This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the >mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.Absolutely, co-governance was never the answer except to those who believed in apartheid.
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things differently,
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >taken.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be
forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the >mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >taken.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can beI agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been
forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.
On 6 Nov 2023 04:02:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie on several levels.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the >>mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
I agree, Gordon. Going back over the last 50 years, we had a lot of
Councils that were elected on the policy of "We will keep rates down",
and of assisting development and intensification by only charging for >immediate on site work; not for the need to upgrade pipes and pumps
for greater volumes. A real change was the setting of water standards
and giving them some enforcement powers - that has helped in the last
few years identify unacceptable water standards in quite a few areas.
And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.
would take.
With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
part if pipe leaks or leaks / evaporation from the storage lakes past >Kaitoki.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things >>differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >>taken.
(but perhaps less acute) problems in other cities , particularly
Auckland with sewage problems. Christchurch suffered from allowing
longer term contamination from cows when dairy and beef became more
popular in the higher reaches of Canterbury Rivers - National did away
with the partially elected authority where half the members wanted
pollution stopped, the other half just wanted farming profits from the
new pollution. Labour enabled the legislation to identify standard
breaches but were too chicken to actually do anything about it. So >Christchurch continues to have problems - the earthquake work fixed
some but not all of their underground services.
The problems in Queenstown have highlighted problems in smaller areas,
where again they have 'encouraged' development that does not cover the
costs it generates for existing systems - and there are no signs that
either National or Labour (if Winston decides he cannot after all go
with NAct) would start fining local authorities that do not address
those problems.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be >>forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.I agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been
very disappointing; mistakes have been made in the past which have
resulted in still worsening water pollution - see: >https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/nitrate-pollution-in-canterbury-water-is-getting-worse-study.html
Fixing the problems will not be quick, but the tacit acceptance of
farmer pleases that "it ain't us" do need to be challenged, as do the
local authorities that are just not maintaining their water systems.
Finlayson set out well the advantages of co-government in making sure
that different perspectives are taken into account, but working within >overall government policy. It also meets obligations under the Treaty
of Waitangi.
The bigger problem is that there are too many local authorities thatMuch of the above is valid - co-governance is not the answer - we, New Zealanders, prefer democratic solutions as demonstrated by the election results.
are not solely responsible for the quality of water they receive from >'upstream' - Palmerston North is one example where they inherit
polluted water in their river, and pass it on at about the same low
quality. Many authorities do not have the skills and manpower and
equipment to undertake the necessary engineering work; it makes sense
to combine with other local Councils - even the Wellington Region is
probably not quite big enough.
So we shall wait and see, but municipal water supply will continue to
have problems in areas where there are no real disincentives to
sending polluted water downstream in many parts of New Zealand - that
will be a real test of the potential Nat/NZF/ACT coalition.
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Nov 2023 04:02:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie on several levels.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the >>>mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
I agree, Gordon. Going back over the last 50 years, we had a lot of >>Councils that were elected on the policy of "We will keep rates down",
and of assisting development and intensification by only charging for >>immediate on site work; not for the need to upgrade pipes and pumps
for greater volumes. A real change was the setting of water standards
and giving them some enforcement powers - that has helped in the last
few years identify unacceptable water standards in quite a few areas.
And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.
would take.
With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
part if pipe leaks or leaks / evaporation from the storage lakes past >>Kaitoki.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things >>>differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >>>taken.
(but perhaps less acute) problems in other cities , particularly
Auckland with sewage problems. Christchurch suffered from allowing
longer term contamination from cows when dairy and beef became more
popular in the higher reaches of Canterbury Rivers - National did away
with the partially elected authority where half the members wanted >>pollution stopped, the other half just wanted farming profits from the
new pollution. Labour enabled the legislation to identify standard
breaches but were too chicken to actually do anything about it. So >>Christchurch continues to have problems - the earthquake work fixed
some but not all of their underground services.
The problems in Queenstown have highlighted problems in smaller areas, >>where again they have 'encouraged' development that does not cover the >>costs it generates for existing systems - and there are no signs that >>either National or Labour (if Winston decides he cannot after all go
with NAct) would start fining local authorities that do not address
those problems.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be >>>forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.I agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been
very disappointing; mistakes have been made in the past which have
resulted in still worsening water pollution - see: >>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/nitrate-pollution-in-canterbury-water-is-getting-worse-study.html
Fixing the problems will not be quick, but the tacit acceptance of
farmer pleases that "it ain't us" do need to be challenged, as do the
local authorities that are just not maintaining their water systems.
