Anyone see the hypocrisy & irony in regards these posts. 🤣
Ravings of an extremist's mindset.
Printable View
Everyone has their worldview, and that always includes politics (either on a general values level, or a party political one, or both). This is a forum about politics.
Some people hold their political worldviews more strongly than others. The people posting here tend to have quite strongly held views.
Some people can argue for their worldviews and some can't or won't. Some people enjoy exchanging abuse and personal attacks, others don't and respond out of anger.
Some people genuinely want to engage about the topics discussed in the hope of learning something or changing minds, others just get off on conflict.
I'd like to be smart enuff to know what I'm responding to and enlightened enuff not to let anyone's posts 'get to me' but I'm not.
I try not to feed the trolls, but you should do what works for you
Well post something meaningful rather than just blanket abuse towards circa half the population.
Honestly you two most just post gibberish insults & childlike rants.
I wonder if any of your friends or family knew what you posted what they would think. It's just embarrassing.
Not sure where to post this, but this thread seemed as good a place as any.
Oh that we had more people like this wonderful woman.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301...after-20-years
Something of a Mother Theresa type. Just get in at grass roots and get it done.
Thanks Jonu
The world needs more of them
I am proud of what I post - the truth and facts about what an incompetent, racist and divisive spendthrift wasteful government led by a clueless and useless leader (Cindy) has taken NZ back years and it will take decades to repair the damage done by the QUITTER.
Meanwhile, we have the likes of you making ever conceivable excuse for the failures of Cindy & Chippy & the Labour governmebt.
12,000 new homes built by Labour, remember? Kiss my arse, Daytr.
Truly an unsung hero.
But who gets the gongs?
Trevor Mallard and Clueless Cindy.
Sick and disgusting.
https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...ptimize=medium
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...llard-1120.jpg
Get your Ute now - maybe Luxon's wife will swap the Tesla?
Attachment 14905
Lest we forget .....
Week before Cindy's wedding :
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...pg?format=500w
Most transparent government ever!
100,000 Kiwibuild homes!
Chris Trotter on how the leftists (especially the media commentators) decry the current "Hard-Right" government :
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com...ople-walk.html
WHAT PASSES for “Left” commentary these days insists that New Zealand is living under a “hard-right” government. Clearly, these commentators are unfamiliar with what constitutes a hard-right government. Equally clearly, they know next to nothing about New Zealand political history. Compared to the governments of Bill Massey, George Forbes, Sid Holland and Rob Muldoon, the coalition government of Christopher Luxon is a decidedly mild affair. The Left has mistaken a moderate and well-signalled political course correction for a reactionary reversal of progressive fortunes.
What the Left still doesn’t seem to have got its head around is that the defeated Labour Party is not the innocent victim of “red-necks” and “cookers” – reactionaries determined to drag New Zealand kicking and screaming back to the “half-gallon, quarter acre, Pavlova paradise” of the 1960s and 70s. Labour lost because the political magic first deserted Jacinda, and then, following her departure, transformed Chris Hipkins and his colleagues into a pretty hopeless bunch of politicians. What those Labour politicians celebrated as “progressive”, a great many voters considered either loopy, or dangerous, or a volatile mixture of the two.
For the moment, at least, New Zealanders seem happy to walk along National’s, Act’s, and NZ First’s footpaths. Not so much a “hard-right” government, as one committed to showing New Zealanders the right way home.
Dripkins has hit a new low as the Coalition surges -
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...NGMKPQLNJOGJA/
‘Voters appear to have warmed to the Government over the summer break, with the first poll of the new year showing National breaking the 40 per cent threshold.
National hit 41 per cent in January, a massive jump from the 36.5 per cent it scored in the December poll.
Labour is static on 28.4 per cent. The Greens polled 9.5 per cent, down one point. Act rose from 6.3 per cent last month to 7.8 per cent in January. NZ First polled 5.6 per cent, down from 8.1 per cent last month. Te Pāti Māori fell to 3.6 per cent from 5 per cent.
