John Key funny

Arise Sir John

Disclaimer:

Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!

 

Save

Save

Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

 

Posted on
By

Posted on: NZCPR.COM

Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box. Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of; land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district but will become subject to the wishes of unelected group.

However, given that there seems to be increasing disinterest in local body elections one may wonder whether this is necessarily such a bad thing. Why not leave it to the professional staff and an unelected pressure group to determine what activities are, and are not allowed to take place within a district. In other words is democracy such a necessary or good thing? To answer this question it is helpful to start with three aphorisms:

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton 1887.
  • “Democracy is a psychopathic expression of inferiority” – William Joyce, an American better known as Lord Haw Haw who broadcast defeatist propaganda from Berlin during to the war. He was hung as a traitor by the British at war’s end.
  • Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” – Winston Churchill 1947.

Churchill uttered this in the aftermath of the general election in which Clement Attlee’s Labour government swept to power. It was an astonishing affirmation of the place of democracy as a political institution. Having lately been instrumental in salvaging the free world from German hegemony, Churchill was nevertheless comprehensively rejected by the United Kingdom voters. One would have expected some bitterness, or questioning of a political structure which intended to and did demolish much of the existing social norms into which he was born, and which his party represented. Not so – he continued to believe in the common sense and life experiences of the electorate in deciding who should govern the country. What then are some of the other forms about which Churchill spoke? To mention a few:

[Read more…]

Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.
 

Racism (almost) Reigns Here

Racism [almost] Reigns Here

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Waitemata and Hauraki Gulf Forum Councillor Mike Lee says a “disturbing” Hauraki Gulf Forum meeting was held last week to discuss proposed changes to its membership and functions. “The forum has been captured by interests that are not necessarily conservation minded or from Auckland.

“There’s a domination of the Hauraki Gulf Forum essentially by Waikato farming interests and iwi interests from Coromandel that has not worked out that well,” he says. At present six of the 21 forum members represent mana whenua, but a review has recommended that eight of the 16 members should represent Maori tribal rights over the gulf.

The review report recommends that “particular attention is paid to treaty settlement processes and the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari process” and that the forum has “co-governance” with equal numbers of mana whenua and “other” members.

A critic said that the group developing the marine spatial plan has a focus of economic, social and cultural gains and considers the environment only when it complements the other three.

When Defending Democracy is Racism

When defending democracy is described as racism, all New Zealanders must know that their democracy is in grave danger.


TVNZ to review complaints about Mike Hosking’s comments on Mayor Andrew Judd

9 May  2016

After TVNZ’s Seven Sharp aired a segment on the abuse New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd received for proposing a Maori ward for local government councils, Mike Hosking added his own two cents’ worth.

“I’d never personally attack him obviously but sad to say he’s completely out of touch with middle New Zealand. There’s nothing wrong with Maori representation on councils because any Maori that wants to stand for a council is more than welcome to do so and they can sell their message and if they’re good enough they’ll get voted on,” Hosking said.

In a statement Radio New Zealand received from TVNZ, a spokesperson for the broadcaster said a formal complaint [of “racist” remarks] had been laid against Hosking and a committee would review the complaint in the coming days.

Hosking’s comments have also been condemned by his own colleagues Miriama Kamo and Scotty Morrison on TVNZ show Marae. Pictured below are the media’s moaning micro-Maori monstering Mike over his comments on democracy.

marae_moaners

It’s worth noting how inaccurate the 2016 media reports are on this. Muddy-brained Mayor Andrew Judd did not propose a Maori ward. He voted for one! One perspective is in an older story from 2014.

Horse bolts over Maori ward
24/09/2014
New Plymouth councillor John McLeod sensationally resigned moments after a the creation of a Maori ward was passed by the council. The councillor  handed in his resignation mid-meeting, after the council voted seven to six in favour of establishing a Maori ward for the 2016 local body elections.

Mayor Andrew Judd, deputy mayor Heather Dodunski, and councillors Shaun Biesiek, Gordon Brown, Craig McFarlane, Marie Pearce and Howie Tamati voted in favour of a Maori ward.


Click here to be transferred to 1Law4All’s earlier item on this storm in a teacup.

The full Stuff story is here.

Water WhitesWash

two-face-key-water-rights1[1]


Back in April, 1Law4All published a blog item about two-faced Shonkey & Whinlayson handing off the water rights hot potato to local councils:

PM Delegates Water Give-Away
Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-water-law-for-all position.

For those who were adamant naysayers, it has “come to pass” as anticipated, as reported in the Gisborne Herald.

Water WhitesWash

Giving Iwi A Shared Role
Friday, 28 August, 2015
A UNANIMOUS vote by Gisborne District Council has given the go-ahead for a joint management agreement between the council and Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou to manage the Waiapu River catchment, a first of its kind in New Zealand. After listening to a presentation from the runanganui, the council instructed staff to develop the agreement, which will come back to the council’s October meeting for final adoption.