Finlayson set out well the advantages of co-government in making sure
that different perspectives are taken into account, but working within >>overall government policy. It also meets obligations under the Treaty
of Waitangi.
Much of the above is valid - co-governance is not the answer - we, New >Zealanders, prefer democratic solutions as demonstrated by the election results.
The bigger problem is that there are too many local authorities that
are not solely responsible for the quality of water they receive from >>'upstream' - Palmerston North is one example where they inherit
polluted water in their river, and pass it on at about the same low >>quality. Many authorities do not have the skills and manpower and
equipment to undertake the necessary engineering work; it makes sense
to combine with other local Councils - even the Wellington Region is >>probably not quite big enough.
So we shall wait and see, but municipal water supply will continue to
have problems in areas where there are no real disincentives to
sending polluted water downstream in many parts of New Zealand - that
will be a real test of the potential Nat/NZF/ACT coalition.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:But not impossible when they are not binding.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
I forget the exact wording but something like the Treaty of Waitangi
Bill became the Treaty of Waitangi Act and gave us the Treaty of
Waitangi Tribunal. It has worked well for a lot of years now. But
don't let the fine print get to you Bill, politicians from all sides
talk about Treaty of Waitangi obligations and redress. Think of it
like the Treaty that a past National-led government put us into just a
few years ago - New Zealand has obligations under an International
Treaty to meet Climate Change objectives - that some New Zealanders
don't agree with what National did is irrelevant, it is difficult to
walk away from such obligations
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 01:24:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense, political rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Nov 2023 04:02:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie on several levels.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the
mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
I agree, Gordon. Going back over the last 50 years, we had a lot of >>>Councils that were elected on the policy of "We will keep rates down", >>>and of assisting development and intensification by only charging for >>>immediate on site work; not for the need to upgrade pipes and pumps
for greater volumes. A real change was the setting of water standards
and giving them some enforcement powers - that has helped in the last >>>few years identify unacceptable water standards in quite a few areas.
And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it >>>would take.
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.
With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
part if pipe leaks or leaks / evaporation from the storage lakes past >>>Kaitoki.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things >>>>differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >>>>taken.
(but perhaps less acute) problems in other cities , particularly
Auckland with sewage problems. Christchurch suffered from allowing
longer term contamination from cows when dairy and beef became more >>>popular in the higher reaches of Canterbury Rivers - National did away >>>with the partially elected authority where half the members wanted >>>pollution stopped, the other half just wanted farming profits from the >>>new pollution. Labour enabled the legislation to identify standard >>>breaches but were too chicken to actually do anything about it. So >>>Christchurch continues to have problems - the earthquake work fixed
some but not all of their underground services.
The problems in Queenstown have highlighted problems in smaller areas, >>>where again they have 'encouraged' development that does not cover the >>>costs it generates for existing systems - and there are no signs that >>>either National or Labour (if Winston decides he cannot after all go
with NAct) would start fining local authorities that do not address
those problems.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be >>>>forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.I agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been >>>very disappointing; mistakes have been made in the past which have >>>resulted in still worsening water pollution - see: >>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/nitrate-pollution-in-canterbury-water-is-getting-worse-study.html
Fixing the problems will not be quick, but the tacit acceptance of
farmer pleases that "it ain't us" do need to be challenged, as do the >>>local authorities that are just not maintaining their water systems.
Finlayson set out well the advantages of co-government in making sure >>>that different perspectives are taken into account, but working within >>>overall government policy. It also meets obligations under the Treaty
of Waitangi.
Much of the above is valid - co-governance is not the answer - we, New >>Zealanders, prefer democratic solutions as demonstrated by the election >>results.
The bigger problem is that there are too many local authorities that
are not solely responsible for the quality of water they receive from >>>'upstream' - Palmerston North is one example where they inherit
polluted water in their river, and pass it on at about the same low >>>quality. Many authorities do not have the skills and manpower and >>>equipment to undertake the necessary engineering work; it makes sense
to combine with other local Councils - even the Wellington Region is >>>probably not quite big enough.
