Poll Should Rebuff Race Based Policies

Poll Should Rebuff
Race-Based Policies

This Christmas holiday season should not be a time of idleness for those who have reason to plan for the next set of local government elections in October, 2016.

Less than two years remain to organise for concerned citizens and ratepayers who want to purge politicians and bureaucrats determined to implement and accelerate anti-democratic racialisation of local government.

Despite its claims to stand for “equal citizenship and equal opportunity” and “limited government”, the ruling National Party has striven instead, through its Parliamentary fast-tracked Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation, to bankrupt and discredit both values at local government level.

Steered through by Treaty of Waitangi negotiations and associate Maori development minister Christopher Finlayson, National’s bicultural co-governance legislation has created numerous regulatory entities made up of democratically-elected public authorities and Maori tribal private interests.

It is these intrinsically corrupted institutional monstrosities that should be attacked in the next local government elections in a drive to restore political control to democratic majorities.

The Maori component of such political hybrids has lost no time in bossing everyone else around, entrenching non-accountability for itself in the process of pursuing its favoured objectives of rent seeking and veto wielding.

The latest example concerns 90 Mile Beach, nowadays styled as Te Oneroa-a-Tohe to suit Ngati Kuri in their Treaty settlement signed off by Mr Finlayson.

In the February 2014 media release to mark the event, Mr Finlayson stated that, “In general, all existing public access rights in relation to areas affected by this settlement will be preserved.”

By December of this year, Mr Finlayson’s assurances have been proven false.

Maori tribes, now ensconced permanently in co-governance of 90 Mile Beach with local government, are reportedly advancing with plans, since denied, for restricting access and charging for public use.

This is just one example of why the vast majority of New Zealanders, who are not Maori tribal interests expecting to profit in perpetuity from Mr Finlayson’s money-spinning Treaty settlements, should not trust his word.

He no doubt assumes that he’s on autopilot to become Sir Christopher under the honours system re-established by Prime Minister John Key.

If this must be so, then let’s at least have some truth in the matter by awarding Mr Finlayson his tarnished gong for exceptional services to increasing racial inequality and corroding democratic values in New Zealand.

The ACT Party, while licking its latest self-inflicted general election wounds and wondering what to do next about its vote plummeting to zero, could well consider how it might reinvigorate itself by running credible candidates at the next local government elections on a platform of fiscal prudence, zero tolerance for political correctness, and one law for all.

The ground should be fertile for a party like ACT to attract support and win representation in local government as it becomes apparent to ever more New Zealand ratepayers how they have become relegated to legal inferiority under the all-engulfing Treaty settlement process.

From that basis, the party could have some hope of rebuilding its Parliamentary presence across a wider electoral franchise than merely being the plaything of Mr Key’s arbitrary caprice in the Epsom electorate.

Auckland is ripe for a ratepayer revolt in 2016, given the way in which treaty settlement legislation has led to a racially biased Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

Mayor Len Brown and his deputy, Penny Hulse, have promoted racial policies that favour of the part-Maori minority of its inhabitants, including encouraging the proliferation of sites of value and significance to Maori under the PAUP.

These sites are the basis of the Maori tribal cultural impact assessment industry in Auckland.

Neither elected official has ever had the courage or integrity to step up and explain truthfully what they’re doing to Auckland’s non-Maori majority.

Instead, it has been left to chief planner Roger Blakeley to advocate for race-based local government in Auckland.

Dr Blakeley evidently belongs to the Finlayson camp of fanciful ideas to suit the pro-Maori agenda when he can come out unilaterally in an official Auckland Council media release entitled “Cultural impact assessments: balance needed” with tendentious claims that do not appear to be supported by any evidence. Dr Blakeley stated:

It’s good to remember just how important protecting our Maori heritage is to Aucklanders – including recent arrivals who really embrace this aspect of their new home.

It is our point of difference in the world.

ACT and similar political movements, if they got cracking now, could mount effective campaigns to help remove the likes of Mr Brown and Ms Hulse come 2016 and take the city back for Aucklanders who don’t want race-based politics blighting their society.

Published with the kind permission of Michael Coote – first published in NBR.

1 2 3 4 5
%d bloggers like this: