Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 3, 2016 5:11:41 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 3/11/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON CONSTITUTION
Your correspondent Neville Cameron comments that a constitution gives people a fall-back. We must ensure that any future constitution is for the common good of all of us and is not hijacked into race-based politics by a constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.
R B
Tauranga.
Rotorua Review 3/11/16
ILLEGAL?
It was with interest I read the article on the front cover of the Rotorua Review (October 19) where Mayor Steve Chadwick said that the controversial Te Arawa Partnership was settled, absolutely put to bed and would not be revisited.
What I would like to know is is this Maori advisory group being paid and if so, is the money coming out of our rates?
Bearing in mind this group have not been democratically elected by the rate payers of Rotorua.
Surely such an arrangement is illegal, as this is not democracy.
B M
Northland Age 3/11/16
AGENDA EXPOSED
With the Treaty claims process coming. an end, the right to control public resources is becoming a central focus for tribal corporations as they enter the post settlement era. their priority is the control of fresh water.
New information shows they are making significant progress.
Our research has now uncovered the fact that an extensive three-year fresh water policy development process is well under way. It is a reform programme the government clearly doesn't want you to know about.
Their Cabinet Paper explains it in this way: "The public has been informed of our intention to continue work to develop freshwater allocation policy proposals, through publication of our consultation document 'Next steps for fresh water' on 20 February 2016. No further media announcements are intended."
In other words, the Government has decided that an innocuous comment in a complex consultation paper is sufficient to inform the public that a major programme of crucial fresh water reform is underway.
This is in sharp contrast to the way iwi leaders have been treated.
The Cabinet Paper explains: "We seek Cabinet's agreement to a work programme on water allocation. We have discussed this draft terms of reference with the Iwi Leaders' Group, who expressed their support for the approach. This will be a complex piece of work and is likely to have significant impact on the New Zealand economy. It is important to take an approach that ensures the policy options we are presented with are supported by a strong evidence base, and are well tested with those who can tell us how they are likely to play out, practically, on the ground. It will take time to do this, and initially we will need officials to explore a wide range of options before narrowing down to those that are most feasible.
"Advice on options will include how they are consistent with the government's fundamental position that no one owns fresh water, and that fresh water needs to be managed at a local level, catchment by catchment."
A network of advisory groups consisting of an Allocation Team, a Joint Advisory Group, and a Technical Advisory Group, have now been established to advance this work programme. Iwi leaders have been invited to have a presence in all groups, and indeed have had a significant hand in determining the process, the advisory groups, and the membership of those groups. This far from independent process has no doubt been designed by iwi to produce their desired outcome.
In terms of the proposed time frame for the project, by the end of this year a full range of reform options will have been identified with advice provided to ministers on which ones should be explored further.
Next year, the policy options agreed by Cabinet will be modelled, tested and refined, with final recommendations made to the incoming government at the end of 2017.
The third phase of the project, in 2018, will include limited public consultation on the policy options being proposed. The final implementation of the reforms will be "through either amendment to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, regulations or legislative change."
In other words, the government is already planning to push through major reform of fresh water management in New Zealand by the back door using a National Policy Statement or regulation, both of which would avoid further public scrutiny and the democratic Parliamentary process.
This is clearly a strategy designed to introduce substantial race-based privileges to a national resource, with limited public involvement, and without attracting attention. What's more, the timetable delays public consultation until after the 2017 election, thereby avoiding the risk of it becoming an election issue.
Although the Cabinet Paper raises concerns about conflicts of interest, it makes no mention of the glaring pecuniary conflict of interest of iwi leaders, who stand to make billions of dollars from water rights if the final policy outcome goes their way.
National is clearly hoping that in the next term of government, together with the Maori Party, they will be able to introduce the tribal control of fresh water - long demanded by the iwi elite - through the back door.
Anthony Willy, a former judge and lecturer in law at Canterbury University, puts it this way:
"Creating imaginary rights and rectifying wrongs taken out of their historical context may give the academics and their ilk among the policy-makers a warm feeling of rectitude, but they do nothing to promote and preserve the greater good."
In 2007, then National Party conservation spokesman Nick Smith stated that water was a public resource and "We think it is a mistake to try and divide the management of water along ethnic lines".