So we shall wait and see, but municipal water supply will continue to >>>have problems in areas where there are no real disincentives to
sending polluted water downstream in many parts of New Zealand - that >>>will be a real test of the potential Nat/NZF/ACT coalition.
National must have had a hard job not defending their good record with
Treaty settlements - they shut Finlayson down quickly when it became
clear that they could lock in some votes by not disagreeing publicly
with some of the racist nutters that did not understand the
settlements that he had ushered through. After the election Finlayson >couldn't help himself giving another interview. National will have
problems with ACT, but they will have support from Labour and the
Green Party for the cheap wins that co-governance give - little dollar
cost but a big impact on widespread acceptance of solutions that are
more easily agreed when made by such a wider group, and that comply
with sensible legislation passed by parliament. Existing arrangements
will not be adjusted, but to placate the children they may use
slightly different terminology . . .
While power is a powerful influencer, we don't yet know whether theThere is no coalition of chaos since Labour lost the election. Time to give the new government a chance but that needs integrity - something you have none of. Co-governance is not the answer because it is racist.
coalition of Chaos can agree very much between themselves - perhaps it
will all become moot if Winston first tries for a grand coalition with
Labour / Green / Te Pati Maori.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Absolutely correct.
wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:In relation to Property claims I suspect most have been settled,
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
Bill I can understand you core sentiments - the ToW was between the
Crown (the appointed representatives of Queen Victoria at the time)
and some Maori tribal representatives. If I recall correctly, Tuhoe
(Ngati Tuhoe) never signed it and there were probably others. The
problem is that while the Crown represented all Europeans, there was
no equivalent for Maori (either then or now)
While the crown still exists (through hereditary British
arrangements), the Maori tribal representatives are long gone.
There is a clear case that the Crown did not entirely honour its
obligations to those Maori representatives in the immediate lifetimes
of the ToW signatories. The long-term fallout from this is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was set up.
We have now reached the point where many (if not most) historic wrongs
have resulted in significant settlements over the last 50 years or so.
We have also reached the point that there are no Maori today who can
trace their parentage to those descended from pre-European Maori.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 01:24:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense, political rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Nov 2023 04:02:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie on several levels.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into the
mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
I agree, Gordon. Going back over the last 50 years, we had a lot of >>>>Councils that were elected on the policy of "We will keep rates down", >>>>and of assisting development and intensification by only charging for >>>>immediate on site work; not for the need to upgrade pipes and pumps
for greater volumes. A real change was the setting of water standards >>>>and giving them some enforcement powers - that has helped in the last >>>>few years identify unacceptable water standards in quite a few areas.
And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it >>>>would take.
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.
With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that >>>>part if pipe leaks or leaks / evaporation from the storage lakes past >>>>Kaitoki.
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things >>>>>differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >>>>>taken.
(but perhaps less acute) problems in other cities , particularly >>>>Auckland with sewage problems. Christchurch suffered from allowing >>>>longer term contamination from cows when dairy and beef became more >>>>popular in the higher reaches of Canterbury Rivers - National did away >>>>with the partially elected authority where half the members wanted >>>>pollution stopped, the other half just wanted farming profits from the >>>>new pollution. Labour enabled the legislation to identify standard >>>>breaches but were too chicken to actually do anything about it. So >>>>Christchurch continues to have problems - the earthquake work fixed >>>>some but not all of their underground services.
The problems in Queenstown have highlighted problems in smaller areas, >>>>where again they have 'encouraged' development that does not cover the >>>>costs it generates for existing systems - and there are no signs that >>>>either National or Labour (if Winston decides he cannot after all go >>>>with NAct) would start fining local authorities that do not address >>>>those problems.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be >>>>>forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.I agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been >>>>very disappointing; mistakes have been made in the past which have >>>>resulted in still worsening water pollution - see: >>>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/nitrate-pollution-in-canterbury-water-is-getting-worse-study.html
Fixing the problems will not be quick, but the tacit acceptance of >>>>farmer pleases that "it ain't us" do need to be challenged, as do the >>>>local authorities that are just not maintaining their water systems.
Finlayson set out well the advantages of co-government in making sure >>>>that different perspectives are taken into account, but working within >>>>overall government policy. It also meets obligations under the Treaty >>>>of Waitangi.
Much of the above is valid - co-governance is not the answer - we, New >>>Zealanders, prefer democratic solutions as demonstrated by the election >>>results.
