Local council decisions are (or should be) concerned mainly with providing and maintaining infrastructure for the benefit of all ratepayers and others who live in their geographical area of responsibility. For the purpose of allocating expenditure, the area is often subdivided geographically into wards. The infrastructure provided and maintained by councils includes roads, street lighting, public transport, water reticulation, drainage systems, rubbish collection, sewage disposal, libraries, sports facilities, cemeteries, parks and reserves.
Maori society had no roads, no street lighting, no water reticulation, no drainage systems, no rubbish collection with recycling, no sewage disposal, no libraries (in fact, no books), although they did have cemeteries (but not for their victims!). Historically Maori society has nothing constructive to offer in regard to this infrastructure, which was developed by European settlers after 1840.
The demand for special representation on councils, not because of geographical wards but because of minimal racial ancestry with no experience to draw on, gives them no more competence than anyone else – and in some cases less – to make decisions on infrastructure. Decisions which have nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi. One of the reasons put forward for separate racial representation is that it would bring “a Maori view of the world to the council table.” What would this be? Something like the $295 million “wish list” that Auckland’s Maori Statutory Board demanded from Auckland Council to fund specific Maori projects and which could only be paid for by a huge rise in Rates.
A significant feature of Maori tribal society was confrontation and inter-tribal warfare, and that confrontation is now being directed towards Europeans. When a haka is performed it is not a welcome, but a confrontation and should be recognised as such.
When preferential treatment on race has been incorporated into local body decision making it has nearly always resulted in obstructive rather than constructive influences. For example, the unnecessary (and costly) relocating of the Kapiti Expressway to appease tribal spiritualism. Then there’s the claimed, but mostly unsubstantiated, areas of tribal “significance” around Auckland. 3,660 alleged sites and rising!
These areas-of-significance led the Auckland Council to set up a mafia-type situation in their Unitary Plan. I.e. Residences or businesses in or near these areas have to pay what is in effect protection money – sometimes to several different tribes – to do any constructive development or alterations or improvements on their land. Those payments are in addition to the usual resource consents. If that sounds like a decadent and corrupt system, it is no better than the people who run it.
These issues are concealed by the blatantly truthless and cowardly mainstream media, but are fully explained in the book, One Treaty, One Nation – especially Chapter 16, “Property, Plunder, Planning – and Auckland’s Taniwha Tax.”
Donald Beswick – Wellington