5 October 2008
Hell why not, could be faster. Has anyone suffered as a result of Maori claims being honoured. Nah! Has fear grown in non-Maori....hell yes. Well, welcome to the party. It's not exclusive. 10 February 2012
now that would be interesting. 21 August 2014
|
Reasons for Remain Neutral
A third party meaning who? Who are the first and second parties? The Crown and the tribe?
It happens in many cases now, and lots of lawyers,consultants are doing very nicely out of the Maori.
compensation should be managed by individuals, not treaty bureaucracies. they way , all maori benefit.
Only if they benefit all Maori. At present the settlement process only benefits a small clique in the tribal hierachies, and not the average Maori - after all - despite the Treaty process and all the money and assets New Zealand has thrown to assauge our supposed 'guilt' the majority are no better off (high rates of crime, poverty, low education etc). The present system is a rort for the few who have priviledge and position within the tribal systems, and no one else.
A third ,completely non-biased, party would be beneficial (i.e. someone with no hidden agendas or vested interests)... but finding that is an impossibility. In order to operate in that position requires payment. Whoever they get paid by would rule out the idea of "no vested interests".... as to go against the govt (assuming they are the ones paying) too often would make it difficult to retain that position. Going against the Iwi makes them (the third party) look like a prick and it gets thrown back at them that "They made that decision because the government pays them".
My View
You can make your comments once you have voted.
You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.
Back to all voting categories
or
Back to "Treaty of Waitangi"
