I'm actually quite familiar with the proposal, and how it involves handing over a huge amount of control over our built infrastructure to Iwi, for very tenuous reasons.

Now fuck off with the condescending attitude.

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

You are aware that iwi consultation on most natural resources by local government has been the norm for several decades though, right?

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

Consultation, yes. They don't get a 50% say, in addition to the same vote we all get.

You do understand that's different, right?

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

Yes they're different, my point is that consultation with them has not resulted in any negative outcomes I can think of. That's why I reckon increasing their role in resource governance makes a lot of sense, especially given the context of pre-colonisation customary rights over water and te tiriti. Why don't you think they deserve a partnership role in governance?

I recommend reading the He Puapua report to get a better understanding of the purpose and intention of co-governance. It's a slog but well worth it.

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

Mostly because they are, in most cases, an advisory committee, and we can disregard their advice if they are being too unreasonable.

This will mean an Iwi can deadlock a project or proposal if they don't get their way, something I'm not at all looking forward to.

[–] cloventt 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Who currently gets to decide what counts as "unreasonable"? What if it's the council appointees who are being unreasonable?

I'm fine with iwi having some veto power. If a project involves building a septic tank on an urupā or draining a wāhi tapu wetland why shouldn't iwi have the power to stop it?

[–] Rangelus 1 points 1 year ago

Even though this isn't the case, I agree with you. Why shouldn't they have a say?

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

I mean, the council appointees are ultimately beholden to the voting public, so they get to decide what is and isn't reasonable. And, in recent history, councils have been very eager to accommodate Iwi on these matters.

They also have a very effective boycott in the form of protests, look at the case in Auckland for example.

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

So your position is that iwi involvement in government is a good thing, but you think there is already enough of it?

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

Correct.

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

Ok, good to know. You're entitled to that view.

Earlier you said:

And, in recent history, councils have been very eager to accommodate Iwi on these matters.

Bearing in mind that the voting public in New Zealand is overwhelmingly not māori, what happens if a council is elected that is not eager to accommodate iwi? What happens if multiple anti-māori racists are elected to a council, scrap any iwi consultation and decide to do everything they can to run roughshod over tangata whenua?

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

I suspect they would be unable to do much at all, Iwi have shown a willingness to protest ferociously and with great effect in the last few decades, most notably the multiple successful occupations they have staged over the years.

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

So rather than remedying the lack of indigenous representation that is forcing them to protest in the first place, we should just let them keep protesting in lieu of having a seat at the table?

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 1 year ago

The protests that were around the sale of land not owned or controlled by the central government, you mean?

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

Co-governance does not afford them a 50% say. It is an equal split of Iwi and Crown representatives that decide on guiding principles, advice and direction for the actual water boards. Also, decisions require a 75% majority, so it's not like any one group can take over.

This is all ignoring the fact that co-governance is pretty much the bare minimum the crown should do based on The Treaty of Waitangi.

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

Are you certain about the 75% majority? This is the first I've heard of it.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's a source: https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/24-04-2023/explained-whats-going-on-with-formerly-named-three-waters-and-co-governance

It is also notable that decisions of the regional representative groups are not to be made by a bare majority. The current legislation requires that the regional representative groups make decisions by consensus, where possible, or by 75% of the regional representatives.

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

So they can merely cause a deadlock. That is an improvement at least.

[–] Dave 1 points 1 year ago

Well to be fair 50% would cause a deadlock as well.