Co-Governance is our democracy

By
Stephen Minto
-
108
2311
Chris Trotter on 3 November wrote ‘David Parker rejects Co-Governance’.  It’s more likely that Mr Parker is just following up on his early declaration that the revision of the resource management process is purely a procedural pull together and no policy changes are planned to be part of this process.  Co-governance would be a policy change.
 
However, the articles premise is co-governance is at variance with both ‘the liberal-democratic catechism of universal human-rights and freedoms (the freedom of expression in particular) as well as the good old democratic-socialist creed that bound the Labour Party and the Ratana Church together’. This is simply not true. 
 
There is nothing inherently anti-democratic or racist in co-goverance. If it is then many existing, laws, diplomatic treaties or trade treaties are anti-democratic and racist, i.e., they were written mostly by older white pakeha business men with a business perspective, advancing those perspectives; and if this is racist or anti democratic I don’t hear a lot of media or political talk about it.  
 
Co-governance is in the Treaty and it is the central part of our unwritten constitution whether we like it or not. Supporting co-governance is nothing about ‘woke’ politics but it is about being literate enough to read. Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty confirm and protect property rights for Maori.  Co-governance could be seen as simple consultation over property rights, and consultation is what happens now with changes that affect property rights for any New Zealander. Therefore to deny co-governance to Maori is to deny fundamental recognition of their property rights as provided for in the Treaty and embed pakeha dominance over their property. In the Treaty; and not just in english common law.
 
That distinction is best seen in how Maori collective ownership structures were deliberately and systematically undermined by the government appointed Land Courts. Collective ownership was specifically respected under the Treaty but the courts broke that down for sales. It could be argued almost all decisions of the land courts can be overturned as they contradict the Treaty. By contrast european models of collective ownership, companies and Trusts, were favoured. And history shows that a few Maori MP’s in Parliament were woefully inadequate to protect Maori land property rights. And this dominance will continue without co-goverance, or at the very least a better constitution than we have now.  
 
In terms of co-governance impacts on democracy, and this seems to be the area of concern in the article; I can’t see it.  Without the identification of a problem its hard to discuss the impact. So let’s do a few thought experiments. 
 
So for 3 waters the cynical might well say Maori will just see the board member/representative positions as plum jobs for some of their elites. I am not in a position to know or comment on how transparent or democratic processes are in any Maori groups. There certainly does seem to be some problems at times, e.g., Shelly Bay in Wellington is recorded as sold but many Maori had voted not to sell. So perhaps they need to consider changes in process, constitutions? But like a private company I can’t tell them what to do. And where is the impact on my democratic rights? I can still complain, freedom of expression.
 
The much vaunted local body election accountability rights are a farce. In Wellington we had multiple Mayors, almost all of a conservative bent, elected by claiming to be fiscally careful and focused on essential infrastructure.  It was all lies. They left before we found out about our underfunded and failing infrastructure, so there is no accountability. When it comes to specific knowledge and skill sets, e.g., on fresh water and sewage, society has to rely on experts and voting does not always bring the experts. In the old days we had bureaucrats looking after our electricity network and on the whole they did it really well for a fraction of the cost to the currently largely privately owned model.  The democratic control was exercised at a higher national level. 
 
In another utility; voters in the control rooms of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island would have made no positive difference to those outcomes.  Accountability and excellence in service provision is clearly something beyond having voter accountability,  e.g. I applaud the removal of voting for hospital board members who I had tiny bits of information about when voting. The fight to have ‘equal’ voter rights is simply not relevant to the outcomes. So co-governance is ‘equal’ partnership and by itself in 3 waters, it does not threaten quality or democracy. And Maori like other people have many voices and are not a block vote that works in simple unity. They will represent a diversity of views.
 
But there is a fear that somehow co-governance will constrain democracy but we already know our democratic system has significant constraints and people seem fine with that! For example a majority want action on climate change. But the experience under MMP with Mr Peters, who with about 10% of the vote, was able under our constitution/system to be the tail wagging the dogs National and Labour. We were very lucky that Mr Peters was happy to work within the baubles of power to achieve his aims. But it won’t be long before we experience ideologues advancing extremist positions for personal gain; like in the US and Israel.  Therefore our parliamentary system is a burning bridge for why we need a robust written constitution so that small parties can’t shut down government via stonewalling. Some want no government. So there are existing constraints on democracy that nobody seems to worry about. If you want to improve democracy you need a quality written constitution. The issue is not co-governance with Maori.
 
