ACT was never going to work with them anyway so that's a silly addition.
As for NZ first I bet he changes his tune if they get in power. Hopefully they won't though.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
23 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
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I like Chris, if Labour had better potential coalition partners, I'd likely be voting for them. Unfortunately, TPM in particular just seem hell bent on dividing the country along racial lines.
Given ACT have also ruled out a coalition with NZ first, it would be great to see National also rule out working with them.
As much as I dislike NZ first, the only way labour forms a government with the current polling is if NZF break the 5% threshold and acts as kingmaker to push them over 60 seats. Without NZF in coalition it's either a national/act government or a national minority government.
I suspect Labour would rather spend a term in opposition than a term being Winnie's bitch, after what happened last time.
I think this country is already divided along racial lines. People seem to be uncomfortable with TMP or anybody else pointing this out though. I guess we all want to pretend all races live in harmony holding hands and singing kumbaya.
Look at the apoplexy pakeha went through when the hospitals modified their triage rule to acknowledge that Maori get horrible outcomes from the health system for example.
I disagree that Te Pāti Māori want to "divide the country" and I'd certainly say they're less divisive than Act or NZ First.
Te Pāti Māori want to increase the provision of targeted services and transition services for māori to be provided by māori, which makes a certain kind of sense, as far as instilling trust and providing services in a culturally appropriate way.
Historically, māori have been put at a disadvantage by colonial systems, and so the equitable thing to do is to provide targeted support and this is a role only government can really fill.
I don't care about that, I'm talking about the co governance aspect of three waters. Incredibly undemocratic.
Bold claim, makes me think you aren’t really sure what co-governance involves.
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.
You are aware that iwi consultation on most natural resources by local government has been the norm for several decades though, right?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
So your position is that iwi involvement in government is a good thing, but you think there is already enough of it?
Correct.
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?
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.
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?
The protests that were around the sale of land not owned or controlled by the central government, you mean?
Even though this isn't the case, I agree with you. Why shouldn't they have a say?
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.
Are you certain about the 75% majority? This is the first I've heard of it.
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.
So they can merely cause a deadlock. That is an improvement at least.
Well to be fair 50% would cause a deadlock as well.
How so?