The candidate meetings for the local body elections were interesting, but also upsetting and made me angry. When listening to our regional council representatives, I pushed for more information on the co-governance regarding the ‘fresh water futures' issue. We were told co-governance was well entrenched, especially the Kaituna catchment area and Rangitaiki River.
Were any of you consulted on this? Has there been a referendum? No? I submitted a submission to say ‘no' to co-governance.
We were told government pressure is for co-governance - and this really makes for ‘a them and us scenario'. As soon as you say co-governance it means more than one group, which is apartheid!
The water issue should be all the people, without it we die!
No one group should be in control, which means ownership.
Maori have now been quoted as "wanting their fair share of the water profits" (The Daily Post, August 22, 2016). It always comes back to money, costing the rest of us!
Kiwis need to make a fuss - you are quite quickly losing your democracy in every sector. On this election journey I've realised how gutless councillors are in every sector.
The government needs to be told to get lost, stop putting pressure on councils for things like libraries, museums, water etc. Kiwis just cannot afford their rates to climb and councillors need to say ‘No' to government demands!
C Humphreys, Katikati
26 comments
I agree with the writer
Posted on 21-10-2016 13:49 | By Cydifor
Water must belong to all of us - no one group should have any special rights. I read the list of why Maori say they have special rights - ridiculous arguments - the silliest being - taniwha reside in the water - really - total superstition and nonsense? They sing about it - me too, they have proverbs about it - us too. You cannot make a claim to own something because you believe a non-existent creature resides in it, you sing about it and you have written a few proverbs about it. Are these words potentially defamatory or abusive - I think not! We must fight against the ongoing apartheid and divisiveness happening by the day - I have joined Hobson's Pledge for simply this reason - that someone will stand up to the creeping separatism being wrought by a few. Let us be one people!
Quite rightly so to question here
Posted on 21-10-2016 15:44 | By Crash test dummies
The path has been taken but the voters have not had a say or been asked., Certainly preferences based on racial grounds can only be apartheid or apartheid like in nature. Obviously that makes such a move, decision etc anti-democratic. that much is a no-brainer. The real deal here is though, why is it that Councils are being pressured into the whining of Government to comply? When did any of the public get asked?
Yes it does seem strange.........
Posted on 22-10-2016 08:52 | By groutby
That this very issue continually seems to be raised, and in many cases accepted as the way "it" should be. I agree with the writer that there seems to have been little or no consultation with the public generally, and perhaps any "pressure" put on local goverment from central government in regard to "issues Maori", is to continually appease the Maori Party (and perhaps other radical groups) to strengthen the relationship, however false it is. It is subtle, and perhaps not easily recognised, and may well escalate if not acted on. As for water, of course it is a resource we ALL share, and all people have absolute and EQUAL rights over it. As for a "partnership" , there is no mention of any partnership in the Treaty of Waitangi....and it seems to be often used as a "living document"..never was, nor will be...He iwi tahi t?tou
Jaffa
Posted on 22-10-2016 10:05 | By Cydifor
Perhaps you could ask these same questions of the local MP or email John Key and ask him. I know Winston is against the separatism he can see happening. He has spoken out against the drive by Maori to get water rights. For a while I thought that Mark Solomon of Ngai Tahu could be a good future Prime Minister of our country as he seemed to be a progressive- thinker and of part-Maori and European stock - as all Maori are. However when I discovered that he has been working for over 7 years on getting freshwater rights for Maori and then threatening the govt. to grant it within the year, I went right off him. Also Ngai Tahu and Waikato Tainui pay no tax at all on their commercial businesses such as Go Bus, Shotover Jets and others, as they hide behind the guise of a charit
@ Cydifor
Posted on 26-10-2016 18:21 | By Crash test dummies
Good comments, the issues have been placed in front of the local MP's and more. Looks to me that the real issue is all about sucking up to stay in power, but at what real cost.
Carcass
Posted on 29-10-2016 16:59 | By Carcass
Election year next year. Winstone believes in democracy.National has other ideas on democracy and forget about Labour.The greed for power has no end and if it means selling 85% of New Zealanders down the gurgler they will.Water must stay in public ownership.Carcass
Groutby, five previous attempts have failed
Posted on 03-11-2016 09:39 | By Peter Dey
The Government supports the Treaty of Waitangi Act which requires them to honour the Treaty. The coalition agreement with the Maori Party supports that decision. Attempts by the 1law4all political group, the One NZ Foundation, John Ansell's Colour blind NZ, and the books "Twisting the Treaty" and "One Treaty One Nation" to get the Government to reject the Treaty have all failed, because they wanted the Government to dishonour the Treaty. Governments in the past ignored the Treaty because they could even though they were wrong. We have now signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. NZ Governments now try to honour the Treaty. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 did consult voters. The majority of voters do not want to reject the Treaty. The Hobson's Pledge group is out of touch with NZ. More Maori culture being seen is integration not separatism.
racism is ok if......
Posted on 03-11-2016 12:01 | By Captain Sensible
Peter Dey openly supports racial privilege as long as it has been recently "reinterpreted" from a piece of paper from 180 years ago which gave EQUALITY to all Kiwis. Also, Maori are not indigenous and the signing of as many papers as you care for will never change that fact.
Captain Sensible Maori have inherited privileges
Posted on 03-11-2016 13:18 | By Peter Dey
The UN recognises Maori as the indigenous people of NZ supported by the unchallenged scientific evidence of international scientists led by Janet Wilmshurst in 2011. Property ownership is a privilege held by both Maori and non-Maori. The privilege of property ownership that Maori possess was granted in the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori did not give it up. Maori have ownership rights to NZ rivers and the Government recognises this, which is why the Government has co-governance agreements in place. Captain Sensible should tell us the three main items of privilege that Maori are supposed to receive and what they cost the taxpayer. Tax exemptions for charities do not count because Maori qualify for the same reasons as churches not because of race.
The Treaty did not give equality to all kiwis
Posted on 03-11-2016 13:52 | By Peter Dey
Captain Sensible needs to read the Treaty again. The Treat of Waitangi gave to Maori all the rights and privileges of British subjects. It did not take away any of the property rights and privileges that Maori possessed. The property rights and privileges that Maori possess by inheritance are the same as any Pakeha has when they inherit property. The cost of any privilege to Maori by Government regulation is trivial, and far outweighed by the compensation that Maori would have received if they had been paid full compensation for confiscated land.
The Treaty of Waitangi is newer than the US Constitution
Posted on 03-11-2016 15:07 | By Peter Dey
Claiming that we can ignore the Treaty of Waitangi because it is 180 years old is irrational nonsense. The US Constitution is 225 years old and still applies.
@ Peter Dey
Posted on 03-11-2016 15:23 | By Captain Sensible
...but the US Constitution advocates EQUALITY( as does the Treaty of Waitangi) !!!! I am sure if it was in favour of race based privilege, it would be discarded into the dust bin where all race based advantage and privilege belongs. Why are you so scared of equality? Why do you really think someone whose ancestors allegedly arrived before someone else's ancestors should have special privileges and advantages?
Government help for Maori is not racism
Posted on 03-11-2016 16:16 | By Peter Dey
Racism is the belief that one culture is superior to another. If the Government tries to make up for discrimination against Maori in the past, such as confiscation of land, that is not racism. Maori are not given help because they are deemed to be superior. Help for Maori as redress for past wrongs does not make non-Maori inferior or second class citizens.
The Treaty does not advocate equality
Posted on 03-11-2016 16:22 | By Peter Dey
The Treaty of Waitangi grants property rights and privileges to Maori that are not granted to non-Maori. These property privileges still exist. Any non-property privileges that Maori have are trivial compared to the cost to Maori of land confiscation still not fully compensated.
Maori have property privileges because they owned NZ in 1840
Posted on 03-11-2016 16:52 | By Peter Dey
Most of the privileges that Maori have are due to the fact that in 1840 they owned NZ. The Treaty granted privileges to Maori that were not granted to non-Maori. The Treaty still applies. It has not been dissolved.
hallelujah
Posted on 04-11-2016 09:15 | By Captain Sensible
Finally Peter Dey admits to race based privilege for Maori ( albeit again with lame "justification"...just as all tyrants have had their own fab reasons for their own destructive policies) . I guess with all the evidence, even he could not continue with his deny, deny, deny, strategy.
Captain Sensible please inform us
Posted on 04-11-2016 10:37 | By Peter Dey
Captain Sensible now that you are on a roll please inform us of the three or four most serious race-based privileges that Maori get and non-Maori do not get and what the cost to the taxpayer is. Do not include tax concessions because they are not race-based. Maori groups get tax concessions for the same reasons as religious groups that qualify as charities.
@ Peter dey
Posted on 04-11-2016 11:18 | By Captain Sensible
Unelected seats on councils ( all other Kiwis need to be elected to get on a council), race based decisions on RMA, race based Maori Party, maori "blessings" on most projects ( no other races get to do that) that cost rate and tax payers. Government/Council grants and scholarships to maori only. I have never ever seen a grant or scholarship given to a non-maori based on race. And the big one coming....ownership of fresh water taken from all Kiwis and given to part maori tribes. There are dozens more that all discriminate on the basis of race/skin colour against non-maori. Non-maori are second class Kiwis because allegedly our ancestors arrived a few years later tha maori.....although there is a lot of evidence (suppressed by tribal bully tactics) that proves maori were NOT first here.
@ Peter Dey
Posted on 05-11-2016 14:18 | By Captain Sensible
Tax concessions, if based on race, and exclude other skin colours because of race....as is the case in NZ, is indeed a race based privilege only available to maori but not non-maori. Religious groups and charities are not based on race so tax concessions are not race discriminatory. Duh!
to P. Dey
Posted on 05-11-2016 17:17 | By tutae.kuri
You go on about confiscated land, most was returned to the tribes after the so called land wars.Loss of land was one of the expected outcomes of tribal warfare prior to 1840 and this was why it was used by the government. The tribes expected that type of retribution. Sir Apirana Ngata was in agreement in the 1920's and why on earth it should be an aggravation today is crazy. Most of the land was purchased legally between consenting parties and I refer you to evidence given to the select Committee on the State of the Islands of New Zealand 5th &6th April 1838 before The Duke of Devon in London. This records experience by people who were there at the time. After 1840 land purchase was through Govt Agency.
P Dey
Posted on 05-11-2016 17:39 | By tutae.kuri
Further. As I said earlier, there is nothing racist about the Hobsons Pledge Manifesto and I regret that you are attempting to make it so. It is perfectly clear that every person living in New Zealand should have the same rights and expectations and that the Country's laws a should reflect this. The ToW was very clear that ALL the people of New Zealand were given the rights of British Subjects. On signing British Rule of Law came into force. BTW at the time of signing, there were at least 2000 Pakeha people here, of various nationalities. All were encompassed within that Agreement, their descendants also, of course. To remind you also that the Constitution of the USA is the way in which that Country is governed and not in any way a ToW type document.All the early Treaties have withered with age.
Learn our history
Posted on 06-11-2016 15:48 | By waxing
So-called "captain sensible" abetted by some of the usual crowd plus "tutae.kuri" continue their denial of New Zealand history. Quite simply, Hobson was instructed by the Colonial Office in London to "protect the rights of the Maori people". The official preamble to the treaty talks about protecting "their just Rights and Property". There are differences in translation between Articles 1 & 2 of the treaty that we all know about. But the intention was clear.Even more so when later Queen Victoria unequivocally instructed the settler government (who were trying to get around the treaty to own more land to sell to immigrants) that they had to "honourably and scrupulously fulfil the conditions of the Treaty of Waitangi".Learn and respect our history.
@ waxing
Posted on 07-11-2016 08:49 | By Captain Sensible
There are two versions of our history...1) the real events logged and documented at the time by the people there who had no hidden agendas only record things as accurately as possible. 2) the reinvented version that brought lies like "partnership" and "principles" and a host of other opinions that are more like a wish-list that will help the grievance industry with their Zimbabwe like destructive policies on Kiwis. I use the real documented version .....and it seems you prefer version 2.
Partnership and Principles come from honesty
Posted on 07-11-2016 11:07 | By Peter Dey
The leaders who have given us partnership and principles have been elected by the voters. They have had the honesty to accept that the Treaty should be honoured and that past Governments have not done so. People who express opinions anonymously do not have to be honest.
Maori Groups and Churches are charities
Posted on 07-11-2016 11:09 | By Peter Dey
Maori Groups qualify as charities because they meet the requirements not because of race.
@Captain Sensible
Posted on 07-11-2016 18:00 | By waxing
My statements are all backed up by archives of the Colonial Office in London, on whose instructions (clearly defined) Hobson was instructed to negotiate the treaty. Perhaps you prefer your version of events because they better suit your ideology?
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.