The bigger problem is that there are too many local authorities that >>>>are not solely responsible for the quality of water they receive from >>>>'upstream' - Palmerston North is one example where they inherit >>>>polluted water in their river, and pass it on at about the same low >>>>quality. Many authorities do not have the skills and manpower and >>>>equipment to undertake the necessary engineering work; it makes sense >>>>to combine with other local Councils - even the Wellington Region is >>>>probably not quite big enough.
So we shall wait and see, but municipal water supply will continue to >>>>have problems in areas where there are no real disincentives to
sending polluted water downstream in many parts of New Zealand - that >>>>will be a real test of the potential Nat/NZF/ACT coalition.
National must have had a hard job not defending their good record with >>Treaty settlements - they shut Finlayson down quickly when it became
clear that they could lock in some votes by not disagreeing publicly
with some of the racist nutters that did not understand the
settlements that he had ushered through. After the election Finlayson >>couldn't help himself giving another interview. National will have
problems with ACT, but they will have support from Labour and the
Green Party for the cheap wins that co-governance give - little dollar
cost but a big impact on widespread acceptance of solutions that are
more easily agreed when made by such a wider group, and that comply
with sensible legislation passed by parliament. Existing arrangements
will not be adjusted, but to placate the children they may use
slightly different terminology . . .
There is no coalition of chaos since Labour lost the election. Time to give the
While power is a powerful influencer, we don't yet know whether the >>coalition of Chaos can agree very much between themselves - perhaps it
will all become moot if Winston first tries for a grand coalition with >>Labour / Green / Te Pati Maori.
new government a chance but that needs integrity - something you have none of. >Co-governance is not the answer because it is racist.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 07:37:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyWell, you have gone way off topic. Start your own political thread.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 01:24:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense, political rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Nov 2023 04:02:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie on several levels.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350101981/cost-fixing-wellingtons-water-crisis-1b-year
This article gives some good background and figures as how one gets into >>>>>>the
mess if one does not work in a sustainable manner.
I agree, Gordon. Going back over the last 50 years, we had a lot of >>>>>Councils that were elected on the policy of "We will keep rates down", >>>>>and of assisting development and intensification by only charging for >>>>>immediate on site work; not for the need to upgrade pipes and pumps >>>>>for greater volumes. A real change was the setting of water standards >>>>>and giving them some enforcement powers - that has helped in the last >>>>>few years identify unacceptable water standards in quite a few areas. >>>>>>
The billion dollars is just for Wellington.And that is just for one year - and they don't know how many years it >>>>>would take.
With half of that being in Upper Hutt, it is not clear whether that >>>>>part if pipe leaks or leaks / evaporation from the storage lakes past >>>>>Kaitoki.
Half the water never gets out the end of the tap. Half is last.
So the real debate is not whether or not we need reform, do things >>>>>>differently,And while the problem identified was Wellington, there are similar >>>>>(but perhaps less acute) problems in other cities , particularly >>>>>Auckland with sewage problems. Christchurch suffered from allowing >>>>>longer term contamination from cows when dairy and beef became more >>>>>popular in the higher reaches of Canterbury Rivers - National did away >>>>>with the partially elected authority where half the members wanted >>>>>pollution stopped, the other half just wanted farming profits from the >>>>>new pollution. Labour enabled the legislation to identify standard >>>>>breaches but were too chicken to actually do anything about it. So >>>>>Christchurch continues to have problems - the earthquake work fixed >>>>>some but not all of their underground services.
but how to reform it. The chances are slim that the correct path will be >>>>>>taken.
The problems in Queenstown have highlighted problems in smaller areas, >>>>>where again they have 'encouraged' development that does not cover the >>>>>costs it generates for existing systems - and there are no signs that >>>>>either National or Labour (if Winston decides he cannot after all go >>>>>with NAct) would start fining local authorities that do not address >>>>>those problems.
First of all we need to get co-goverance somewhere where it can be >>>>>>forgotten. This is itself is a tuff call.I agree - the racist reactions through the election campaign have been >>>>>very disappointing; mistakes have been made in the past which have >>>>>resulted in still worsening water pollution - see: >>>>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/nitrate-pollution-in-canterbury-water-is-getting-worse-study.html
Fixing the problems will not be quick, but the tacit acceptance of >>>>>farmer pleases that "it ain't us" do need to be challenged, as do the >>>>>local authorities that are just not maintaining their water systems.