For accountability in co-governance, e.g., three waters, the organisation will be bound by an objective/purpose to ensure a clean and reliable supply of water and waste removal. This binds the work of those governing bodies into a task that supports the democratic wish and needs of the people. The objectives can be changed by parliament if problems arose. There will be accountable by criticism about the facts on the ground and that is democracy. Nothing to fear here. So let’s stop fearing Maori.   

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

108 COMMENTS

  1. Take a look at all the other countries that allow non-citizens to vote in their “democracies”. *crickets chirping*

  2. “Co-governance is in the Treaty and it is the central part of our unwritten constitution whether we like it or not.”

    Actually, it’s not in the Treaty and an unwritten constitution is worth exactly the same as the paper it’s written on.

      • Peter+H, so the NZ bill of rights promulgated from the UNDCHR should be discarded along with other international agreements and common laws? Then we can just do anything we want even take a life without repercussions???

        • Stephen, we simply need to do what works, and more specifically what works for NZ as a whole.
          There are important reasons Western Europe got ahead of the rest in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries:

          1. Equality before the law

          2. Right to freely buy, own and sell assets, including land without hindrance

          3. The rule of Parliaments elected by commoners instead of rule by fiat by kings and chiefs

          4. The ability to invest in shares of businesses via stock markets and the rise of banks alongside stock markets to provide investment capital and insurance for ventures

          5. A free press

          These were the innovations that allowed Holland and Britain to leap ahead of the rest. Now, if you take a hard look at what Labour is currently pushing, they undermine all these factors to some degree: They cannot keep their hands out of other people’s pockets and businesses, so like night follows day, it will end badly for us all.

          • Andrew, thanks for your analyse and I do agree with some of your commentary but there are a few momentous calamities that you’ve purposely excluded.

            1)Colonization
            2)Trans-atlantic slave trade
            3)Ethnic cleansing
            4)Genocide
            5)Racism
            to name but a few

    • Excellent examples of democracy at work in a liberal democracy and Article 2 of the ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ promoting property rights that Maori were largely excluded from, ova a century and Pakeha undeservedly gained immensely that’s reflected today.

      The historic illiteracy that many ‘Pakeha’ exhibit is freightingly noticeable but not surprising. At the heart of this matter is property rights and co-governance is probably the best solution in solving this inequity for all NZers. The contradiction between the English & Maori version is at the heart of this assumption that Maori ceded sovereignty to the British monarchy. When cleaned microscopically adding the already prosperous relationship between ‘Pakeha’ and ‘Maori’ a treaty in what Maori understood would only strengthen this amicable relationship.

      These issues centred on an unresolved ambiguity in the Treaty itself. In 1840 the British Crown formally proclaimed sovereignty ova the Islands of New Zealand/Aotearoa. That was based on maori consent having been secured through the Treaty of Waitangi signed by more than 500 chiefs that same year. Yet all but a handful of rangatira (Chiefs) signed the Pakeha version of the Treaty with the majority signing the Maori version of the Te Tiriti, that most scholars agree stopped some way short of ceding sovereignty to the British crown. ‘Kawanatanga’, the supposed term of sovereignty employed in the Maori version of the Treaty, is commonly translated as ‘governorship’ or ‘governance’.

      In addition, Maori communities were promised ‘Tino rangatiratanga’ (‘full chiefly authority’) over their lands and resources and clearly expected continued control ova their own affairs. It was this divide between increasing crown assertions of sovereignty and Maori expectation of continuing chiefly authority coupled with land geedy ‘Pakeha settlers’ provided a key impetus for the wars fought between Maori and the crown.

      Co-governance is key for continuing a peaceful existence between Maori and non Maori and keeping our resources in NZ for all NZers.

  3. Co governance is absolutely not in the treaty but 100% British sovereignty is, leading from this all other conclusions given are completely wrong.
    Is this article deliberate misinformation?

  4. It starts with co-governance, and then all governance. Power is a drug, more you have, the more you need. Today even 2 blood brothers struggle to equally share power.

    Just as a large company cannot have 2 CEOs co-governing, a country can not have 2 rulers co-governing. The power struggle will create unforeseen results.