Those scores would give National 51 seats, Act 10 seats, and NZ First seven seats.
Labour would have 36 seats, the Greens would have 12, and Te Pāti Māori would have six.
The poll has more bad news for Labour, with leader Chris Hipkins crashing 9 points as preferred prime minister, a new low for a Labour leader in this poll, opening up an 18-point gap with Christopher Luxon who was up one point to 31 per cent .’
EV tax hikes on the way and more jobless thanks to the Luxon recession.
Duplicate...
And business confidence has improved since Labour & Green were kicked out of government :
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/...n-nzier-survey
There are signs business confidence is on the rise, in the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research quarterly survey.
In the last quarter of 2023, a net 10 percent of firms said they expected a deterioration in general economic conditions over the coming months, compared to a net 49 percent of firms feeling the same way the quarter before.
The study also showed businesses were finding it significantly easier to find labour and that there are signs of an ease in inflationary pressures.
Business confidence in the retail sector has seen a significant shift too.
A net 44 percent of retailers expected an improvement in general economic conditions, compared to a net 66 percent of shop owners expecting a deterioration in the economic outlook in the previous quarter.
The change shows the retail sector turning from the most downbeat sector to the most optimistic.
Feel good fuzzies for "How many Degrees James of the Rotten Green Brigade" most likely ;)
Fuel Tax increases Labout had planned would have shafted most of NZ to cover for the rest of the incompetence & large collection of potholes Labour amassed ;)
That would have properly f&$k*d the economy, blown the COL off the wall and propelled Kiwiland into the mother of all recessions with spiralling costs all over the place on top of the diving economy that Labour would have had on their hands looking forwards .. ;)
This is a government of middle managers not CEOs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/3501...agers-not-ceos
Now that the dog has caught the car.. now what?
Lot’s of jumping up and down by Maori separatists tonight on the news. Leftists in the public service are leaking like crazy to Leftists in the mainstream media, but New Zealanders can see exactly what is going on.
There is little doubt that NZ is heading into an extended period of racial strife and conflict which could last for many many years.
It is going to happen and NZ needs it to happen to either move forward or go backwards.
Have zero idea of how it will play out but one thing is for sure, hundreds of thousands of young NZers will be moving to Australia as the conflict and strife unfold.
So be it.
Transferred from the Coronavirus thread on the "Off Market Discussions" Forum
Kia ora MT
I am happy to engage, but I would like to start by getting up to speed on exactly what the new Govt proposes. Please provide a link to the source of your points 1-3.
Without that knowledge, and based only on my current understanding, I don't think there are too many problems with #1, but of course there will be questions about exactly what "govern" covers.
#2 is another matter. Tino Rangatiratanga covers a great deal more than the right to retain freehold property, and the claim that ALL have it seems to me to conflate a status conferred in English law with a treaty obligation, and to downgrade the latter.
#3 is a real problem. We aren't. You and lotsa others believe we should be, but a substantial minority (I am among them) regard that statement as a 'dog whistle' standing for stripping Maori of their Treaty Rights,and clawing back the progress towards a more equal, fairer, and more just society that we have made in the last fifty years.
Thank you dav, and for my part I will make my best effort to restrain any inflammatory language that makes it harder to stay on point.
As this is the Covid thread, if the dialogue continues we are best to move it to a more suitable thread.
The principles that ACT want to put forward have been known for some time.
As it happens, a memo was leaked which confirms the Principles that the new government is planning to support through to a first reading (National have made no promises or commitments beyond that as they no doubt want to engage Maori and others a lot more. As they should, we should not go from one govt trying to ram through radical change in a short period to a new govt trying to do the same thing, just from the opposite angle).
The leaked memo is here:https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...ples-bill-memo
Genuinely interested in your take, and the rationale behind it.
I must admit upfront that your initial response to all of us being equal under the law being something you think is a problem is of a concern to me (and dare I say it, the vast majoroty of NZers).