Finlayson set out well the advantages of co-government in making sure >>>>>that different perspectives are taken into account, but working within >>>>>overall government policy. It also meets obligations under the Treaty >>>>>of Waitangi.
Much of the above is valid - co-governance is not the answer - we, New >>>>Zealanders, prefer democratic solutions as demonstrated by the election >>>>results.
The bigger problem is that there are too many local authorities that >>>>>are not solely responsible for the quality of water they receive from >>>>>'upstream' - Palmerston North is one example where they inherit >>>>>polluted water in their river, and pass it on at about the same low >>>>>quality. Many authorities do not have the skills and manpower and >>>>>equipment to undertake the necessary engineering work; it makes sense >>>>>to combine with other local Councils - even the Wellington Region is >>>>>probably not quite big enough.
So we shall wait and see, but municipal water supply will continue to >>>>>have problems in areas where there are no real disincentives to >>>>>sending polluted water downstream in many parts of New Zealand - that >>>>>will be a real test of the potential Nat/NZF/ACT coalition.
National must have had a hard job not defending their good record with >>>Treaty settlements - they shut Finlayson down quickly when it became >>>clear that they could lock in some votes by not disagreeing publicly
with some of the racist nutters that did not understand the
settlements that he had ushered through. After the election Finlayson >>>couldn't help himself giving another interview. National will have >>>problems with ACT, but they will have support from Labour and the
Green Party for the cheap wins that co-governance give - little dollar >>>cost but a big impact on widespread acceptance of solutions that are
more easily agreed when made by such a wider group, and that comply
with sensible legislation passed by parliament. Existing arrangements >>>will not be adjusted, but to placate the children they may use
slightly different terminology . . .
There is no coalition of chaos since Labour lost the election. Time to give >>the
While power is a powerful influencer, we don't yet know whether the >>>coalition of Chaos can agree very much between themselves - perhaps it >>>will all become moot if Winston first tries for a grand coalition with >>>Labour / Green / Te Pati Maori.
new government a chance but that needs integrity - something you have none of.
Co-governance is not the answer because it is racist.
It is getting a little off topic, but apparently Winston threatened to
walk away from talks with National if he did not get what he was
looking for - he could always approach the other parties himself . . .
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 21:09:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:In relation to Property claims I suspect most have been settled,
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
Bill I can understand you core sentiments - the ToW was between the
Crown (the appointed representatives of Queen Victoria at the time)
and some Maori tribal representatives. If I recall correctly, Tuhoe
(Ngati Tuhoe) never signed it and there were probably others. The
problem is that while the Crown represented all Europeans, there was
no equivalent for Maori (either then or now)
While the crown still exists (through hereditary British
arrangements), the Maori tribal representatives are long gone.
There is a clear case that the Crown did not entirely honour its >>obligations to those Maori representatives in the immediate lifetimes
of the ToW signatories. The long-term fallout from this is why the >>Waitangi Tribunal was set up.
We have now reached the point where many (if not most) historic wrongs
have resulted in significant settlements over the last 50 years or so.
We have also reached the point that there are no Maori today who can
trace their parentage to those descended from pre-European Maori.
although under many there are continuing agreed actions in relation to particular property that may have for example been purchased by
individuals or being used by the Crown for such purposes that return
to Maori was not possible. There are in many cases provisions that
allow for such property to be returned to Maori (in some cases at fair
market value) if they are put up for sale or in other cases no longer required for their current purpose by the Crown. Some departments (Conservation for example) may have ongoing commitments in relation to
land that they manage, giving for example rights of access for
particular purposes that may not be available to the public generally,
or other obligations included in a settlement.
Property rights are however not the only issues covered in the Treaty
and hence subsequent Legislation. For example Maori received access as
of right to frequencies for radio transmission. Maori have both
specific rights in relation to water in some areas, and general rights
in others, Hence there have been arrangements for joint arrangements regarding water in for example The Waikato River and the Wanganui
River; and it is likely that in future there will be arrangements made
in relation to other rivers and lakes, and possibly for more general
controls on bulk use of water, or of ways in which water quality may
be regulated - eg resulting from specific industries or land use etc. Certainly property issues have been most prominent, but as the
Foreshore and Seabed legislation showed, Maori rights under the Treaty
and within the law do need to be taken seriously.