  6. No surprise that this brand of Minto was a Wellington bureaucrat.

    I increasingly feel that the co-governance etc woke shitstorm is now at such a point where it has become so out of touch with the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders (yes not Aotearoan’s Stephen) that it has now set itself up for a massive reversal a’ la the White Terror in revolutionary France (other historical parallel’s that spring to mind are the Khmer Rouge and their ‘year Zero’ or the Chinese Cultural Revolution) . .

    Undoubtedly the coming ‘course correction’ will be less bloody but it may be so far-reaching that Maori risk losing many of the gains that they have legitimately made over the last few decades (that perhaps they would not have lost otherwise).

    For Robespierre and Marat read Labour’s Maori caucus / Willi Jackson etc . .

    “The White Terror (French: Terreur Blanche) was a period during the French Revolution in 1795 when a wave of violent attacks swept across much of France. The victims of this violence were people identified as being associated with the Reign of Terror – followers of Robespierre and Marat, and members of local Jacobin clubs. The violence was perpetrated primarily by those whose relatives or associates had been victims of the Great Terror, or whose lives and livelihoods had been threatened by the government and its supporters before the Thermidorean Reaction. Principally, these were, in Paris, the Muscadins, and in the countryside, monarchists, supporters of the Girondins, those who opposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and those otherwise hostile to the Jacobin political agenda.[1]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_White_Terror

    • Geez you bigoted Pakeha are so delusional James+Brown, You use historical content that has absolutely nothing to do with ‘Aotearoa’ yet you can’t give examples of Pakeha violence towards Maori which was only 160 years ago.

      Absolutely shameful example of pakeha bigotry historically illiteracy. I’ll leave a link so you might crawl out from under that rock of your pathetic existence.
      http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/

      • And like a mighty kingi (or haku) rising from the deep to take a bone hook here is my ‘brown supremacist’ friend Stephen right on cue to educate the colonising invaders he has the misfortune cohabit his island paradise with.

        • James+Brown, you’re welcome I don’t mind share my wealth of knowledge educating pakeha bigots, it’s better than using copy and paste trash that has nothing to do with our country history from a site that has questionable content.

          • To be honest I don’t personally see any issue to referring to Wikipedia for detail on the French Revolution etc and I also suspect that ‘your wealth of knowledge’ may be slightly overblown.

              • Stephen exactly what of what I have said is ‘pseudo fascist’?
                And this allegation from a Putin fanboy as well . .

              • Stephen – I have been thinking about your very clear dislike (or even hatred)? of New Zealand Europeans and also in a larger sense your many comments in support of Putin / distaste for the West and I wonder if perhaps your life isn’t exactly where you would like it to be and it is just easier to place the blame for where you may find yourself on things that are outside of your control (i.e. colonisation / ‘Pakeha bigots’ etc) rather than accepting that perhaps your own failings may be in fact be a little more personal in nature?

                • James agree with your ccomments.
                  But as you know to excuse one’s failings make yourself the victim then you can blame everyone else.

                • Oh boy what a silly pakeha bigot, you clearly are deluded and over opinionated, calling me a Putin supporter shows how foolishly childish behavior a perp like you will descend. Yawn

                  • Stephen – Your comments in support of the Russian invasion etc are all over Ben Morgans commentary on here for a start.
                    If you are going to shoot your mouth off at least own it afterwards.

  7. More gaslighting from Minto.

    “Co-governance” is a euphemism for control by an unaccountable iwiocracy – not by “Maaori”. The wording of Three Waters effectively means iwi governing bodies can veto any decision they don’t like. And it’s curious that a Marxist can conveniently overlook the fact that iwi are private corporations with business interests.

    Some more informative articles about so-called “co-governance” and Three Waters:

    https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/three-waters-voters-don-t-know-the-half-of-it
    https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/a-taniwha-rears-its-head-in-the-three-waters-debate

    • Pope Punctilious II, Oh boy more disinformation not surprising! And the Platform is a Maori bashing outlet that spews hateful messaging towards the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa it just has no legitimacy when discussing issues concerning the maori aspirations.

  9. Non NZ citizens can vote in NZ after arriving for 1 year, not being a citizen, not speaking the language, not needing to work or pay taxes here and we have a mass immigration policy that allows practically anybody into NZ to vote, which can easily skew results in a small population country. Other countries do not allow this.