A packed public auditorium heard runanganui presenters Amo Houkamo and Tina Porou describe a historic “win-win” agreement that will allow the iwi to be involved in resource consent applications in the catchment. The sky would not fall because of the agreement, they told the council. Amo Houkamau said this unique agreement could only happen in this district because what was presented could only happen in this region. “We believe this is a win-win situation for the council, for Ngati Porou, the Gisborne district and for the country,” she said.

You whaaaat?
Good for the country?
Yeah, right!

Bye, bye missed equality pie . . .


Decoding The Lies, Spin & BS

Guest post from Seymour Percy

Now, folks, this might seem like an odd request, but please bear with me.

Have a look at this video. It’s just under 7 minutes long. Especially, look at the faces of the audience towards the end. They did not like what they heard, did they?

The correspondence to the present takeover of NZ by the part-Maori apartheid proponents is glaringly obvious. But kiwis are not hearing about it, are they? Or, when they do, they’re either too busy to do anything about it, or too thick to see through the veil of deception and appreciate what’s going on! Have their BS antennae fallen off?

It’s all a matter of ‘how you package it,’ PLUS how perceptive the the NZ constituency audience is!

After you’ve watched the video and while it’s still fresh in your mind, look down at the media release that’s appended, just below.

Look very, very carefully at the parts marked in red. Look at how the deceptive trickery is carefully spun out by the clever use of ‘trigger’ words. Then move on down to one possible analysis, at the end.


Press Release – New Zealand Recreation Association

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE

FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2014

High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments.

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.

The Co-governance and Co-management of Parks and Environments Hui will take place at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington on June 17 and 18. It will provide an opportunity for Indigenous groups and representatives, parks agencies, land managers, recreation consultants, business leaders and policy makers to discuss co-governance and co-management of land and marine environments.

The event has been jointly organised by Parks Forum and the New Zealand Recreation Association (NZRA). It will be opened by Conservation Minister Hon Dr Nick Smith, with keynote presentations from paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu T kino of Ng ti T wharetoa and Sir Mark Solomon of Ng i Tahu.

Keynote addresses will be complemented by workshops hosted by New Zealand and Australian parks organisations and Indigenous leaders, including Dr Matthew Ward, Regional Manager for Natural Resources Alinytjara Wiluara, a branch of the South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and former M ori All Blacks coach Matt Te Pou, of Tuhoe.

NZRA Chief Executive Andrew Leslie says recent Treaty of Waitangi land settlements in New Zealand and the granting of access and land-use rights to Indigenous groups in Australia has highlighted the need for Indigenous leaders and people at all levels of parks management to share knowledge and experiences of how best to co-govern and co-manage land.

“The time is right too, for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well,” he says.

Parks Forum’s Chief Executive Margaret Morton says “Though the Australian experience is different from New Zealand, which has the Treaty as a guiding document, we’re interested in sharing our knowledge of taking a joint approach to protecting our natural environment.”

Australia’s 1993 Native Title Act recognises the rights of some Indigenous people to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs, including rights to live on the area, access and use the land historically occupied by Indigenous peoples.

Speakers and workshops will examine a range of outcomes including the experience of the Crown and Waikato-Tainui’s co-management of conservation resources five years on, Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board’s co-governance experience 23 years on, and the current arrangements for Auckland’s new agency for co-governing and co-managing the city’s Maunga or volcanic cones.

The work undertaken to establish Wellington’s Oruaiti Reserve, formerly Point Dorset Reserve, will be the topic for another workshop. It looks at what Treaty settlement has meant for Taranaki Wh nui and council partnerships in Wellington. Oruaiti Reserve is the first of several joint management arrangements for reserves in Wellington.

The Australian perspective on joint management of parks and protected areas will be presented by traditional owners and park managers from the Northern Territory, Parks Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The workshops and masterclasses will explore what models have worked well and identify how we can all work together more effectively to manage our natural and cultural values.

The Hui will be preceded by an optional field trip to Wellington conservation programme’s Matiu (Somes) Island and Zealandia, on Monday June 16.


Now, here’s a few clues to wise you up to what’s going on.

1) Joint Media Release – “New Zealand Recreation Association.” Wow! They sound important, don’t they? They sound like a group that would take in hobby recreationists, like trampers, hunters, fishers, mountain climbers, river kayakers, national parks visitors, etc., don’t they? Don’t be fooled – they don’t! In reality they’re an “organisation for recreation professionals.” People who get to charge for what they do! Look at their web site. They’re a trade association! Using racially-biased agreements that make private citizen open space access into a pay-for privilege will make the recreation professionals so much more competitive, wont it? And the media release is “joint,” too. And – guess what? The other part of the joint is the Parks Forum – the NZ Recreation Assn Oz equivalent. From their web site: “Our vision is for a strong and vibrant parks industry.” Industry? I.e. both organisations are commercial rent-a-guides!

2) The hooey is “international.” Wow! That’s sounds important, right? An appeal to authority logical fallacy.

3) “best models for protecting natural environments” Sounds good, too, right? Who could disagree with that? (The unspecified best model will doubtless be iwi elite control with convenient commercial connections to the Oz Parks Forum and the NZ Recreation Assn!)

