Environment Minister Nick Smith, backed by the Maori Party has announced changes to the RMA Act with the requirement for local Councils to enter into agreements with iwi on how they can be involved in the resource management process. The Labour Party's David Parker labels the changes as horrendous, and it is opposed by developers, environmental groups, the Law Society and others. Sir Geoffrey Palmer calls it a constitutional outrage. The John Key-led National Government further entrenches racism within our society by giving one race priority over other cultures. This they have done under cover of the brouhaha during the United States of America elections.
MJ Anderson, Pyes Pa.
20 comments
It is indeed getting worse
Posted on 26-11-2016 07:19 | By Captain Sensible
New Zealand is the New Zimbabwe and the way we are going, it will get a lot worse until there is a decent alternative option in the next election. The Kiwi version of democracy is sadly, nothing like democracy. If only 'None Of The Above' was an option.
Not so,
Posted on 26-11-2016 11:32 | By R. Bell
New Zealand is light years from becoming a New Zimbabwe. The captain would prefer democracy the shuts out the Treaty partner from ever having the democratic right of representation by themselves for themselves, even though they will always be the minority. Robin Bell.
@ R Bell
Posted on 26-11-2016 12:33 | By Captain Sensible
There is no "partner" in the ToW, AND, what part of democracy do you not understand? Did you know that the Maori Party, with a massive 1.3% of the votes are part of the government. Every maori as does every kiwi has a vote. Tell me how maori do not have the democratic right of representation as you claim. As far as I know, evereyone over 18 years old, gets a vote.
@R. Bell
Posted on 26-11-2016 12:50 | By Captain Sensible
Do you think that only maori will vote for maori, only whites vote for whites, only pacifica vote for pacifica etc? Because that is not how people vote!! Most people vote for what they consider the best candidate ( whether it be for their personal circumstances or the nations) and the skin colour of that candidate has noting to do with their preference. I find it difficult to understand that someone needed to tell you that.
unlikely unproven assumption
Posted on 26-11-2016 13:33 | By Peter Dey
Captain Sensible, Pakeha voters do not generally support capable Maori candidates. The statistics confirm that local body Maori councillors are less than 5% of the total even though Maori are more than 10% of voters. People are more likely to vote for people they identify with, and Pakeha identify more with Pakeha, than for the best candidates. People vote for candidates whose values they think they share. Your idea is a flawed theory without evidence in support.
Captain,
Posted on 26-11-2016 13:38 | By R. Bell
the treaty contract created the partnership. It still exists. The Maori party holds only part of the so-called balance of power. No elected Maori or Pakeha has ever represented Maori interests, only the interests of the majority, which has clearly not worked in the best interests of many Maori, hence the current changes to be made at local body level that you object to. It is not a matter of Maori only voting for Maori, it is a matter of the democratic right to do so. Robin Bell.
An agreement between two parties is a partnership
Posted on 26-11-2016 13:41 | By Peter Dey
Captain Sensible, the statement repeated by extremist writers, that the Treaty of Waitangi is not a partnership because the word partnership does not appear, is logical nonsense. The word partnership does not appear on a marriage certificate, but a marriage is a partnership. To any rational person when two parties sign an agreement to work together they sign a partnership. Only extremists, wanting to take us back to the time when we had a totally Pakeha dominated society, would disagree.
@ Dey & Bell
Posted on 26-11-2016 18:39 | By Captain Sensible
It is not a partnership and and never was, because that elusive word "partnership" is not in the Treaty. You can bleat and complain and even convince yourselves, but....it's not there! And we all know that altering a contract after it was signed is highly illegal. Over 500 maori chiefs signed the maori version ( the only true treaty) and the word 'partnership' never reared its head until over 135 years later!!! Sadly, all the signatories were dead by then so you can not alter anything nor have a basis to.
A marriage is a partnership
Posted on 27-11-2016 09:07 | By Peter Dey
A marriage is a partnership, but the word partnership does not appear in the marriage agreement. Arguing that the word partnership has to be written in an agreement for it to be a partnership is illogical nonsense. Any agreement for two parties to work together is a partnership. The Treaty was only written into law as a partnership in 1975, but it was obviously a partnership right from the start. The Treaty granted Maori the right to control their own affairs, and gave the Crown the right to govern the country.