    As for Maori co-governance, all NZ citizens should be able to vote, 1 vote per person. Don’t believe in changing this.

    Every rule in NZ from resource consents to getting into medical school allows better access to Maori, – the problem is that for decades big, neoliberal, international, business interests decide everything in NZ. NZ has a money/class issue more than a racial issue.

    Co-governance will not solve NZ’s obsession with globalist capitalism, anti intellectualism and exploitation of labour and our environment. Only better enforcement of current rules and changing rules to help the environment under climate change will help.

  10. Democracy is an absolute not a variable degree. You either have it or you don’t. It’s like being somewhat pregnant.
    If you want to change from democracy to something else then have a debate on that. Don’t gerrymander the facts by relabelling them as to what they are. That is a neoliberal trick. No doubt our custom is also important to you…
    Personally I prefer democracy. One person one vote majority determined. It’s hard to argue against the logic of that. Having extra votes and political power based on race, religion, gender, land ownership or money cannot be considered democracy in any definition. At least keep the debate honest.

    • 100% JS Bark

      This is why Labour will go out. They have been sneaky and dishonest about 3 Waters, he puapua and co governance. Most people don’t want it and that includes some Maori

      • So true JS Bark.
        Keeping the debate honest and current would be an excellent start rather than a tirade of racist insults.Those using racist insults calls into question their sincerity and integrity.

  11. The ToW was largely ignored in the century from about 1860 on, until returned to public awareness and the ‘principles of the treaty’ began entering legal discussion. Most of our constitutional developments such as independence from Britain, universal sufferage etc that led to our current liberal democracy came in this period. Our nation developed in this period.

    The people who push co-governance need to realise that they are pushing for an 1840 concept of 2 seperate peoples in a 2022 reality of many hundreds of cultures and ethnicities represented, and huge cultural changes to the extent that the 1840 cultures are no longer recognisable. Ultimately if you push hard enough for the 15% of us who have some Maori DNA to have different constitutional rights than the 85% who do not, we not only threaten a whole new round of injustices and grievances, but we create an entire new round of multi-generational division and anger that will ultimately result in a civil war. I really really really do not want this.

    Guess what? a civil war pitting 15% of the population against the other 85% has only one possible outcome. And after the violence ends we can guarantee the Treaty of Waitangi will be formally rejected as having any part of future NZ.

    I am constantly amazed by people on the Left who push for ToW ‘principles’ knowing full well they are in direct contravention to the principles of democracy, equality and freedom, and will inevitably end in violence if pushed too far. The rising anger against He Puapua/3waters is a warning sign that should be taken heed of.

    • Actually Ben+Waimata its was breached the second it was written up. The 1860’s period is when Pakeha population were equal or more than Maori.

      Pakeha Settlers increasingly demanded the right to govern themselves. A new parliament was set up in 1854, but maori were not represented in it prior to 1868, and few were eligible to even participate in elections. The new all-Pakeha Assembly represented only settlers interest, awesome democracy don’t yah think?

      That was felt keenly by many rangatira (Chiefs), who rightfully feared that they were being subjected to the laws of the settlers whose interests were opposed to their own. That was what they hadn’t signed up to in the Treaty.

      Successive New Zealand Govts seemed more intent on imposing British laws on maori then recognising their rights under Article two of the Treaty to administer their own affairs. This situation intensified after the emergence of the Kingitanga (Maori King movement) in 1858, which came about in response to Maori concerns about the loss of both land and sovereignty. It has been suggested that government determination to assert its sovereignty – to turn its back on Te Tiriti and instead uphold a narrow version of the Treaty – was the overarching causes of war.

      Once the Government had achieved dominance, large-scale of land purchases would be much easier to achieve. So to would British law on Maori and their enforced assimilation into settler colonial society.

  12. They have given our water rights away https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1904/S00055/nz-government-secretly-funded-water-bottling-companies.htm but in true managerial class, think that a new premise and thousands of staff billing the taxpayer will change the lack of enforcement and stupidity that they have allowed to happen under both National, ACT, Greens and Labour.

    ‘Outrageous’: Taxpayers foot $2.1m bill for controversial Three Waters Auckland HQ
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/flash-office-space-leased-in-auckland-to-bed-in-the-governments-three-waters-reforms/7UAKFS5TVFFOHK7ACRDAZ2V7HY/

    We have neoliberal left Mayors in Auckland for decades, staff keep increasing, costs keep increasing, debt keeps increasing, services for rate payers keep decreasing.

