Undoubtedly, the RMA needs reform, but these changes will only exacerbate the situation, especially the provisions for co-governance, which seem to be a step towards tribalism.
Initially promoted as enabling planning legislation, the RMA has proven to be disabling, causing costly delays which have been a source of frustration, and sand in the gears of our economy for too long. The requirement to consult with iwi, a convoluted process, raises questions about its purpose. Why should iwi be given priority over other affected parties? Are they always directly affected?
The consultation requirement with iwi is based on an interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, which according to the Waitangi Tribunal “guarantees Maori the undisturbed possession of their properties, including their lands, forests and fisheries as long as they wished to retain them”. The fact is that this provision applies to all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity. We all share a connection with our land and waterways, so determining whose relationship is more important is impossible.
Aside from the equity concerns, the consultation provisions create uncertainty and unnecessary delays. The administration of these provisions paves a treacherous path, laying the foundation for self-interest and backroom deals unrelated to environmental concerns or resource use.
While it is easy to criticise councils, they are at least held to account via the ballot box every three years. This critical democratic right, however, will be taken away in favour of an extreme interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, sending us down the separatist path where rights are determined by our ethnicity.
There is no doubt that Maori are more likely to have poor outcomes in health, education and crime statistics, but trying to address this through co-governance will simply not work.
Central planning, a hallmark of socialism, is founded on the belief that the state can allocate resources more efficiently than individuals. However, history has repeatedly demonstrated that it leads to the loss of personal freedoms and lower living standards. And I don’t want that. Do you?
Initially promoted as enabling planning legislation, the RMA has proven to be disabling, causing costly delays which have been a source of frustration, and sand in the gears of our economy for too long. The requirement to consult with iwi, a convoluted process, raises questions about its purpose. Why should iwi be given priority over other affected parties? Are they always directly affected?
The consultation requirement with iwi is based on an interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, which according to the Waitangi Tribunal “guarantees Maori the undisturbed possession of their properties, including their lands, forests and fisheries as long as they wished to retain them”. The fact is that this provision applies to all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity. We all share a connection with our land and waterways, so determining whose relationship is more important is impossible.
Aside from the equity concerns, the consultation provisions create uncertainty and unnecessary delays. The administration of these provisions paves a treacherous path, laying the foundation for self-interest and backroom deals unrelated to environmental concerns or resource use.
While it is easy to criticise councils, they are at least held to account via the ballot box every three years. This critical democratic right, however, will be taken away in favour of an extreme interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, sending us down the separatist path where rights are determined by our ethnicity.
There is no doubt that Maori are more likely to have poor outcomes in health, education and crime statistics, but trying to address this through co-governance will simply not work.
Central planning, a hallmark of socialism, is founded on the belief that the state can allocate resources more efficiently than individuals. However, history has repeatedly demonstrated that it leads to the loss of personal freedoms and lower living standards. And I don’t want that. Do you?
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician who has been a member of the House of Representatives for the Kaikōura electorate since 2014. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Article second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
Above is the wording of Article 2 taken from the final English draft written on February the 4th 1840.
This was then translated into the tiriti o Waitangi and signed by over 500 maori chiefs on the 6th and taken throughout New Zealand.
The English draft mirrors more accurately then any previous attempts, what is agreed to in the signed maori version ( tiriti ). It makes no mention of forests and fisheries and all New Zealanders share equal property rights. All other interpretations are fraudulent.
.
Next step Stuart, attend one of Julian Batchelor's Stop Co Governance meetings. Why are the taxpayer union and Julian Batchelor having to do this when we have paid opposition politicians in parliament who should be fighting for our democracy?
But facts are ignored as " interpretation" rules supreme.....in the inexorable march towards ethnocracy.
Terrifying.
Where does the Treaty of Waitangi mention Principles and Partnership? We are supposed to be one people. If this government does not know the difference between one and two they should not be on the treasury benches. A country that does not acknowledge its true history has no future!
Kevan
Stuart, are you sure you’re in the right party?
Stuart, I have been a National Party member for a very long time, my wife and I used to vote for you before we moved to Kaiapoi but our views are changing now. Our local MP is a confirmed treaty partnership / obligation believer but he will get our votes because he does a good job locally, however ACT will get our party votes as David Seymour speaks out against all of the racist Maorification crap. If Luxon promised a referendum on whether people want to be New Zealanders or Aotearoans National would receive our Party votes too, however he appears to be gutless, too afraid to get off the fence in case he upsets a certain minority. Kiwialan.
Post a Comment