Have you actually talked to any of the NZers (especially the highly qualified) who decided in the last 6 years to migrate to Australia?
I have and amongst the doctors who migrated, one of the key reasons is that they do not want their children to grow up in a country where race determines almost everything - preferential entitlement to education, health, jobs, careers and future prospects. I just had a doctor friend & his young family on holiday from Queensland for lunch and he is so very very very happy he moved over there and escaped all the PC BS of cultural safety and te reo Maori requirements simply to do his job and to get ahead.
And where and what are the treaty unsettlements?
The skilled, hard working and professionals are always on the right side. Always.
Meanwhile, the parasites, beneficiaries and losers bred by Labour grow ever larger in numbers and greed/appetite in Aotearoa, land of the ever darker black cloud.
Just look at Kainga Ora - more staff on ever higher pay to do less!
Good luck to Luxon et al. if they can solve the staffing problem in public health, increase salaries for young doctors, and others, so they can afford to buy a home. All while solving Maori health issues, cutting taxes, and keeping the housing Ponzi scheme from imploding. Maybe then the reason for migration to OZ will be because people want to escape PC BS.
Luxon & co wanted the job and one can but wish them well & hope they can heal the racial, social and economic discords sowed and cultivated by Ardern, Hipkins and the Labour government over the last 6 years.
Getting rid of the PC BS is but the first step and if they cannot do that, NZ is doomed to become the land of the ever dark black cloud.
The skilled, experienced and hard working will find Australia most welcoming as hundreds of thousands of NZers have already found.
You seem to be totally opposed to changing tack and trying something different to the completely failed policies of the last few years, wherever you look. That includes better outcomes for Maori, as well as all other New Zealanders, who deserve better than what they have had from the last 6 years, which was just empty promises. I believe most of NZ is looking forward to seeing a different approach.
On the contrary. I did not like Labour’s prioritising (their/the Greens?) social agenda. There is a mammoth task ahead.
I hope criminality will be brought under control, medical waiting lists reduced for all, social deprivation alleviated, Treaty issues to be finally sorted, and that Housing will be decommoditised as an investment destination for household pension funds. I hope this is achievable within the current Coalition’s fiscal policies, while making NZ an attractive destination for companies to do business and to access capital.
I am sceptical that all that is achievable by the Coalition, especially with regards to The Treaty and housing. Labour would be no better. There is still a chance that National may introduces policies to free funds from our expensive residential land and boost investment in infrastructure and business. That would take more than one or two investment cycles to achieve though and a potentially hostile influential entitled sector of society. At least the National Coalition is still in early days.
“Big Bring It On” - message from Maori King Hui.
Indeed!
High time NZ sorts out race relations once and for all so that everyone knows what kind of country NZ is going to be in years to come.
Good point made by a migrant doctor at a function I attended recently - ‘If he knew that his children are going to be third class citizens in NZ when he migrated here 5 years ago, he would have chosen Australia. In any case, that option is wide open for him and his family but they need to move before he turns 45.’
Same applies to all the migrants brought in to replace the tens of thousands NZers departing - WTF should they come to NZ for them and their children to become third class citizens to work hard to serve and benefit the hundreds of thousands of parasites, beneficiaries and losers being bred in this country by the leftist woke political elites?
Let NZ revert back to what it was in the 1800s - what joy for the political elite who can then lord it over the peasants they have bred.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/3501...i-big-bring-it
JFK's quote...
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”
This should have been the theme for the big Hui this weekend.
I was brought up in the 1970’s/80’s singing God Defend NZ in English solely in a quad with the NZ ensign. The school hall had a photo of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh (from the 1950’s I would think). Is that “the country” of King Tuheitia? For some the best thing they could do for “their country” would be to seek radical reform for it.
Balance is a troll. He is driven (I suspect) by some personal issues and I try not to feed him, but this post is inflammatory and dangerous nonsense.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD CIVIL WAR, and I would like other posters to join me in affirming that this sort of talk is stupid and makes it more likely that someone will be hurt or killed. I have reported it
Maori separatists threaten violence if they don’t get their way, and the Left don’t bat an eyelid….but now look at the hysterical Lefty pile-on on Balance for logically asserting that violence by separatists and their woke allies could lead to a civil war.