    Labour and Greens are National policy with woke marketing.

    • Ever noticed how much managerial in charge in NZ love to give themselves new premises while NZ kids are in grotty motels and they keep adding to demand with an open door immigration policy for NZ welfare? Be Kind people!

      Revealed: Kāinga Ora spent over $24m of taxpayer money in four years on its own office renovations
      https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/03/revealed-kainga-ora-spent-over-24m-of-taxpayer-money-in-four-years-on-its-own-office-renovations.html

      Mike Lee: Civic Administration Building sale is a lose-lose
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mike-lee-civic-administration-building-sale-is-a-lose-lose/V76L7Q4JTATRVR2DONYWU5Z64Y/

      “Auckland Council’s fire sale of the Civic Administration Building (CAB) for a paltry $3 million – with (less than) $100,000 down and the balance upon sale of apartments – is probably the worst example of public property value destruction in the history of Auckland local government.

      Built as Auckland’s first skyscraper, of modernist architecture in 1966, the CAB was carefully sited near the Town Hall on land acquired by the former Auckland City Council to form a civic square. Aotea Square was opened by mayor Dove Myer Robinson in 1979 and completed with the opening of the Aotea Centre by mayor Cath Tizard in 1990. At that time, Auckland City extracted all the asbestos that was accessible and practicable to extract from the CAB, confirmed by regular air testing for fibre asbestos indicating the building “was safe for normal occupation” by council staff.

      Even before the new Super City had been established in November 2010, I was informed that its incoming leading bureaucrats intended to buy the ASB Bank tower at 135 Albert St for their new headquarters. A year later, a slim majority of Auckland councillors were persuaded to go along with buying the 29-storey Albert Street tower. This was purchased in mid-2012 for $104m followed soon after by $24.5m spent on a plush interior “fit out”.

      Evidently so eager were council managers to move into to what staff call “the proud tower”, only cursory due diligence was undertaken. A council finance manager later explained (with unintended irony) that this normal commercial procedure was thought “too costly”. Compounding this blunder, the council waived the building warranty. This would prove to be very expensive for Auckland ratepayers.”

      New $120m office building in Albany for Auckland Council a step closer
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122724051/new-120m-office-building-in-albany-for-auckland-council-a-step-closer

  13. The treaty is a piece of shit!

    It does nothing for maori or anybody else.

    It’s a document written by the pakeha for the pakeha. They didn’t want the French to lay claim so the knocked together this piece of shit.

    It’s over rated, under delivered and is meaningless in so many ways. For example, treaty settlements. If the Crown ‘agrees’ to the quantum. You’ll get an apology and maybe 2% of what you have lost.
    But, you have to accept the apology or you’ll get nothing.

    So it’s about as useful as toilet paper.

    • Tane/Male/Man, not Female/Woman., you’re entitled to your opinion but its is the founding document that brought European settlers here who in turned disenfranchised Maori and its reflected today.

      To deny that is to deny your ancestors existence weather you’re maori or non Maori. I’m no academic but read a lot of our country history and find it empowering. When i see people make assumptions or use our history loosely is because they don’t know better or chose to remain ignorant. I look to the past so I can have a better understanding of what happening today and guide me on what the future holds for our country.

      • If we are talking warts and all Stephen, let’s talk about the musket wars, 20,000 dead (many more than in the NZ wars), Maori buying guns through prostitutinf their women, slavery and cannibalism. Oh and taking other Māoris land. Or is it not those warts you want to talk about.

        Women in this country were last to get the vote. I am holding on to mine and will do everything I can not to have it diluted

        • Hi Anker, I understand that Pakeha such as yourself traditionally concentrate on the lurid and exaggerate the extreme when discussing Maori issues. As for your historic account of Maori that I agree with some of your supposition, however the claim of 20’000 Maori dead during the musket wars can’t be relied upon because the method of data collected by the first missionaries is flimsy at best.

