this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)

NZ Politics

562 readers
1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

 

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dave
RaoulDuke
12
National leads Labour in new poll but Hipkins still more popular than Luxon (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 1 year ago by Ilovethebomb to c/politics
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With how close the two blocs are, this is a big shift.

Labour: 32.3 percent, down 3.6 points
National: 36.6 percent, up 1.3 points
ACT: 12.1 percent, up 1.3 points
Greens: 9.6 percent, up 1.5 points
Te Pāti Māori: 2.7 percent, down 0.8 point
NZ First: 4.1 percent, up 1.1 points

TOP is down 0.5% to 1.5%

Also, ardern is still at 3.7% for preferred prime minister somehow, just behind Winston Peters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ophy 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's such a bizarre scenario, given Luxon isn't popular, what exactly are people choosing National for? Their... "Policies"? I could understand if people were just swayed by the identity politics of it all, even if I think that's a bit shallow, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[–] Ilovethebomb -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A lot of people, myself included, don't want to see what type of damage TPM could cause if they have a seat at the table, and won't vote for either three as a result.

I also do like some of National's policies, the second Terrace and Mt Vic tunnels are badly needed, for example.

[–] BalpeenHammer 4 points 1 year ago

So your decision is based on racism.

[–] cloventt 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What damage do you expect Te Pāti Māori to do if they get a seat at the table?

[–] Ilovethebomb -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Racially divisive policies, in particular co governance.

[–] Rangelus 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, do you know that co-governance is already being used in many places right? For example the governance of the Waikato river is a co-governance model. There have been no issues that I know of, and everything runs smoothly.

What exactly is your fear with regards to co-governance?

[–] Ilovethebomb -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My view is that co governance is valid where natural resources are concerned, but it should never be used when man made infrastructure is concerned.

The proposed model, where Iwi have a 50% say, is also rather unprecedented.

It's just a bad idea all around.

[–] Rangelus 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They don't really have 50% say. I can only speak to the proposal with 3 waters, but it was not the governing body that had 50% Iwi input. The group of experts that chose those who form the governing body, which was to be done on based on merit as usual, was shared between Iwi and non-iwi. This treats Iwi as an form of 'expert', by acknowledging they are the original caretakers of the land.

I cannot claim certainty of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as I am not an expert, but I also believe it was a stipulation to ensure Māori retained control/governorship over certain aspects of the land, including waterways.

ETA: I want to also make it clear I am not defending or endorsing TPM btw, just that I don't reject them solely based on the ideas around co-governance.

[–] Ilovethebomb -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference between them having 50% say, and having 50% say in the board is mere pedantry, in my view. Of course they will appoint people who will represent their views and interests.

I also don't see what any of this has to do with decisions regarding man made infrastructure, these are not waterways we're talking about, but built infrastructure.

[–] Rangelus 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference between them having 50% say, and having 50% say in the board is mere pedantry, in my view. Of course they will appoint people who will represent their views and interests.

But they cannot appoint anything by themselves. The committee needs to agree. They just have a voice at the table, and equal voice.

I also don't see what any of this has to do with decisions regarding man made infrastructure, these are not waterways we're talking about, but built infrastructure.

What infrastructure are you concerned about? If you are talking about the water infrastructure, then my counter argument is - all water flows into the waterways eventually. What happens upstream affects those downstream, so why shouldn't they have a say?

I guess my view is this: it doesn't bother me if we follow Te Tiriti, and it also doesn't bother me if we extend those rights upstream. I do not think that these boards are going to start chucking white folks in jail or anything. What exactly do you think they might so that is "racially bases"?

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's more that they will likely find a way to direct projects towards Iwi owned companies, or find another way to work things to their advantage. The whole system is ripe for abuse.

Iwi deserve a say on consents to take and discharge water, what happens between the two should be none of their business. Their individual members, assuming they are ratepayers, will of course have a say.

[–] Rangelus 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Huh, my comment didn't take by the looks of it.

Tl;Dr I said thanks for the discussion, this is a valid concern, and while I'm not worried I get why it should be addressed.

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago

I can see both your comments.

Lemmy doesn't seem to like long comment chains for some reason.