This is not a matter of racism, it is more like a contract between the
Crown and multiple parties.
And as far as not being able to trace ancestors, Maori are probably in general more knowledgeable about their ancestry than most of English
descent - although the Internet has made genealogy more accessible
than it used to be. More Maori can probably trace ancestry to
pre-Treaty ancestors than those who do not have Maori ancestors.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
Bill I can understand you core sentiments - the ToW was between the
Crown (the appointed representatives of Queen Victoria at the time)
and some Maori tribal representatives. If I recall correctly, Tuhoe
(Ngati Tuhoe) never signed it and there were probably others. The
problem is that while the Crown represented all Europeans, there was
no equivalent for Maori (either then or now)
While the crown still exists (through hereditary British
arrangements), the Maori tribal representatives are long gone.
There is a clear case that the Crown did not entirely honour its
obligations to those Maori representatives in the immediate lifetimes
of the ToW signatories. The long-term fallout from this is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was set up.
We have now reached the point where many (if not most) historic wrongs
have resulted in significant settlements over the last 50 years or so.
We have also reached the point that there are no Maori today who can
trace their parentage to those descended from pre-European Maori.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
Bill I can understand you core sentiments - the ToW was between the
Crown (the appointed representatives of Queen Victoria at the time)
and some Maori tribal representatives. If I recall correctly, Tuhoe
(Ngati Tuhoe) never signed it and there were probably others. The
problem is that while the Crown represented all Europeans, there was
no equivalent for Maori (either then or now)
While the crown still exists (through hereditary British
arrangements), the Maori tribal representatives are long gone.
There is a clear case that the Crown did not entirely honour its
obligations to those Maori representatives in the immediate lifetimes
of the ToW signatories.
The long-term fallout from this is why the Waitangi Tribunal was set up.
We have now reached the point where many (if not most) historic wrongs
have resulted in significant settlements over the last 50 years or so.
We have also reached the point that there are no Maori today who can
trace their parentage to those descended from pre-European Maori.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 21:09:22 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The Maori Chiefs that signed the Treaty did represent their people -
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:14:15 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:29:58 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
It also meets obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
There are no obligations under the treaty of Waitangi.
Bill.
Bill I can understand you core sentiments - the ToW was between the
Crown (the appointed representatives of Queen Victoria at the time)
and some Maori tribal representatives. If I recall correctly, Tuhoe
(Ngati Tuhoe) never signed it and there were probably others. The
problem is that while the Crown represented all Europeans, there was
no equivalent for Maori (either then or now)
While the crown still exists (through hereditary British
arrangements), the Maori tribal representatives are long gone.
There is a clear case that the Crown did not entirely honour its >>obligations to those Maori representatives in the immediate lifetimes
of the ToW signatories.
I'm not sure that it is so clear. Who did these representatives really >represent? They would claim to represent the whole tribe, but really
they only represented themselves; a situation that continues to this
day, evidenced by the fact that the main beneficiaries of the
settlement money are mostly the Maori tribal elite.
The long-term fallout from this is why the Waitangi Tribunal was set up.
We have now reached the point where many (if not most) historic wrongs
have resulted in significant settlements over the last 50 years or so.
And in spite of this, the average Maori has not benefitted from the >settlements.
We have also reached the point that there are no Maori today who can
trace their parentage to those descended from pre-European Maori.
The other thing to consider is that working Maori are also taxpayers,
which means that money is being taken from them and funnelled to the
tribal elite. That's not helping them.
The whole treaty claims process is suspect. There were no property
rights in pre-European NZ land wasn't owned, it was occupied, that's
all, and it was only occupied a larger or more savage group came along
and displaced the existing occupiers, in many cases killing and eating
them.
The treaty was contrived to establish equality under the law. It's job
is done. Unfortunately it is being promoted by unscrupulous people as
some sort of constitution, and that has turned it into a liability and
a millstone around the necks of NZ taxpayers, including working Maori.
Bill.
THE TAINUI NEVER SIGNED THAT PIECE OF SHIT DOCUMENT.
THEY KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF IT,
JUST LIKE THE NGABUSH TRAITOUR IWI KEEP TRYING TO
RE-LOCATE HONE HEKE BODY.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 105:17:22 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,313 |