          And cannibalism was one of those adherent practices thankfully stopped when christianity arrived on our shores. I do find it hypocritical that Maori get tainted with the cannibal label to appease pakeha superiority values & beliefs however Europeans don’t like mentioning their own questionable past behavior and cannibalism.
          https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/europe-and-its-cannibals/

    • It simply cannot be both. The pushers of co-governance are lying to everyone including themselves. we might end up like the next Lebanon or Zimbabwe

  15. Stephen your arguments sound nice in theory, so let’s look at the practical though. One thing alone renders 3 Waters and it’s co-governance approach impractical. Mana o-te wai statements from iwi which constrain what a water authority can do.

    Here’s the practical implication – a water authority can make plans, implement them by say building infrastructure, and Iwi can come along later and create a new statement that would require them to throw away all that infrastructure investment.

    But which Iwi exactly get to determine this statement? What happens if there are conflicting statements?
    None of these issues have been thought through, which is simply ridiculous. Why is this one group privileged over all others? Yes they are tangata whenua but this is fundamentally undemocratic no matter what way you look at it.

    Let’s also look at another example of impractical co-governance – Matauranga Maori. This ‘indigenous knowledge’ system is being forced down the throat of our academic and science institutions as some form of treaty obligation. Yes we should respect this, but it is being given equal weight to science e.g. science grants must increasingly have 50% MM content. It’s also being pushed into secondary education, and our science teaching is already pathetic and getting worse. Maturanga Maori bakes in indigenous knowledge with spiritualism, and so is patently not science. It also explicitly rejects a core tenet ofd science – that it must be open to being falsified as new knowledge comes along.

    Back to the practical – what happens when this is fully embedded throughout education, academia and science? Our education performance is already woeful and now we want to push myths and legends as part of science education? What do you think will happen then?

    So again, look at the practical. Middle class Pakeha are forcing these changes onto NZ with no consultation, no mandate, and huge practical downsides, all to appease their own white guilt and virtue signalling.

    This is NZ’ers experience of co-governance – a clusterfuck in the making.

    • +1 nukefacts

      Practicality seems to be missing in action these days with more and more disastrous changes rammed through that are having a huge follow on effect and not helped anybody. Made it worse. Aka Grotty motels for kids, worse health care, transport and education.

    • Yes we need to address the poor levels of numeracy and literacy in NZ not to mention science.
      Myths and fairy tales have there place but not as substitutes.

      • Myths and legends and self identity thinking, are 50% of the NZ curriculum now.

        Wonder why our PISA scores are declining!

        When someone next needs a heart transplant or mechanic or physicist it will be good to know that if they were educated in NZ they would be aware of the dangers of Taniwha and how Maui fished up NZ and how woman and breast feeding is now a triggering slur, that needs to be purged from government language. There probably wasn’t time to go further than that unless the kids parents were full time teachers to fill in the missing gaps so the poor kids can get to become anything other than full time government managers, media and spiritualists which don’t seem very productive roles.

    • nukefacts, thanks for your opinion but I would wholeheartedly disagree with your supposition. Please keep being opinionated as I wouldn’t want to stifle the right to express yourself.

      • BTW, many Maori themselves say Matauranga Maori is not science and should not even be taught to non-Maori, and there is widespread disagreement among Maori about what it exactly is.
        Nevertheless, we have the Ministry of Education trying to ram it down kids throats in the vain supposition that it will improve Maori participation in education and make amends for the “racist, colonialist westerns focus of Science”.
        Now see the problems there?
        BTW, Science is not western it’s global. There is no such thing as Western science, hell even our number system was mostly invented in the Muslim/East.

        So why are we pursuing this aspect of co-governance then? White liberal guilt. Nothing to do with actually helping Maori just virtue signalling among the white liberal middle class who these days want to lord over others their cultural superiority, so long as they don’t have to be involved in changing the system.

      • BTW, your condescending reply is why the left has lost traction lately and will almost certainly lost the next election. There’s no open mindedness to listen and deal with real issues that others outside your clique raise.

  16. You can have co-governance or you can have democracy

    but you cannot have both

    This is a hill many will be prepared to die on so let’s go

  18. The co-governance debate is interesting, however, being that it is impossible to show where co-governance is not in the Treaty, are you able to quote where it is in the Treaty, Stephen. The “yes it is/no it isn’t” argument wastes so much valuable time.