How his tune has changed. But what's most disturbing is the conniving and arrogant dismissal of the public's right to be kept informed of changes to the way this crucial public resource is about to be managed.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research
ON CONSTITUTION
Your correspondent Neville Cameron comments that a constitution gives people a fall-back. We must ensure that any future constitution is for the common good of all of us and is not hijacked into race-based politics by a constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.
R B
Tauranga.
Rotorua Review 3/11/16
ILLEGAL?
It was with interest I read the article on the front cover of the Rotorua Review (October 19) where Mayor Steve Chadwick said that the controversial Te Arawa Partnership was settled, absolutely put to bed and would not be revisited.
What I would like to know is is this Maori advisory group being paid and if so, is the money coming out of our rates?
Bearing in mind this group have not been democratically elected by the rate payers of Rotorua.
Surely such an arrangement is illegal, as this is not democracy.
B M
Northland Age 3/11/16
AGENDA EXPOSED
With the Treaty claims process coming. an end, the right to control public resources is becoming a central focus for tribal corporations as they enter the post settlement era. their priority is the control of fresh water.
New information shows they are making significant progress.
Our research has now uncovered the fact that an extensive three-year fresh water policy development process is well under way. It is a reform programme the government clearly doesn't want you to know about.
Their Cabinet Paper explains it in this way: "The public has been informed of our intention to continue work to develop freshwater allocation policy proposals, through publication of our consultation document 'Next steps for fresh water' on 20 February 2016. No further media announcements are intended."
In other words, the Government has decided that an innocuous comment in a complex consultation paper is sufficient to inform the public that a major programme of crucial fresh water reform is underway.
This is in sharp contrast to the way iwi leaders have been treated.
The Cabinet Paper explains: "We seek Cabinet's agreement to a work programme on water allocation. We have discussed this draft terms of reference with the Iwi Leaders' Group, who expressed their support for the approach. This will be a complex piece of work and is likely to have significant impact on the New Zealand economy. It is important to take an approach that ensures the policy options we are presented with are supported by a strong evidence base, and are well tested with those who can tell us how they are likely to play out, practically, on the ground. It will take time to do this, and initially we will need officials to explore a wide range of options before narrowing down to those that are most feasible.
"Advice on options will include how they are consistent with the government's fundamental position that no one owns fresh water, and that fresh water needs to be managed at a local level, catchment by catchment."
A network of advisory groups consisting of an Allocation Team, a Joint Advisory Group, and a Technical Advisory Group, have now been established to advance this work programme. Iwi leaders have been invited to have a presence in all groups, and indeed have had a significant hand in determining the process, the advisory groups, and the membership of those groups. This far from independent process has no doubt been designed by iwi to produce their desired outcome.
In terms of the proposed time frame for the project, by the end of this year a full range of reform options will have been identified with advice provided to ministers on which ones should be explored further.
Next year, the policy options agreed by Cabinet will be modelled, tested and refined, with final recommendations made to the incoming government at the end of 2017.
The third phase of the project, in 2018, will include limited public consultation on the policy options being proposed. The final implementation of the reforms will be "through either amendment to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, regulations or legislative change."
In other words, the government is already planning to push through major reform of fresh water management in New Zealand by the back door using a National Policy Statement or regulation, both of which would avoid further public scrutiny and the democratic Parliamentary process.
This is clearly a strategy designed to introduce substantial race-based privileges to a national resource, with limited public involvement, and without attracting attention. What's more, the timetable delays public consultation until after the 2017 election, thereby avoiding the risk of it becoming an election issue.
Although the Cabinet Paper raises concerns about conflicts of interest, it makes no mention of the glaring pecuniary conflict of interest of iwi leaders, who stand to make billions of dollars from water rights if the final policy outcome goes their way.
National is clearly hoping that in the next term of government, together with the Maori Party, they will be able to introduce the tribal control of fresh water - long demanded by the iwi elite - through the back door.
Anthony Willy, a former judge and lecturer in law at Canterbury University, puts it this way:
"Creating imaginary rights and rectifying wrongs taken out of their historical context may give the academics and their ilk among the policy-makers a warm feeling of rectitude, but they do nothing to promote and preserve the greater good."
In 2007, then National Party conservation spokesman Nick Smith stated that water was a public resource and "We think it is a mistake to try and divide the management of water along ethnic lines".
How his tune has changed. But what's most disturbing is the conniving and arrogant dismissal of the public's right to be kept informed of changes to the way this crucial public resource is about to be managed.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research