Nat/act/nzf 2023

[Logen Ninefingers]

The Left will be dismayed by the words of Rahui Papa of Tainui at Ratana.

------

'Rahui Papa of Tainui said he was buoyed Luxon had previously said he wanted to govern for all New Zealanders. He moved on to comment on sceptism about some of the policies, especially in the health space such as the scrapping of the Māori health authority which had caused some consternation among Māori.

“We care not what you want to call government agencies,” Papa added, also saying Māori didn’t care about changing Māori (worded) signs, the priority was unity in Māoridom and self-determination.'

[Entrep]

wtf is "self-determination"?

[Entrep]

As ex Nat MP Chris Finlayson has pointed out, it was more of a co-management arrangement of natural resources.

By including the word ‘governance’ (and then not clarifying what it meant) a lot of people were immediately fear full.

What's the difference? The Govt is in-charge (or so I thought) and chooses who manages what and controls them. Co-management is co-governance.

JFC this is like banging my head against the wall. Everyone speaks in riddles and rhymes, tripping over their own words at every turn.

Literally nothing has a clear meaning.

The only thing clear is that they reject democracy, they reject that everyone in NZ is equal with equal access, and they reject the Government elected by the people of New Zealand.

[Logen Ninefingers]

wtf is "self-determination"?

I think it probably means 'a state within a state', because non-Maori are hardly going to vacate these islands.


The right of a people to self-determination[1] is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[2][3] It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[4]

[fungus pudding]

wtf is "self-determination"?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...-determination

Looks like there's no such thing - pure theory.

[mistaTea]

What's the difference? The Govt is in-charge (or so I thought) and chooses who manages what and controls them. Co-management is co-governance.

JFC this is like banging my head against the wall. Everyone speaks in riddles and rhymes, tripping over their own words at every turn.

Literally nothing has a clear meaning.

The only thing clear is that they reject democracy, they reject that everyone in NZ is equal with equal access, and they reject the Government elected by the people of New Zealand.

I think Finlayson was just pointing out that the proposal amounts to a co-management of natural resources.

A co-management arrangement that sits under a single NZ Government.

Wheras, when people heard the word 'governance' in the title - skepticism and fear quickly followed that they were trying to set up some other kind of Government for Maori etc.

[Entrep]

I think Finlayson was just pointing out that the proposal amounts to a co-management of natural resources.

A co-management arrangement that sits under a single NZ Government.

Wheras, when people heard the word 'governance' in the title - skepticism and fear quickly followed that they were trying to set up some other kind of Government for Maori etc.

Say there is a lake and 10 people are appointed to oversee it.

Either those 10 people are appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. These 10 people can be people of ANY RACE and are effectively controlled by the Govt to implement Govt policies and run the lake in a way the Govt wants. Fine (DEMOCRACY).

Or those people are made up of 5 people appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. And then another 5 appointed by the local Iwi who the Govt has no say or control over. <-------- THIS IS CO-MANAGEMENT / GOVERNANCE / WHATEVER STUPID NAME YOU WANNA GIVE IT.

Now go beyond managing a lake to managing a city, welfare systems, budget, country, etc, etc.

All these different words are complete and utter nonsense and all the mean the same thing: A REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY OF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS.

I'm just gonna keep banging my head against the wall. Caps are not directed at you MT, just general frustration.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Say there is a lake and 10 people are appointed to oversee it.

Either those 10 people are appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. These 10 people can be people of ANY RACE. Fine.

Or those people are made up of 5 people appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. And then another 5 appointed by the local Iwi who the Govt has no say or control over. <-------- THIS IS CO-MANAGEMENT / GOVERNANCE / WHATEVER STUPID NAME YOU WANNA GIVE IT.

Now go beyond managing a lake to managing a city, welfare systems, budget, country, etc, etc.

All these different words are complete and utter nonsense and all the mean the same thing: A REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY OF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS.

I'm just gonna keep banging my head against the wall. Caps are not directed at you MT, just general frustration.

I hate to break it to you, but vis a vis your example of a lake, Iwi now own Lake Taupo and the government pays them $1 million per year so that the people of New Zealand can have access. They can - and do - veto use of the lake.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/waikato-n...GEUMHVXWMAKNA/

[Entrep]

I hate to break it to you, but vis a vis your example of a lake, Iwi now own Lake Taupo and the government pays them $1 million per year so that the people of New Zealand can have access. They can - and do - veto use of the lake.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/waikato-n...GEUMHVXWMAKNA/

I had a quick read of the deed and needing permission to use it appears to only apply in respect of commercial activities https://tuwharetoa.co.nz/app/uploads/TMTB-2007-Deed.pdf and https://www.tuwharetoa.co.nz/app/upl...y-Judgment.pdf

[mistaTea]

Say there is a lake and 10 people are appointed to oversee it.

Either those 10 people are appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. These 10 people can be people of ANY RACE and are effectively controlled by the Govt to implement Govt policies and run the lake in a way the Govt wants. Fine (DEMOCRACY).

Or those people are made up of 5 people appointed by the Minster of Fisheries (or whoever) who is appointed by the Govt. And then another 5 appointed by the local Iwi who the Govt has no say or control over. <-------- THIS IS CO-MANAGEMENT / GOVERNANCE / WHATEVER STUPID NAME YOU WANNA GIVE IT.

Now go beyond managing a lake to managing a city, welfare systems, budget, country, etc, etc.

All these different words are complete and utter nonsense and all the mean the same thing: A REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY OF NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS.

I'm just gonna keep banging my head against the wall. Caps are not directed at you MT, just general frustration.

No offense is being taken, and I do understand what you are saying.

And ultimately all of this ties back to TOW (which is now on the other thread).

If this thread is anything to go by I think we are in for a robust conversation that is perhaps long overdue. And I am looking forward to considering both sides of the coin.

Ultimately, if you do not believe that TOW was pitched as a partnership with Iwi then anything they try to do that is not 100% democratic will be anathema. I do understand that point of view, because I have had a lot to say in the past from that angle. Far too much to say in my case, as I am ignorant about TOW and much of NZ History.

If, on the other hand, you are accepting of the notion that TOW was pitched as a partnership (and written that way in the te reo version) then co-management/governance (or whatever fancy marketing name you want to give it) is not only perfectly reasonable... it is something The Crown has a duty to honour by coming up with novel ways to affirm Maori tikanga and ensure that local Iwi get an equal say in key areas that impact them (such as the management of natural resources). All within the framework of what is often referred to as a liberal democracy.

At no point am I saying that you or anyone else is 'wrong' in your views. In fact, I think you all raise very strong points.

I am just trying to make sure I understand the history of the issues from more than a conservative white perspective so that any final conclusions I am able to draw (if any) are as well reasoned as I can make them.

Because I know that I am very biased, and in fact prejudiced.