I’m going to report Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, Tuku Morgan, and Rawiri Waititi for the things they’ve been saying, things that make it more likely somebody could be hurt or killed.
I don't know what they have been saying, but if they or anyone else on here says
"Nothing like a good civil war in NZ to sort it out once and for all."
I will report and condemn it. You should too.
Your "what aboutism" amounts to a deflection. Straight up - Do you want a civil war?
It was a blithe and tongue-in-cheek comment from Balance, but you choose to jump up and down about it. But what he says contains a kernel of truth: if separatists want a fight maybe they’ll eventually end up with one. Maori separatist radicals talk of “fighting in the streets” - perhaps you should take note, rather than say ‘I don’t know what they are saying’ as if you are some sort of ostrich.
You still provide no condemnation of a post approving of the prospect of a "good civil war". Instead, you defend Balance's stupid and inflammatory post. I condemn threats of violence from both the left and the right. You excuse Balance and condemn unspecified statements from "Maori separatist radicals".
If that makes me an ostrich, I guess that makes you a weasel.
I’m not doing the work for you mate.
Piece of genuine advice to help you: use Google and maybe word your question (and search) correctly based on what others actually said and posted.
Reform does not necessarily lead to civil war. NZ has inherited the Westminster system which has been very adaptable and accommodating over the centuries.
I presume you were being facetious in describing civil wars being good and sorting things out. Just within the English speaking world, The English civil war was devastating and did not sort things out as the country lurched from Regicide to Cromwell to restoration. Likewise the US civil war was devastating and it took at least another 100 years to see true emancipation (the headline cause of the war). Watch Ken Burns brilliant Civil War documentary to see how “good” that civil War was.
The Irish civil war was bloody too and ended in stalemate. Although perhaps a bit more successful in the long run in allowing the gradual shift to an Irish Republic.
Oh no, no no! That simply will not do.
I am not wasting my time feeding google with nonsense queries about radicals in NZ wanting a civil war.
That is a very bold claim to make. And evidence should be included to support it.
It’s not my work to do as I am not making the claim. Mate.
Calm down. Took me 2 minutes to find the relevant articles. Maybe do some research for once, mate.
And you still haven't managed to get the "bold claim" part right yet. Maybe stick to what you know....genuine advice to help you.
The reality is you are cross with me because you made an error in your analysis on OCA by making out that OCA residents pay OCA a 30% management fee AND have to fork out to refurb the unit if they decide to bail later.
I wasn’t having a crack at you. It was a simple enough error to make - I was just pointing out to those who are bullish on the stock that they don’t know everything either (otherwise they would have been the ones to correct you). They simply didn’t know either.
Since that exchange on OCA with SR you have gone from giving me glowing feedback to going out of your way to pick a fight over some nonsense about an alleged plot to have a civil war.
And don’t stoop to the others level by resorting to digging up old SKT posts every time you are mift with me.
Rather send me a PM to let me know what vexes you and if I have wrong you I will try to remedy it.
No - I'm not cross at all and you still can't get your quotes right. It's hard to take anything you say seriously after spruiking Sky for God knows how long and then performing a 180 once you sold. Maybe stick to what you understand....wasn't that your advice to me? So you don't like it when your own words are used against you? That's your problem mate, not mine. I had forgotten about that post but this is going to be fun.
wasn’t this your analysis that included the double dip?
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...=1#post1036599
you have me positive feedback as recently as 05 Jan, so I am sure my critique has nothing to do with your current feral attacks!
Rather than you and your mate lathering each other up in a frothy frenzy of delight over what you thought someone said, maybe understand the context of what was said by educating yourself on the matter.
Also....log....eye....speck...!
LNF claimed Maori Separatist Radicals talked of "Fighting in the Streets" and equated (or conflated) that with Balance's "Nothing like a good civil war in NZ to sort it out once and for all".
