Iwi to vote on Treaty settlement

Posted on 17-05-2012 15:25 | By POCO O POCO

Well the $33m land assets and buildings gravy-train to be given to Bay of Plenty Maori interests for God only knows what exactly is really just the tip of the iceberg. A Maori is defined in S4 Te Ture Whenua Act, Maori Act 1993 No. 4 as “a person of the Maori race of NZ and includes a descendant of any such person”. Today, this will in all probability mean someone with a Maori ethnicity of between say a ¼ and 1/64th. Looking at this anomaly, most fair-minded New Zealanders can draw their own conclusions about that state of affairs. No need to explain the implications. It was bad enough that the Foreshore and Seabed legislation of 2010 was a kick in the guts for NZ democracy, particularly when the Foreshore and Seabed should always have been held in Trust by the Crown for all NZ citizens. Continuing on from this however, we now have Maori interests claiming special water rights arising from the proposed sale of Government SOES and while the public generally are probably opposed to any sales, this is no basis for Maori claims on which the door has well and truly closed as far as new historic claims are concerned. Other claims are rearing their heads as well and our beaches are first in the firing line. But hang on there - we now have the spectre of the maorification of the proposed Constitutional Reform Advisory Panel. For the record, the NZ population spread on which panel representation is based is that there are currently 68% European extraction (5 members), 15% (but on ethnicity basis, it is more like 1%) (Maori - 5 members), Asian 9% (1 member) and Pasifika 7% (1 member). What about the position of mainstream NZ citizen – shouldn’t they have genuine representation by what are 8 non-aligned members to guard their interests with Maori interests 2, Asian 1 and Pasifika 1? The current situation on the Advisory Panel, if you take into account those Europeans who work for Maori interests have affiliations with Maori interests or have affinity for Maori is that you have those Maori (8 members), European (2 members), Asian (1 member) and Pasifika (1 member). What qualifications do the members have to determine constitutional matters? Isn’t there something inherently wrong about this stacking the Panel in this way, after all we are talking about a written constitution up for grabs with implications for all New Zealanders, not just those with limited Maori ethnicity (shadowing = infinitesimal). This charade in no way fairly or equitably represents the viewpoint of mainstream New Zealanders and never will. What is more, it was never intended to do so from the outset – the sleaze-buckets have seen to that. Will the third bite of the cherry ‘growth industry’ Waitangi claims ever cease, even though historic grievances are meant to have lapsed, the ‘creative’ syndrome is at work and will keep the pot boiling forever. New Zealand citizens, if you genuinely care about your country’s future – the answer is in your hands – protest about this continual bias and rorting, demanding all these matters be dealt with openly in a fair and equitable manner, i.e. constitutionally to coin a phrase. It is not hard to see why nearly 60,000 New Zealanders a year emigrate to OZ! For factual accounts about what’s happening, go to the following websites: http://johnansell.wordpress.com or www.nzcpr.com At least you will get an accurate and unbiased account from these sites of the other side of a very sad story.

Posted on 30-04-2012 13:05 | By KAMIKAZE

DO the right thing by NZ register and vote not to accept it.