Captain,
Posted on 27-11-2016 09:23 | By R. Bell
not so. You choose your interpretation incorrectly. As you well know cap'n some Chiefs signed the English interpretation, thereby validating that interpretation. The English translation was then sent to Sydney and on to England, further validating the English language version. Your rejection of it is simply a convenient support for your irrational opposition to all thing related to the settlement process. The exchange of mutually acceptable concessions is proof positive that a partnership exists. Robin Bell.
Captain Sensible, check Wikipedia
Posted on 27-11-2016 13:06 | By Peter Dey
Wikipedia: A partnership is an arrangement where parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.
Democracy means one law for all
Posted on 27-11-2016 17:21 | By Cydifor
and this isn't happening! We must all be treated equally under the law, and these changes to the Resource Management Act are horrendously undemocratic. Tell the National Party that Winston wants all references to spiritually and race-based laws to be kept out of the RMA - and they did not listen! Oh well, the elections are coming up!
One Law for All does not cancel the Treaty of Waitangi
Posted on 28-11-2016 09:43 | By Peter Dey
We are all equal before the law but we all have property rights guaranteed by the law. Maori had their Treaty property rights removed by previous Governments. We are now trying to make redress. Full redress would be to totally return the ownership of waterways and natural resources to Maori. Partial redress is to have Maori representation and consultation over waterways and resource management. This is a totally democratic recognition of property rights.
Democracy means political power is held by the people
Posted on 28-11-2016 10:24 | By Peter Dey
In a modern democracy, where minorities are recognised, it is democratic to allow minorities to be consulted and represented. Saying that there should be one law for all and then allowing the majority to dominate political decisions and shut out minorities is not democratic. This is particularly true in new Zealand because of the Treaty of Waitangi.
If we are all one people
Posted on 28-11-2016 11:01 | By Cydifor
as Hobson commented then there is no partnership as we are all equal in the eyes of the law. One person, one vote, all equally represented, It still comes down to a divided country when there is separatism in the ranks. Maori have joined the western world and now happily live as westerners, I cannot see them wanting to return to the days before colonisation. Most Maori are totally content to live as one people - it is the activists who continually stir the pot as it suits them to promote ill-feeling!. Leave them to their discontent and enjoy life in our wonderful country - as one people!
Maori are not activists promoting ill-feeling
Posted on 28-11-2016 12:40 | By Peter Dey
At present the Government is providing quite democratic representation and consultation for Maori over waterways and resource management. The only people protesting and causing ill-feeling are extremist Pakeha who will always have complete political control and never lose it to Maori. It seems that they are only going to be satisfied if Maori have no consultation or representation at all, which seems a remarkably unhelpful and unnecessary attitude to have.
Cydifor - how do you get to speak for all Maori?
Posted on 04-12-2016 22:40 | By waxing
What basis do you have for making statements like "Most Maori are totally content to live as one people", "Maori... now happily live as Westerners....", "it is the activists who continually stir the pot as it suits them to promote ill-feeling!". What authority do you have to speak on behalf of Maori? And what basis do you do so? Have you talked to a majority of them? Done proper representative objective market research with a sufficient sample?You sound like a patronizing colonialist to me who believes that everything English is better (somewhat ironic for someone using a welsh name). A member of New Zealand First perhaps? Most probably a supporter of Hobson's Pledge with all of its historical inaccuracies?
Waxing - I can speak for Maori!
Posted on 05-12-2016 13:02 | By Cydifor
I have Maori friends and they just live a normal Kiwi life, in fact they are rather ashamed of what is being said and done by those they consider to be activists and who do stir the pot. My friends are decent people who are grateful that the country was colonised as they feel the past was not such a good place to be. They also acknowledge all their ancestry unlike some Maori who only see their Maori lineage. So yes I can speak for some Maori! Good decent people who are not interested in the separatism going on and which the govt. is aiding and abetting. Winston - certainly! In fact I saw a New Zealand First sign today in Otumoetai and it said One People - who can argue with that?
A very small number of like minded friends
Posted on 05-12-2016 16:06 | By waxing
So we've gone from talking on behalf of all Maori Cydifor to just doing so on behalf of a few Maori acquaintances who appear to share your views. At long last, some honesty in your claims.
Friends in high places,cydifor
Posted on 07-12-2016 15:42 | By R. Bell
or fanciful dreams, we may never know. That you presume to "speak for Maori" is proof positive you represent an elitist attitude. Perhaps you could take time to tell us what a "normal Kiwi is". I for one have always wanted to be normal, please help. When you've done that tell us why Maori should not have consultative rights over the vast areas of land and resources they now rightfully control. Robin Bell.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.