MT wanted proof of "Maori separatist radicals calling for civil war."
You didn't condemn Balance's stupid post. Instead, you resorted to the hackneyed "I'm not doing your work for you" ploy that has often been used on this thread. Since you hadn't previously posted on this particular topic, I don't know why you felt it necessary to assert that.
MT didn't get LNF's claim exactly right, but in normal rational discourse it is perfectly acceptable when someone makes a claim, to ask them to provide some reference so that it can be investigated.
Ok Ferg. Fair enough.
I shouldn’t have said civil war.
Learn the context David.
You are over-reaching in your assertions the obviously tongue in cheek (because 'good' and 'civil war' are an oxymoron) comment "makes it more likely that someone will be hurt or killed". Wrong and hyperbolic given the fractional reach and influence of ST.
You admit to not knowing the background ("I don't know what they have been saying") and you condemn/report Balance without knowing the context and call upon others to do so. {BTW I condemn cancel culture as do many others, hence the reason I got involved - not that I have to tell you why I post and it's not your place to ask this in a public forum}. You try to deflect such calls for understanding context as 'whataboutism'. Wrong given that is the context.
You reach when you say Balance was "advocating" civil war - that was not my interpretation given I knew the context.
You admit "threats of violence" are abhorrent but don't criticise those that made the original threats of violence that lead to comments about 'civil war' in the media that were repeated here. Hypocritical because you refuse to understand the context of where the phrase 'civil war' arose in the context of the ToW discussions.
BTW we all abhor threats and acts of violence, of which civil war is a subset.
MT now gets it that nowhere here did anyone state the separatist radicals were calling for a civil war. We all make mistakes.....I admitted as such on OCA after being quizzed by Snoopy, and MT has now admitted as such on here. So why did I post here? I just wanted to play the old Uno reverse card trick on MT.....so who was I to refuse when he wasn't doing his own research? Speaking of not doing any original research here, you were provided the context and had the chance to understand this for yourself from others but you refuse to look and/or learn. It literally took me two minutes to find the articles using the correct quotes. Your turn. Do some research.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Per Google: A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community...
The last 3 pages of this thread are yet another example of what the sanctimonious "Pot" seems to relish instigating, whilst posing as some sort of "Supreme Ruler/Moderator".
"30 seconds spray & then walk away", whilst smugly smirking.
There should be no surprises for why "The Pot" is a shoo-in entrant for the top 10 - "ST - Poster Ignored List"
Ya What? The link you provided goes to the Oceania Thread. The "relevant context" of Balance's post is what "Maori Separatist Radicals" allegedly threatened.
You keep claiming you have researched this information, but repeatedly refuse to provide the reference. That is not the way a rational discussion is conducted. I think tou know better.
If you will provide references to the context which you believe justifies Balance's post #1150 (which was posted in response to Bjauck's comment about Maori seeking radical reform)We can continue this discussion, but until you do, we can't take it further.
"Nothing like a good civil war in NZ to sort it out once and for all."
You may believe (or pretend to believe) Balance was tongue in cheek. In view of his posting history (his posts in relation to threats of violence to Jacinda Adern for example), I don't.
You may believe (or pretend to believe) a post like that is acceptable in public discourse. I don't.
You may believe a post like that is harmless because ST has little reach. I don't
Good. A pity you didn't say so three pages earlier.
Instigate? I didn't post
"Nothing like a good civil war in NZ to sort it out once and for all."
You forgot to condemn political violence and reject any suggestion that a civil war would be good for NZ or 'sort out' anything 'once and for all.
If calling out Balance's nonsense makes me sanctimonious, I guess I'm sanctimonious. If failing to call it out makes you complicit in lowering the standard of public discourse and exacerbating social tension, then I guess you're complicit.
Didn't know there was one - where can I find it?
I understand your point about a pattern of posts. While an individual post may be flippant, many similar posts would be less likely to be so.
With respect to the abuse Ardern suffered, The new PM from the National Party, Luxon, has recognised that women in NZ politics suffer worse gendered abuse than men. So indeed they must somehow cope with that in addition to the other stresses all MPs face. All credit to Luxon for accepting that as a problem. Will that translate into greater support in parliament for Women?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...0as%20an%20MP.
Comprehension is still clearly an issue for someone....pity they still haven't got the correct context 3 pages ago (or less if you changed your settings).
But back on track....here is Act's guiding principles on equal rights for all especially around co-governance, which I'm sure everyone here would agree with:
https://www.act.org.nz/democracy
And Winston has made it clear that in his view co-governance is anti-democratic. Plenty of articles on Google. And their first 'pillar' is equal citizenship:
https://www.nzfirst.nz/principle
It's pretty hard to disagree with the concept that all people should be treated equally under the law.
However, a certain group of radicals have an issue with this and are allegedly threatening violence if they don't get their way with co-governance as reported on numerous MSM platforms. The media have stated this could lead to civil war. As pointed out by others: 'careful what you wish for'. IMO any such instigators should be charged with sedition to stop this nonsense.
I agree that whatever we do moving forward, it has to be under one Government where everyone is equal under the law. I cannot see a workable long term solution where one group has 'special rights' over the majority.
None of it matters if the long term 'solution' to help Maori is not going to be acceptable to the NZ public long term. It just makes things worse.
I forwarded the proposed treaty principles to davflaws, and will be interested to see his take (as to me, they seem hard to really argue with - but I am open to the idea that I could have a big blind spot somewhere and maybe I will learn something).
I relented and did a quick search Ferg. This article popped up:https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...abour-mps-warn
Sounds like there are some yahoos saying they will "go to war" over any referendum. Not exactly clear to me without any other context that it definitely means violence as we often talk about "going to war" over an issue figuratively. And I do note that Willie Jackson (someone I don't have a huge amount of time for) did make a point of saying he does not advocate for violence etc.
You must be looking at something different though? Can you share please? Otherwise I am doing my own search and potentially looking at something different to you. I need to see what you see.
And I assure you I will take a very dim view to anyone who is throwing around comments about violence. I don't care if you are Maori, white or any other damn thing.
Only thing I should add to this ...
Though the principles Seymour has drafted make a lot of sense to me in terms of being able to move forward...
There is an unsettled part of me that is becoming increasingly aware that this issue has been through the Privy Council and a series of other courts. And the Maori text interpretation has been established for some time now.
Though I have no tolerance for any kind of 'apartheid' solution, I am optimistic we can find a way forward that honours the spirit of the Treaty in a way that the public can accept (and therefore is an enduring solution).
But I would not like David Seymour to be able to just ram through his principles (just because I personally like them) and undo 80 years of legal precedent. Just like I did not want Ardern and co to be able to just ram through co-governance so quickly etc.
National have only supported this Bill through to Select Committe and I am confident that Luxon et all will be very careful on how to proceed after that.
Tyrrany of the majority will not be an enduring solution either. What would be the point of a referendum? It would be a foregone conclusion.
Just to be clear on the Leftist viewpoint:
No problem at all with Maori leaders & politicians threatening violence.
Totally up in arms over an anonymous poster on a backwater politics forum speaking of ‘civil war’ being the inevitable end point if separatists go so far as to become violent and anarchic.
Over there is a whole mountain range, but our resident Leftists can only see the molehill.
Perhaps you could write to the Herald yourself. You could quote Balance's post:-
"Nothing like a good civil war in NZ to sort it out once and for all"
And then you could tell the world how the left objected to this perfectly reasonable proposition and claimed it was stupid and harmful and unacceptable in public discourse.
While you are at it, you could provide a reference (which you have so far failed to do despite repeated requests) for your claim (#1154) that "Maori separatists threaten violence if they don’t get their way".
But I'm not holding my breath - a shame you keep forgetting to condemn the prospect of violence from anywhere on the political spectrum.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...d-constructive
Straight from the National MD Minister.
I think he articulates himself very well. There will be no referendum on Treaty Principles (thank God, as that almost certainly would envoke deep rage and benefit nobody in the long run).
But they do understand that conversation about principles and how they should manifest in a practical sense so that we are able to move forward more unified is needed.
And I commend him for that.
It is a complex issue and there are no 'easy answers' but I am keen to see what National are able to do. Some of the critics may even be pleasantly suprised as I think some of them think National are going to waltz in and implement a radical change.
So much misinformation & ignorance around co-governance which has been stoked by various political interests to drive agendas, hardly surprising there's people who mistakenly think it's about ownership of assets, or assets are being stolen or use terms like apartheid or separatists, that the laws won't apply to everyone equally or a whole group of people get special privileges based on ethnicity.
As ex National Minister Chris Findlayson says, co governance should have been named co-management & is what happens when you have different interests managing a resource, it's what happens in a partnership or joint- venture. It's about having a say in how something is managed.
People often mistakenly bring up the Maori Health Authority as an example of where co-governance, when it is just a government initiative to address health needs in an area of the community which is not working well under the present system. It's working & would be tragic if this govt shelves it based on political expediency which we're seeing a lot of from this 3 headed coalition govt.
What a nonsense & absolute waste of taxpayers money for the govt to have a review of the principals of the Treaty when Luxon says it will be blocked from going further.
Either engage with it or reject it but not this flagrant waste of parliamentary resources & taxpayers money when you've already made a decision for the outcome.
The Three Waters Reforms were a prime example of where misinformation driven by political agendas stoked fears of a takeover of ownership of our water by Maori.
In fact the bit which was so misunderstood was simply Iwi getting to have a say in conjunction with others in how it was managed, & it was even at a distance, not at the micro management level.
That could only have been good, most likely preventing the privatisation & for profit model being applied to such a fundamental essential resource for all.
Obviously there's some areas where co governance wouldn't work, foreign policy, national security etc but more understanding would reduce the level of fear & help lower the temperature on these issues which threaten to dominate this coming year.
One way or the other, I think successive governments need to do a better job informing NZers about what it all means.
It has been established in law for some time now that the original deal was a partnership, and the te reo version is what counts (Ferg, here is another 180 for ya! In the past I have been adamant that the English version should not be disregarded altogether. That was ignorant, and further investigation has allowed me to learn more about that point. See, I am wrong a lot more than I am right!).
However since 1840 there are numerous examples of how The Crown rode roughshot over Maori, disregarding their rights to the point of blatant land confiscations.
And so it is no coincidence that one of the partners continues to do poorly in pretty much all of the statistics.
So although the ACT Principles make a lot of sense from my "Pakeha" lens... I just have this sense of unease at the same time too. And growing empathy for how some Maori might feel (i.e. lack of trust for the new govt based on what they have read/heard given what has happened in the past).
And we probably are at the point that it is less about "debating" the principles as such - but more continuing the wider conversation to ratify what it all actually means in practice (including if there are any other rights that were inferred upon Maori when the deal was agreed to).
Ultimately, I just want to understand what exactly was agreed to and, where we have not honoured that, how can we rectify that in a way that is enduring.
If, for example, a co-governance model is a way forward (something I continue to grapple with) then there really needs to be clear communication and education on the matter. Just look what happened under Labour... at no point was it ever really explained properly. You couldn't really tell what it was and how/why it linked into TOW obligations. So a lot of people (myself included) did what we always do - just filled in the blanks with what we reckoned sounded 'about right'.
It is a terrible situation to have one partner impose their will on another partner as we have seen and it is no suprise that Maori continue to do so poorly (as a group, obviously there are also some very successful Maori). And it is a blight on the nation so long as that continues - I know that much for sure.
But what is the right/fair thing to do as an enduring solution? Thats what I want to know.
And if National supporting the ACT bit to a first reading enables the conversation so that I can be less nonplussed then I am optimistic.