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

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 and Cultural Identity ­

“Racism” and Cultural Identity

by Reuben P. Chapple

New Zealanders who care about their country are tired of being hectored about “racism” by indigenous pretenders like Lizzie Marvelly (Water Debate Needs Our Iwi On Board – NZ Herald item). Hectored for simply believing that our government should govern for all New Zealanders, rather than being a fount of special privilege for a favoured few.

Racism is often conflated by the ignorant with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice. Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else on the basis of group membership.

The elephant in the room is that even if the Treaty of Waitangi provides for racial privilege (it does not), the “Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as Maori, elevating one set of ancestors and trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is to honour all ancestors equally.

The reality is that we have a Maori race in name only, with racial mixing giving the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. Imported bloodlines have diluted the original Maori race to such an extent that it now exists only as a cultural concept. Denying one’s mixed ancestry and adopting a monocultural identity doesn’t make it go away.

For many decades, there has been no discrete or separate Maori ethnic group. All so-called Maori alive today have European ancestry. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to find a “Maori” who doesn’t possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised.

To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of “Maori” for electoral purposes was “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof.” After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori Roll, the then-Labour Government changed this to read “or any descendent of such a person.”

Under current electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori Roll or the General Roll. We thus have a legal definition of “Maori” that defies definition in the Courts, since it is entirely based on an individual’s periodic decision to identify as “Maori.”

Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as “Maori.” She states: “New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as ‘Maori’ if they ‘look Maori,’ that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choice.”

Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person’s appearance, Many New Zealanders who are considerably less than half-Maori will be identified by others as Maori whether they like it or not. This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist Maori identity and seeking utu upon the majority culture these people feel shut out of.

As Frantz Fanon, one of the many disreputable Communists enshrined as intellectual icons by the academic Left, reminds us: “The native is an oppressed person whose constant dream is to become the persecutor.”

The psychological roots of Treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child looking for someone to punish. The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else’s adjustment issues. Nor should public policy support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori be regarded as “Maori.” And nor should it dignify their cultural pretensions, particularly with other people’s money.

Lizzie Marvelly claims on her Facebook page to be “Ngati Whakaue.” If she wasn’t so noisy about this ancestral connection, nothing in her appearance would suggest she was part-Maori. This young woman might better be described as a Pakeha with a dash of Maori blood. The standard response when such an inconvenient truth is held up is: “Maori will decide who is ‘Maori.’ ”

In a free society, individuals are at liberty to enter into groups or combinations for any lawful purpose. Indeed, many choose to do so. There are rugby clubs, bowling clubs, bridge clubs, film clubs, swingers’ clubs, various religious congregations, and any number of other organisations catering to the sporting, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual needs of members.

The right of an individual of mixed European-Maori descent to identify with Maori culture and affiliate to a Maori kin group is not in dispute here. But since this is a personal choice and thus a private matter, Maori groups rightly have the same status as any other community group founded upon principles of voluntary association, such as a rugby club or a bowling club.

And the same moral right as the members of a rugby club or bowling club to demand large sums of money and political patronage from their fellow New Zealanders.

None.

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

From the NZ Herald
Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME

Bill English gave an important speech at Parliament this week about Maori and the state and self-determination.

The Deputy Prime Minister was speaking at the launch of a book – Crossing the Floor – about Maori Party founder Dame Tariana Turia.

It’s about her life, including her split from the Labour Party over its response to the foreshore and seabed court case, the formation of the Maori Party and its achievements.

Turia’s political journey is the stuff of legends.

The mutual admiration and respect between English and Turia was evident while she was in Parliament.

She had ideas, he had power. The admiration has not waned.

English talked about the 1957 Pulitzer-prize winning book by then Senator John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, about acts of political bravery in the United States Senate.

English puts Turia in the same league, she being a woman, he said, with the courage to pursue a vision unchanged “through the dangerous jungle of partisan politics”.

“We have stronger iwi, stronger whanau and a concrete understanding of rangatiratanga, a practical understanding, much more than just a protest slogan.”

Turia, with a unique set of political and personal skills, had brought ideas to the heart of Government week after week. She had, he said, started to fundamentally change the relationship between Maori and the state. Quite some call.

But he should know because while Prime Minister John Key is the figurehead, English manages it through its various strands, be it social service delivery through whanau ora, constitutional aspirations, parameters of Treaty of Waitangi settlements or Maori participation in freshwater management.

One of the reasons English has been willing to embrace managed extensions of rangatiratanga is because he sees the alternative as being worse – a sense of victimhood and reliance on the state.

The trouble with having such a legendary figure as Turia as a party founder is for those who follow.

Turia’s successor as co-leader is new MP Marama Fox, from the Wairarapa. She has huge amounts of energy and more so with the loss of 75kg in weight over two years. She is a sassy mother of nine and despite being a backbencher, has taken Turia’s place on the ministerial committee on poverty.

Te Ururoa Flavell, who succeeded Sir Pita Sharples as co-leader, has had 10 years in Parliament. Unlike Sharples, he is a details person and has been putting his own stamp on the Maori Development portfolio, undoing some of Sharples’ plans for Maori language and broadening reforms to allow Maori land to be harnessed economically.

But Fox and Flavell have struggled for profile this year of the kind that came naturally to Turia.

That is about to change.

They received more profile this week than the rest of the year put together for their support role in the next phase of National’s Resource Management Act reforms.

Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over to have its tummy tickled.

The Maori Party, which sees itself as the representative of the Treaty partner in Parliament, has been working closely with the Iwi Leaders Group on the bill and made a joint submission to National on what it wanted.

It has succeeded in blocking National’s bid to give equal weighting to economic development as environmental protection.

It also blocked Nick Smith’s bid to end the local government monopoly as consenting authorities ” a plan based on Australian experience where some engineering firms are authorised to give consents.

However, fast-tracking or eliminating the need altogether for some consents will not be what the Maori Party is remembered for.

It is the concept of Iwi Participation Arrangements which have already raised the interest of treaty watchers in the rump of ACT and cries of separatism from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Under the bill, every council within a month of being elected will be required to invite the relevant iwi authority to take part in devising an agreement about how they will take part in plans or policy statements of the council, including the vexed issue of water management policies.

It is intended to be a framework in which arrangements will vary depending on the interest and capacity of the different iwi and of existing arrangements.

The Government has firmly established policy that while iwi have (undefined) rights and interests in water, they are not ownership rights, that there is no generic share of water for Maori, that there will be no national settlement of freshwater claims ” as happened with the pan-tribal fisheries settlement ” and that iwi should be engaged in freshwater management processes catchment by catchment, iwi by iwi, not by means of a one-size-fits-all process.

The proposal will be a lightening rod for those who see any consultation with Maori as special treatment.

Without the proposal, however, the Government would be opening the door to the 1987-2003 era in which the courts effectively determined what New Zealand’s Treaty relationship should be ” a partnership ” and what the Crown’s obligations were as a result of that partnership.

If Maori have rights and interests in water but there is no vehicle by which they can be exercised, an iwi will test its rights in court, and the courts will give an answer which will almost certainly be less palatable to Peters and co than the current proposition.

The irony of Peters’ objections to the Maori Party’s plans for iwi participation is that were it not for him, the Maori Party would not have had the bargaining power to get it in the RMA bill.

Before Peters won the Northland by-election, National had the numbers with ACT to pass any RMA reform.

The Government wants to take back from the courts the task of fashioning Treaty obligations – with the consent of the Maori Party and the co-operation of the Iwi Leaders Group.

English effectively has the overview of extensions of rangatiratanga ” what Maori aspirations are and how far the Government can go in meeting them without compromising democracy or alienating non-Maori.

With the bill going through Parliament the proper way, with no shortcuts, there should be plenty of time to find out where the undercurrents lie.

end.

Despite all the weasley words politicians, our PM and Maori alike say about water not belonging to anyone, having absolute control over our fresh water for, forever, might as well be ownership. It’s exactly the same thing, just without title. And this is what the Iwi Freshwater Group is after by 2020. So the special rights offered to them in the new RMA legislation is just a beginning.

The document below is a Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group presentation. If you look on slide 10, you will see that one Iwi is negotiating a full transfer of Council powers, (over fresh water management), by 2020. We expect this to be the case in all negotiations held between Iwi and Councils on this issue.

Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group Presentation

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 . . .


The Gantt Guy’s letter to John Key:

Reblogged from CrusaderRabbit

‘With an election looming in only a few short weeks, the only question I am compelled to ask of you is, how much longer?

How much longer must people (partly) of Maori heritage labour under the crushing burden of low expectation? How much longer do we treat them as somehow less fully-formed, less human than other citizens, paternalistically excusing their statistically lower education and health outcomes, and higher rates of crime and imprisonment on the basis of their cultural heritage; the very definition of the term “racism”?

How much longer must New Zealanders of all cultural backgrounds apologise and pay for injustices real and (increasingly often) imagined which occurred most recently – when they occurred at all – more than a century ago?

How much longer must we continue under an apartheid electoral system where people (partly) from one racial background have access to preferential electorate seats from which others are excluded?

How much longer must we put up with those disabled parking spaces of the electoral system?

How much longer must New Zealand be held hostage to a corrupt oligarchical structure of tribal supremacy epitomised by your friends the Corporate IWI?

How much longer do we tolerate that tribal hierarchy deliberately keeping their own people in poverty and misery in order to pluck the heartstrings of Liberal White Guilt in order to ensure the treasury remains open to them?

How much longer until we cease to allow Maori-only electorate representation, Maori-only health funding, Maori-only legal representation, Maori-only educational scholarships?

How much longer must we tolerate the (former) paid and trained pet of the Corporate IWI, holding ministerial responsibility for treaty settlements, a conflict of interest so massive it would at minimum raise the eyebrows of the Law Society were it to occur in the private sector?

How much longer does our society suffer under the burden of treating citizens (partly) from one cultural heritage in preference to those from all others?

How much longer before the people of New Zealand break the stranglehold the Corporate IWI and their puppets in your government have on Maori people?

How much longer before Maori people are considered fully-formed adult members of society, and afforded the same freedoms and liberties as every other citizen?

How much longer until you realise the massive leap backwards the relations between races have taken as a direct result of your government’s pandering to the interests of radical and seditious racist elements in our society?
Boomshanka

The Gantt Guy’

 

Comments are now closed

1Law4All Shines Floodlights on Legalised Corruption

For several weeks, 1Law4All has been communicating the consequences of Auckland Council transferring unfettered power to Iwi Authorities in the Auckland region.

Since last October and the notification of the city’s Unitary Plan, many Aucklanders requiring resource consents have been obliged to seek “Cultural Impact Assessments” from iwi. This is because 3,600 purple dots in Auckland (each covering many well-established homes) are now deemed “of value” to iwi. With no substantiation or reason given! And iwi have only assessed 35% of Auckland so there’s more to come.

People are having to apply for iwi approval to put up a garden shed or cut down a tree and negotiate with 6 or 8 self-appointed (unsubstantiated) Iwi Authorities and pay whatever they ask for – which has been thousands of dollars, with no limits.

So not only did the Council allow this imposition on thousands of residential and commercial properties, they also ditched their responsibilities to manage and control this unsubstantiated and corruptible process.

This meant each individual property owner has had to negotiate personally the timing, the extent and the cost of the process with several tribal groups – before they could even lodge a resource consent application!

So 1Law4All members rallied and, with limited resources, did what they could to:

  • Organise meetings
  • Inform landowners
  • Engage the media
  • Write to Councillors (some were completely in the dark until we informed them!)
  • Contact MPs
  • Raise awareness on social media sites

As a result, significantly more submissions were made by the closing date this week, the media have picked up the issue, and some other political parties have finally come out of the woodwork to join in condemning the undemocratic and corruptible process.

So while the Unitary Plan Hearings will take the next 2-3 years (!!!), we hope the public outrage will now force the Council to take immediate steps to tidy up a process heavily suggestive of intimidation and extortion.

So a pat on the back to all 1Law4All members who helped make that happen!

Muriel Newman talks to Larry Williams about outrage spreading over the Auckland Unitary Plan. (Radio / audio)

Alarm is growing about proposed rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan for cultural impact assessments.

Maori Affairs spokesman Shane Jones says Iwi consent rule costly, dangerous and carries risk of jaundicing community view of indigenous heritage. (Aucklander)

Unbelievable Racism from the Maori Party.   (Sunlive)

Shane Jones has slammed a new rule requiring Auckland property owners to seek iwi approval to work on sites of cultural and heritage value to Maori, calling it dangerous and an extra compliance cost.  (NZ Herald)

Maori veto on water use! Users of 10-year-old bore supply told to seek approval from 14 Maori groups. (NZ Herald)

 

Comments are now closed

When is a Dot Not a Dot? – When it’s Over 3 Hectares! (8 acres)

purple_dot_caveat_sWhen reading the item below, be aware that the Auckland Council now asserts that the purple dots do not relate to the size of the area. They claim that the dots on the map merely show where the site is situated and that they do not correspond to precise measurements. Interestingly, the council has indicated that it is considering reducing the size of the buffer zone, down from 50 metres. That notion may be a red herring or possibly a sop to reduce the heat the Council is getting from alarmed ratepayers. If the foregoing is true, it doesn’t deal with the undemocratic, racial bias of the issue though. All it does is reduce the number of ratepayers who would be mired in such racial bureaucracy and possibly see their house values collapse, along with their property rights subjugated.


Most of the maps showing the Auckland Unitary Plan’s [AUP] purple dot pestilence are drawn from the Auckland Council web site. The scale is such that it’s hard to get a proper appreciation of those dots. When they are seen for what they are, it is indeed alarming. To demonstrate just how big the so-called “Sites of Value to Mana Whenua” really are and to give the plague of purple dots some realistic and tangible perspective that’s more easily grasped, the map was enlarged and, using the scale provided . . .

A purple dot is 3.2 hectares or 7.96 acres. Looking at one example in Papatoetoe, a ‘dot’ that big takes in at least 44 residential properties and their associated roading and reserve areas.

purple dot

If the additional “anything within 50 metres” buffer is added to the existing 200 metre diameter of a purple dot, it jumps in size to 7.17 Ha or 17.7 acres, doubling the number of residential properties which are affected, to approximately 88.

Some ‘dots’ overlap, some encompass water and some are not in residential areas. However, if the 3600 number of purple dots was halved to roughly allow for that, that would mean 1800 x 88 houses = 158,400 residences affected in the AUP area.

From what can be seen in the AUP maps, a purple dot (sounds tiny, doesn’t it?), when located on a residential area near the coast, would take in 15-25 houses/sections with an equivalent sized chunk of beach, roading, reserves and adjacent sea. (The “within 50 metres buffer” proximity add-on would change those estimates.)

purple dot 2

For Aucklanders, that’s a nasty rash of purple dots to find a cure for.

Comments are now closed

What’s Actually Going On in Auckland Council?

Auckland Council’s hastily put together draft Unitary Plan was notified on 30 September. With this notification, certain parts of the plan have become operational. Anecdotal evidence suggests this has resulted in significant problems and costs for ratepayers needing Resource Consents.

Layers and Layers of Controls

Restrictions have been placed on people’s private property without any certainty as to the basis or the consequences of these.  These restrictions cover extensive pockets of residential, commercial and public land in Auckland. These are depicted in the following overlays contained within the AUP:

  • Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (i.e. “traditional authority over an area”).
  • Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua.*
  • Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs)
  • Outstanding Natural Features
  • Outstanding Natural Landscapes
  • Outstanding and High Natural Character and Coastal Areas

Many of these sites have been farmed, subdivided, built on and planted by their owners for generations. The features suddenly needing new levels of protection are often not explained in any way.
* Note: 3,600 of the above sites of value/significance have appeared, with more to come.

Iwi Approvals Required

Should landowners want to do anything on such a site and thus need a Resource Consent, they are first obliged to engage with Iwi to see if they consider there’s a need for a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) or an Archaeological Assessment (AA). Iwi approval may be required for any removal of native vegetation, even if it is only a tiny plant.

The Council will give the landowner the Iwi Authority contacts to engage with. There could be any number of these. Six is not unheard of and 12 are possible in some areas. This is on the basis that the Resource Consent process can’t start until landowners have obtained CIAs or alternatively, written confirmation that none was necessary from each of the nominated Iwi Authorities.

Anecdotal evidence is that the process is messy, undefined and dodgy – For example:

  • This takes considerable time. Reportedly it is taking several weeks or months for Iwi Authorities to reply to a landowner’s initial approach. In some cases, they do not reply at all.
  • Some Iwi Authorities will want all the Resource Consent documentation. They may also ask for an Archaeological Assessment costing thousands of dollars for a site that isn’t even considered a Significant Heritage Area. Even if the Council advises that this is not required, Iwi still have the authority to insist.
  • Each Iwi Authority comes up with its own costs for these services. Some figures quoted by individual Iwi have been $nil, $450, $1,500 + GST or from $1,500 +GST upwards. One couple found they could be spending up to $10,000 among several Iwi Authorities when it was still unclear whether any assessment was necessary at all. This even before paying for the official Resource Consent.
  • In one case a representative of an Iwi Authority asked that the payment be made into a personal bank account, with no invoice nor mention of documentation.
  • The number of Iwi Authorities with actual historic links to the site can be questionable. There have been reports that some Iwi are displeased that other tribes are involved.
  • While an ‘engagement’ may be all about one issue (trees, for instance), Iwi can still take the opportunity to examine the site for any evidence of a Maori presence, e.g. middens, terraces, etc. Any such discovery would, of course, expand the whole process.

Where Does Council Stand on This?

Nobody in the Auckland Council seems to know what is involved or how much the process should cost.

  • Council staff don’t even know which are the relevant Iwi Authorities to approach for a CIA, nor if they have the correct contact details, let alone whether the contacts are qualified to perform assessments.
  • The tribes have no regulations or guidelines to follow, or limits on the fees they can charge.
  • It is reported that some Council staff are concerned, and feel the process is unreasonable. They recommend Aucklanders make a submission on the Unitary Plan (by 28th February) in an effort to get some improvement to this process.

Call This a Democracy?

These layers of private property restrictions have been slipped into Auckland’s bylaws without any explanation of what they are, and what they are protecting. There has been no community education and discussion about them, let alone any mandate given to impose them.  Most Aucklanders wouldn’t have a clue whether their properties are affected.

These restrictions give Iwi Authorities undefined, unspecified rights to come onto private properties, search around for something/anything, make recommendations about what can or can’t happen there, and charge as they see fit.  This situation affects well-established residential properties as well as new ones.

Please Help!

There’s a last opportunity to prevent this flawed plan being set in stone – submissions close 28 February 2014.

The Plan is on the Auckland Council website and in hard copy at some Auckland libraries and Council offices. Unfortunately, the Plan is not clear, nor easy to navigate or understand.

A sample submission form will be available for downloading from www.1law4all.kiwi.nz soon.

Devoid of Democracy

Unelected iwi interests are determining the future of the Hauraki Gulf.

Their representatives control the development of the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan. They will ultimately recommend the plan to relevant councils and agencies for implementation through their statutory processes.

For some hard to fathom reason, the project (christened ‘Sea Change’) has been set up as a 50/50 partnership. It is comprised of 8 representatives of regional iwi – known as mana whenua – and 8 from participating government agencies, i.e. the Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries and Territorial Authorities.

To add to the racially selected make-up of this steering group, one of the Waikato Regional Council delegates represents the newly created Nga Tai ki Uta Maori constituency. Consequently the steering group is made up of 9 members representing Maori interests, and just 7 representing the general population.

This arrangement is another example of how our democratic principles are being subverted. Power is being demanded and granted on an unelected, unaccountable racial basis. There is a significant shift in the balance of power away from the general population and towards self-appointed iwi interests.

For a list of the members of the steering group see: http://www.seachange.org.nz/General/Sea-Change-Project-Steering-Group-members/

Questions you might well ask your Councillors and MPs:

  •  Who exactly do the “mana whenua” representatives actually work for? How does one join this group and obtain power? By what process do they get their positions?
  • Apart from them representing just one population segment, have they been checked for any other conflicts of interest?
  • Who pays their costs?
  • How is their performance evaluated and by whom?
  • What confidence can ratepayers have that the interests of all New Zealanders in the region will be protected?

(Note: The Hauraki Gulf approximates 4000 km². Its waters surround the eastern side of the Auckland Region, the Hauraki Plains, the Coromandel Peninsula and Great Barrier Island.)

1 2
%d bloggers like this: