-
It was clumsy by Luxton to refer to South Auckland garages like that, but of course stuff have to go and find someone who contradicts his statement
Perhaps tomorrow, in the name of balance, they should post a story about a meth lab in a South Auckland garage?
-
Question for the uninformed please.
Co-Governance. Can anyone explain in grunts of one syllable what exactly is being floated here?
I see mention of it about various Twitter accounts and "news" outlets.
I just don't want to speculate the actual meaning as I'm ignorant of the proposed format.
Thanks in anticipation.
(After that ... Three Waters ... )
-
@booboo My interpretation
Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been interpreted as a partnership between Maori and the Crown to govern all aspects of NZ society. If you read the Treaty that interpretation can't really be debated against. It's just that the Crown immediately reneged.
This is certainly the fundamental basis of Te Pati Maori's understanding. Theirs is an extreme stance and not helpful to most people understanding the subject as they are the bogey men.
National under Key/English and driven by Chris Findlayson introduced the concept of co-governance, particularly when it comes to natural resources. The broad concept is one of partnership and reducing the decision-making role of central government by talking to others with vested interests. You could say in increases democracy.
This doesn't sit comfortably with many people especially when some politicians play the race card by suggesting Maori are going to take our waters/fishing/bush whatever away from us. We have had forms of co-governance over things like the Waikato and Urerewa's for some time and the sky has yet to fall on our heads.
This is an extension of that. In terms of 3 Waters A maori authority would represent the rights of Maori when it comes to waterways.
Ironically my issue with 3 Waters is that it invests too much control with central government. In many ways co-governance would seek to ameliorate this so could be seen as a good thing. When it comes to clean water what is good for Maori is good for non Maori. There is no suggestion that access would be restricted or even that Maori would get a better deal - but those optics suit some agendas.
The principle of co-governance is in the Treaty. Maori have had the shit end of the stick for a long time. This isn't some form of affirmative action. It is giving a vested party some say, but not a majority say.
I think the whole issue has been poorly handled, planned and communicated. I think having it fronted by Nenaia Mahuta was a big mistake. Is it perfect? - definitely not but then I don't like the 3 Waters legislation.
Anyway getting off the subject. That's my take on co-governance. In a generation it will all be a bit meh but it is a political football at the moment. Foreshore and Seabed V2
-
@dogmeat I thought the co-governance talk was down to the fact neither red or blue could gain a majority in the house with blue aligning with yellow and red with green and it would effectively be left to the Maori Party (or I am sure Whinny thinks he has another shot) as kingmaker requiring co-governance?
I wonder if any 3 Waters supporters will be dumb enough to use the flooding as reason 3 waters is good?
-
@taniwharugby Until last month the Maori Party had ruled out working with any other group to form a government so I don't think that is the case.
I think co-governance is a nice simplistic stick to beat Labour with - as in the Maori shouldn't get special treatment and / or they're gonna steal all our stuff.
It's been use as such by David Seymour (a lot) and Chris Luxon (a bit).
There are IMO lots of reasons to oppose 3Waters but those two not so much. Co-governance is akin to having an iwi representative on your local council. Which many also don't like but doesn't really change outcomes much - if at all.
Really, I struggle to see anyone having any issues with the broad concept of Kaitiakitanga. I'd rather have iwi representation ahead of the barking mad, anti-everything wings of Labour and the Greens. Some of whom I have already heard trying to dress up 3 Waters as the answer to the storms we have experienced.
-
I'd prefer we look to the future and look after everyone equitably.
A democratic vote should be equal despite your ancestry/colour of your skin.
Where there are poor outcomes in society (education, crime, health, etc) we should help whoever is effected, be they Pacific Islanders, Asian, Maori or Pakeha.
ACT is right when they say it's a very divisive policy.
-
@Kirwan Of course ACT is right. However co-governance doesn't give anyone an extra vote.
It's akin to giving iwi as shareholders in NZ Inc a couple of seats on the Board. The collective still runs the business. Boards are often made up like this.
It's not a hill I am prepared to die on as I'm genuinely not that fussed either way, but I think there are stronger reasons to oppose Labour's meddling with 3Waters and Te Whatu Ora than co-governance.
If guys like Key, English and Finlayson are in favour and don't see it as a risk to our traditional democratic values then I'm prepared to accept that ACT are simply shit-stirring.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat I thought the co-governance talk was down to the fact neither red or blue could gain a majority in the house with blue aligning with yellow and red with green and it would effectively be left to the Maori Party (or I am sure Whinny thinks he has another shot) as kingmaker requiring co-governance?
I wonder if any 3 Waters supporters will be dumb enough to use the flooding as reason 3 waters is good?
The FB warriors wasted little time
-
@canefan yeah seen some of them, it will more be if they use it as ammo in parliament.
I would say most stormwater systems would be overwhelmed by that volume of water in such a short space, a city like Auckland would have such a huge amount of impervious surfaces, all that water has to go somewhere, and if it can't, it just gets deeper.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@canefan yeah seen some of them, it will more be if they use it as ammo in parliament.
I would say most stormwater systems would be overwhelmed by that volume of water in such a short space, a city like Auckland would have such a huge amount of impervious surfaces, all that water has to go somewhere, and if it can't, it just gets deeper.
It was crazy. At the same time from my personal experience the council has been negligent in their maintenance of storm water drains and water ways behind my property. We were very lucky to escape without flood damage
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan Of course ACT is right. However co-governance doesn't give anyone an extra vote.
It's akin to giving iwi as shareholders in NZ Inc a couple of seats on the Board. The collective still runs the business. Boards are often made up like this.
It's not a hill I am prepared to die on as I'm genuinely not that fussed either way, but I think there are stronger reasons to oppose Labour's meddling with 3Waters and Te Whatu Ora than co-governance.
If guys like Key, English and Finlayson are in favour and don't see it as a risk to our traditional democratic values then I'm prepared to accept that ACT are simply shit-stirring.
Labour have shown plenty of ineptitude in a variety of areas, that’s not interesting to discuss.
The nature of representation in our government is. Moving our society to seperate entities based on race seems a very 19th century approach to me.
Noises have been made about seperate entities for resource management, health and much more quietly, the justice system.
It may be the same number of votes, but one will be worth more than another. Our current system is not perfect, and we should always be trying to improve, but the goal for society has to be everyone be treated equitably and have the same opportunities in life.
Those boards/entities need to be a meritocracy, not a race based selection. It’s kinda crazy to even have to type that out.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat he certainly seems to need some media training, he may have some great strengths, but communicating, particularly with media doesnt seem one of them
Interview this morning with newshub...yikes.
We didn't have a hell of a lot of choice. It was him or the Jacinda endorsed Collins. One of the more capable (on the surface) candidates pulled out before the election. Wayne did end of causing the head of AT to resign, so that was a good thing
-
The Head of AT had already resigned. What Brown achieved was getting the front runner to become his replacement to withdraw because of his (Brown's) bullshit and bluster and the Mayor's lack of commitment and obvious political interference.
Nothing about Brown's performance should come as a shock. He is the archetypical grumpy old man. Can't stand criticism, thinks he's a fucking genius, is a blow hard and a lazy prick to boot.
Collins was not a great alternative but hard to imagine he could have been any worse.
As for the 3rd candidate - were you thinking of Viv Beck? She would have got my vote, but your ad agency taking legal action because you owed them a small fortune scuppered her chances.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Nothing about Brown's performance should come as a shock. He is the archetypical grumpy old man. Can't stand criticism, thinks he's a fucking genius, is a blow hard and a lazy prick to boot.
Come now!! He's not too lazy to play tennis
-
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat he certainly seems to need some media training, 1 he may have some great strengths, but 2 communicating, particularly with media doesnt seem one of them
Interview this morning with newshub...yikes.
1 "great strengths"? I don't know what they are?
2 would have thought media communication was kind of important to the role of Mayor but all my knowledge of political roles comes from watching the Simpsons...
NZ Politics