4) “High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments” The word ‘shared’ now appears, associated with ‘protection of natural environments,’ but only after a further appeal to authority logical fallacy of ‘High-level Hui.’ There will be nothing morally, ethically or democratically ‘high’ about the hooey’s hidden agenda!

5) Note that it’s a hooey, rather than a symposium, or conference or the like. Another subliminal, crafty insertion to soften readers / viewers / the media / suckers to the view that such high-powered things need to be hooeys because they’re so important.

6) “protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand” – Another logical fallacy. Viz. argumentum ad populum (appeal to the authority of the many). Wow! As well as being an international hooey, Australia’s singled out for special mention, so that must make it a good thing to do, right!

7) “The co-governance and co-management of Parks and Environments Hui.” Aha – now the reality of what the hooey is about becomes apparent, if the reader has not been blinded by the soothing and deceptively spun platitudes which preceded it. Later, the word ‘environments’ morphs into ‘natural environments.’

8) Then, just in case those co-words struck a nerve, a sedative / palliative is applied in this form: “The time is right too for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well.” What harm can there be in pooling knowledge, sharing experiences, talking through models that are working well and any challenges, right? Especially given the earlier repeated mantra of “protecting natural environments.”

9) In case you missed it, note the use of the words “natural environments.” Parks is fairly well defined. But natural environments takes in just about everything except a concrete jungle! Given what’s happened in Auckland, your backyard is in the ‘natural environment!’

10) Then, towards the end, slipped in, ever-so-sneakily, is “natural and cultural values.” What have cultural values got to do with protecting natural environments? Nothing at all. Another snake in the grass lying in wait for the casual outdoorsy types. And never forget, this born-again conservator-general BS is nothing but one of contemporary convenience. Who do they think they’re kidding? If such enviro-conservation ‘cultural values’ were of long standing, NZ would still have moas and huias, etc.

Whoever’s behind this knows what they’re about. And the person who wrote that media release really knew what they were doing. It’s very, very, very clever.

The brown-washed, brain-dead, PC media would fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

As would most of the rest of the NZ population.

That is what 1Law4All is up against.

Are they up to it? Are their members prolific enough and up to it?

If not, I don’t fancy their chances. Or New Zealand’s.

 

Comments are now closed

IWI TAKE CONTROL OF PARKS & WATERWAYS

By Fiona Mackenzie

1Law4All is concerned that New Zealanders will increasingly be locked out of their own parks and waterways. This is due to elected politicians transferring control over public outdoor spaces to tribal elites.

A two-day hui is currently being held at Te Papa, Wellington. Council and government representatives charged with protecting public interests are discussing further co-management of land and marine environments with the tribal elite. This no doubt extends to lucrative consultancy fees or salaries, and opportunities to apply new taxes on users.

Many outdoor recreation groups are unaware of the possible ramifications on access and permit fees.

The impact of such arrangements is already being felt in Auckland with tribal co-management of the city’s volcanic cones. In the “supercity’s” Cornwall Park and One Tree Hill Domain, four running or orienteering events have been denied permits in the past three months, despite firm ground conditions after an autumn of dry weather.

Earlier this month, bureaucrats disappointed two hundred 7-16 year olds by cancelling their annual cross country pairs relay with only 2 days’ notice,

While sheep graze this land (which houses Sorrento in the Park restaurant and the Stardome Observatory), tourists come for the views, and people privately walk and run it every day, iwi have persuaded Council bureaucrats that it’s not acceptable to let run organisers have access to the grassy hillsides.

According to a Council spokeperson, the event would have been approved if it only involved running on the roads or footpaths.

So forget the obesity epidemic, kids in high-density suburbs needing somewhere to run and play, or the damage to knees and tendons caused by running on hard surfaces.

Co-management is the new focus for tribal elite wanting to gain more unelected, unaccountable power over New Zealanders and to secure new revenue streams. Race-based control and taxes are no doubt coming to a park or water feature near you.

Historic Background to One Tree Hill (Maungakiekie):

Waiohua occupation of the Māori pā on One Tree Hill or Maungakiekie ended around 1740-1750 AD when they were defeated in a tribal war with the invading Ngati Whatua-o-Kaipara. The pā was totally abandoned around 1795 AD with the death of Te Taou leader Tuperiri.

In 1845 the Ngati Whatua, with the concurrence of representatives of the Waiohua people, sold a block of land which included One Tree Hill to a merchant, Thomas Henry. The Government under its pre-emptive rights excluded 115 acres of the hill itself from the sale and this was vested in the Crown. Known as One Tree Hill Domain, it is a public park.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Tree_Hill,_New_Zealand

 

Comments are now closed

Funding Maori Management

Tauranga City Councillors decided this week to allocate $30,000 a year for Tauranga hapu to develop management plans for Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

An application in council’s Ten Year Plan for $30,000 to develop iwi/hapu management plans was unopposed by city councillors during draft annual plan financial discussions.


Council has decided Tauranga hapu and iwi will receive $60,000 in the next two years to assist with the development of management plans.

To read the rest of this article on Sunlive, click here.


To discuss this article, please click here to go to the independent DODNZ forum.

%d bloggers like this: