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’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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
How so?