  19. Co governance is not co anything
    The Urewera National Park was given to Tuhoi under a co governance arrangement which stated it had to be run by iwi and DOC with access for all New Zealanders
    It is now being run by some Tuhoi leaders for Tuhoi alone.
    The huts are being removed, the track is unusable, the pests are being unchecked and DOC don’t want to know. The politicians and Tuhoi say it’s their business and no one else has a say
    Welcome to Aoteatoa 2040 under co governance

  20. Jesus! It doesn’t take much to roust the ignorant racist rats from the U$A in waiting’s Mom’s apple-pie wood pile does it.
    I’m a snow white non Maori farmer from Southland. It takes me three days of Southland sunshine to go from blue to deep red, to pink, to peeling then to the skin clinic. I’m also pro treaty, pro co-governance and generally pro Maori. I’ve been fucked over, cheated, lied to, swindled, ripped off and perhaps worst of all, bored, by wheedling whites hiding behind their pious self aggrandisement’s and never by Maori. I bet. If it’s not for Maori and co – governance we’ll become the 51st state of the narcissistic and dysfunctional psychopathy that’s AKA the USA “FUCK YEAH!”
    By the way… You do know that the four foreign owned banksters who’re literally stealing billions of dollars out of our economy as I write are in fact U$A banks? You did know that, right? Because if you didn’t know that, you don’t have a qualified opinion on what happens to our AO/NZ politically. So fuck off. Do some learnin’. Now watch this. Unrelated? Or is it. Make sure you read the comments. Ooo eeee Son. https://rumble.com/v1q1vf2–watch-live-president-donald-j.-trump-holds-rally-in-miami-fl-11622.html?utm_source=pocket_saves
    Now this. ( Follow the entire interview, for free, on Rumble. Will blow your mind.)
    “Here is my conversation with Professor Jeffery Sachs, we discussed many controversial topics like Ukraine war, Media Lies & Wuhan Lab Leak.”
    Meet Prof Jeffery Sachs
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs
    Russell Brand.
    “THIS Is How The US Have LIED About Ukraine War”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfXIJd5J_VA

    • Ahhh more Russell Brand link whoring I see CB!
      You are obsessed with a multi millionaire who says what you like but his fortune is never in jeopardy (he is worth approx 20mil).
      But please don’t let me stop your love affair of the ‘millionaire socialist’

    • Yes Countryboy we were completely fucked over by the co governance of National and ACTwhite parties , never again. In saying that National were promoting go co governance back then. Hypocrisy at its worst.

    • “I’m a snow white non Maori farmer from Southland. I’ve been fucked over, cheated, lied to, swindled, ripped off and perhaps worst of all, bored, by wheedling whites hiding behind their pious self aggrandisement’s and never by Maori”.
      Maybe move to a part of NZ where there are actually some Maori and then come back to us?

  21. I’m not going to argue Treaty Rights as that is a can of worms. But I think that at it’s most pragmatic Co Governance is going to cause headaches and jockeying for power. And given Mahuta’s background, it will be a Tribal Power Grab particularly on behalf of the King Movement/Tainui.

    See: https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/tuku-morgan-and-three-waters

    And then there is the wonderfully successful Te Urewera Co Governance where the guardianship of the land means excluding others and letting predators endanger the entire eco system and that of surrounding areas.

    Co Governance may bring some benefits for Maori but that remains to be quantified. Whether it is a benefit to all Maori and a benefit in cost effectiveness to the taxpayer, also remains to be seen.

    • Fantail, I would take your opinion with a grain of salt. The Te Urewera was confiscated by the crown illegally. It had no right to take land that belong to someone else and the excuses that it used was undoubtedly questionable. Tuhoe own these forest and weren’t responsible for releasing marsupial predators into their native bush. That is the Crown’s obligation to rid or control these marsupial predators as they were ultimately responsible.

      Tuhoe don’t need to co-governance their forest with nobody as these properties are private to the tuhoe people. Its called property rights something that exist in a liberal democracy.

      • Ok Stephen, but you do know that work on Te Urewera that has been paid for by the Crown has not taken place because in some cases DoC have been denied entry and in some cases, TuT? has not carried out works it was paid for.

        Have you seen the Doco on Te U conservation that was made sometime around 2010. It lauded a Hapu who had worked on concervation in Te U for generations and who were paid by DOC to do a lot of the work. Te U was the jewel in the Crown of Conservation success stories and it was all about partnership between Maori and DoC.

