Re: Proposed change to vote law raises eyebrows
First of all, what exactly is “the New Zealand practice”?
The article does not mention what it is. What is it?
Second of all, the boundaries directly reflect the ancient histories of those districts. They conform to the district fa’alupega and fa’avae of those areas.
How can someone whose matai title has nothing to do with a certain part of a new merged district have any right to speak for those people in parliament?
It is absurd.
It reminds me of when the Europeans drew lines on the maps of Africa and India and split ancient communities in half.