this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
18 points (95.0% liked)

NZ Politics

565 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
 

This is why we need 3-waters reform. The ones who oppose this (National/Act voters included here) are the ones directly responsible for the vertical climb in local and regional rates we can expect over the coming years.

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

How did you type that out without realizing how stupid it sounds?

Democracy: "Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives."

In what respect does an advisory group, consisting entirely of unelected members, with no direct power or rule, appointed by two different groups, relate to democracy? We are not talking about government, council, or some other system of rule of a country.

No, it doesn’t.

Leading Treaty scholars, lawyers, and the Tribunal itself all agree that it does. I'm happy to say you're wrong about this.

It’s not theirs to own.

Just because you don't think it so does not make it the truth. The Tribunal has ruled that it is, therefore, it is with all respects to the Crown and Law.

How? They didn’t create dams or divert or control the water in any meaningful way.

If you have a problem with the Tribunal ruling, perhaps you should become a lawyer, study the treaty and Maori culture and history, then get a hearing to change this ruling. For now, though, we should take the experts decision on this.

What didn’t they consider sacred? Did they consider the land my house sits on Taonga?

Ignoring the racist undertone, this is not our place to say. We do not get to dictate what another culture, that was here first remember, decides is important. I am not Maori, and I'm willing to bet you are not either. I'm certain you wouldn't start telling Germans or Chinese what they consider culturally important and sacred in their own countries now would you?

Your interpretation of this is a fantasy, based on some incredibly tenuous arguments.

My "interpretation" is entirely based on facts, the actual rulings by leading authorities, the actual legislation, the actual situation and compassion. You are the one basing your interpretation faulty information.

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Waitangi Tribunal makes recommendations that are not legally binding, remember? We are free to ignore them.

And, with the ever growing list of things that are allegedly Taonga that we should hand over control to, I think it's time we did just that.

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

The Waitangi Tribunal makes recommendations that are not legally binding, remember? We are free to ignore them.

Yes you are right, I didn't explain that point clearly. I meant laws are regularly based on Tribunal rulings. In this case, the legislation around co-governance references the tribunal ruling (or at least it was involved, I can't recall the exact wording off hand). In other words, the Tribunal gives the expert decision about some aspect of the Treaty. I'm willing to listen to them, since they are, y'know, the experts.

And, with the ever growing list of things that are allegedly Taonga that we should hand over control to, I think it’s time we did just that.

Why? Ignoring everything else entirely, what is your great fear that allowing mana whenua to have an advisory role in the water boards will result in? What do you think will happen?

Additionally:

allegedly Taonga

You have exactly zero right to tell any Maori person what is and isn't Taonga. The Treat clearly states that Maori will retain rights to things they consider taonga. This absolutely hasn't happened.

[–] Ilovethebomb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because, just like the supposed advisory role the Tribunal plays, they will be treated as gospel, and anyone who opposes their recommendations will be screamed down and branded a racist.

Besides, the idea that all water, everywhere, was sacred and therefore theirs to control is ridiculous.

Also, stop downvoting everyone who disagrees with you, you petulant child.

[–] Rangelus 1 points 1 year ago

Because, just like the supposed advisory role the Tribunal plays, they will be treated as gospel, and anyone who opposes their recommendations will be screamed down and branded a racist.

75% vote required to do anything my dude.

And what do you think they are going to do that you will oppose? You know co-governance already exists right? Waikato river is run by a co-governance situation (I'll confess I don't know the specifics) that was put in place under National. No problems, no-one trying to disagree with them and being labelled racist.

Besides, the idea that all water, everywhere, was sacred and therefore theirs to control is ridiculous.

First, they won't control it. They will share equal responsibilities to advise the board that controls it. Second, why not? They were here first, worked the land, lived in the areas, relied on the water, etc. Just because "we" came along and said "this is ours now" doesn't mean it wasn't especially important to them. Again, it's not our place to dictate their culture.

Also, stop downvoting everyone who disagrees with you, you petulant child.

Lol