        12 years later its not looking so good. And although you are correct about pest control, its a remote area and access is difficult especially if you are barred entry. Even on our own land, we are required to follow the law and by laws and often this includes things like access, tracks and I think some elements of pest control.

  22. A sane analysis of the issue – thank you for that. Probably not going to make a huge difference to the chorus of hysteria from the newly awakened defenders of sacred Pakeha democracy.

  24. Also. The words ‘Maori’ and ‘iwi’ are invented words to homogenized Hapu & Whanau.
    Lump them into a pakeha construct.

    Maori itself as a word has no meaning. It is a nothing word.
    Like Kangaroo.

    Iwi to is a constructed ‘element’ to group Hapu and Whanau.

    And, not all ‘maori’are the same!! Nor is Tikanga!!

    So for all you highly educated fucks! You’ve failed badly on some important fundamentals.
    Or, have you all been indoctrinated too?

    • Well put Tane.
      NZ is full of the indoctrinated and radicalised and it took only 5 years.
      The so called self appointed well educated making up the majority.
      Amazing how few still have original thought.

  25. Gee we have some really dumb Pakeha people in our country many know nothing about the TOW, nor do they want to. Many are really ignorant racist bigots and many of them talk the same old shit on this site. Stephen has laid it out for you, but you are too blind and dumb you cannot see.

  26. I was willing to listen to the case for co-governance until the situation around the Urewera National Park. Its an appalling state of affairs now and if this is what co-governance looks like then I’ll pass.

    • This has nothing to do with co governance. Tuhoe own it!
      They have property rights. They determine what stays and what goes, just like any other property owner can say and do on their own property.

      • So Denny if that is the case, why is the government labelling it co Governance? Was that just to justify handing back the National Park to Tuhoe in the light of potential opposition from other users/NZers?

        If so, it seems to be part of that decline you mentioned. If it’s reasonable to give them the land back then why not be upfront with everyone. (Or is it a different issue?)

      • @Denny (and CiP), you are right the Tuhoe (that is elite Tuhoe) can do whatever they like with Te Urewera.

        The concern when looking at proposals such as 3 Waters, especially the mana o te wai statements, is that they are binding and have no limits or checks and balances. They do not have to be rational, consider conflicts of interest or even be for the common good.

        They too can do whatever they like.

        I accept following the Māori version of ToW and the ideal of co-governance but of the many problems with implementation one is the seeming assumption of altruism in the individuals entrusted with power (such as the ability to issue mana o te wai statements).

        Ministers like Mahuta have said that water resources will be managed following Tikanga principles for the benefit of all. This is why examples like Te Urewera may be illustrative, or the more concrete example of Playcenter, which are demonstrably not for the benefit of all, even all Māori.

        Relying on altruism, where powerful people can do whatever they like will end badly. This includes for the vast majority of Māori who I expect will see little to no benefit from empowering tribal elites. Did a majority of Māori concerned with Playcenter benefit where 2 rõpū vetoed 4?

        I have no doubt there are good intentions and there are highly altruistic Māori leaders but see no reason to believe that Māori capitalists will behave any differently from Pākeha capitalists nor look after the majority even the majority of their own Iwi unless limits, checks and balances are put in place.

        @Stephen darling! Congratulations on winning most frequent use of the word ‘bigot’ (and variants) in a comments section. This is highly offensive to bisexual goats you homophobic capraist. Your diligence is noted and a Diangelonian Level 2 certificate and signed photograph of Robin is in the post. In anticipation to your usual nuanced 2 word summary of my comment, Lettuce, lettuce, cucumber, radish, lemon juice.

  29. Can someone explain why Maori Land is rated? it can’t be sold so it’s value is zero and so should the rates.

  30. I think everyone particularly Pakeha should refrain from commenting on this site given we are all racist,dishonest bigots.
    Leave it to experts like Stephen.

  31. I’m sick of ideas being pushed. What about outcomes being thought out that would poduce utilitarian outcomes, then compare that lot of outcomes with others that cater for niche interests. Do they need different pathways to achieve them all?

    Then look at the pathways to the outcomes with time for monitoring and reflection on the way and small adjustments or corrections. Go straight to the horses mouth and find out what sort of oats or whatever, it wants. Cut the cackle, it wastes precious money and time, Note the persiflage further up in this post.

Comments are closed.