Firstly Moeahu asks “What are you afraid of?” - Unquote
Response: Fair minded New Zealanders are not "afraid (of Maori wards)". They simply advocate for democracy and to oppose all forms of racism in New Zealand and the fake history of our country on which so much of it (racism) is based.
Response: Fair minded New Zealanders are not "afraid (of Maori wards)". They simply advocate for democracy and to oppose all forms of racism in New Zealand and the fake history of our country on which so much of it (racism) is based.
Moeahu writes > Out of all the issues that currently plague our country, Māori wards are one of the biggest threats to democracy that must be stopped at all costs. Why? - Unquote
Response: Why? - Because - Maori wards contradict the very foundation of democracy. Democracy is about one nation, people, all equal, one law, one vote. Māori wards establish a separate
people and no community vote, therefore no accountability to the community.
Moeahu writes > The Waitangi Tribunal under urgency released a damning report on the bill stating multiple breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi demonstrating the coalition Government failed in its Treaty obligations to protect and consult with Māori. - Unquote
Response:
1. The Waitang Tribunal is not a dispassionate, fact-finding body. It is heavily biased towards Maori preference and should be abolished.
2. There is nothing in the Treaty that states or even infers that Maori have to be consulted, and Article 3 grants Maoris the rights and privileges of British subjects which gives them the same ‘protection’ as other New Zealanders.
Moeahu writes > Furthermore, the bill does not affect any other ward, only the Māori ward causing further prejudice to Māori. - Unquote
Response: Other wards do not change the voting system as does introducing Maori wards with a new voting system based on the Maori Electoral Roll and the General Roll.
Moeahu writes > More than 50 mayors and chairs from around Aotearoa signed an open letter challenging the Government’s overreach and providing their support of Māori wards. - Unquote
Response: LOL, only 50 out of 5 million? See here for real numbers > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/polls-results
Moeahu writes > The cataclysmic event which occurred in 2014 when then Mayor Andrew Judd proposed the introduction of a Māori ward in the New Plymouth District Council.
The vote barely passed 7-6, setting off a chain of events that included a petition from the president of the New Plymouth Grey Power branch to force a binding referendum. - Unquote
Response:
1. Moeahu slyly cut short of publishing the results of the 2015 referendum being 83% against Maori wards and only 17% for separatist Maori wards > https://www.npdc.govt.nz/council/about-the-council/elections/previous-elections-including-expense-returns/maori-ward-poll-2015/
2. It appears that the only people, who want to divide the country by race, through Maori wards, are a small but vocal minority of tribal elitists and their supporters like LGNZ – and the former New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd.
Andrew Judd started his battle over Maori representation on the New Plymouth District Council in 2014. He had been approached by local iwi demanding a greater say in council decision-making, but since the Council rejected his plan to appoint iwi representatives onto council committees with full voting rights, he proposed Maori wards instead.
This was challenged by local resident Hugh Johnson, a retired engineer and former Lower Hutt councillor, who collected signatures from more than 5 percent of voters to force a referendum. The Maori ward was rejected by 83 percent of local electors.
Mr Johnson explained that he called for a referendum because he believed voters should have a say in a change as fundamental as the establishment of Maori wards: “I believe we are one country, one lot of people, not divided. The Maori seats in Parliament separates the Parliament and we don’t need to spread it out into local government. It’s as simple as that. If you want to get voted on council, you go through one voting system.”
In response to the defeat, Mayor Judd called the citizens of New Plymouth racists, and vowed to fight to remove the right of local electors to call for a poll on Maori wards. He also called for 50 percent of all councillors to be Maori.
The public response to Andrew Judd’s divisive proposals was outrage. As broadcaster Mike Hosking said at the time, “Is it a pre-requisite to be an idiot to run for local body politics? New Plymouth’s Mayor Andrew Judd has dreamed up the idea that the law should be changed so that half of all councillors are Maori. He’s already wanting to create a Maori ward. He bases all of this on the Treaty – yes, the same Treaty the Tribunal suggested hadn’t ceded authority to the British. Top tip for the Andrews of this world: firstly, councils are in the business of mowing lawns, collecting rubbish, not for social and historic engineering; secondly, no country’s future is based on segregation – or giving one race a false hope, or false start, or false advantage based on nothing more than skin colour. This is a recipe for disaster and acrimony, and New Plymouth – not to mention the rest of the country – deserves a hell of a lot better.”
https://www.nzcpr.com/local-democracy-undermined/
Moeahu writes > The growth of Māori participation and representation in local government since 2001-2002 has been significant.
Response: Yes, as a result of the on-going pressure on councils from Labour and iwi to adopt Maori wards 32 councils imposed separatist Maori wards on their communities knowing that, with two exceptions, whenever a vote was held, substantial opposition from the community overturned such proposals. Maori are now seriously over-represented in local government.
Moeahu writes > Even with this progress, it still only equates to 13.5% of the overall representation within local councils.
Therefore Māori wards are necessary to address the under-representation of Māori in local government, aligning with the partnership principles in the Local Government Act 2002. - Unquote
Response: Moeahu either cunningly or unknowingly is quoting old stats - see following excerpt from a NZCPR newsletter.
Back in 2020 a LGNZ survey showed the proportion of Maori elected to local authorities was 13.5 percent – virtually identical to the 13.7 percent of Maori in the adult population according to the 2018 census.
This means that before Labour abolished petition rights, there was no under representation of Maori in local government. All of the claims about barriers to Maori representation were deliberate lies.
There was no need to introduce Maori wards because Maori were quite capable of getting themselves elected in general wards.
However, as a result of Labour opening the floodgates, the number of councils with Maori wards exploded from 3 to 35, and Maori representation has blown out to 21.6 percent.
That means Maori are now grossly over-represented in local government – just as they are in central government.
https://www.nzcpr.com/coalition-promises/
Moeahu writes >This approach is similar to the Māori seats in central government, which have been in place since 1867 and have increased in number to reflect the growing Māori population.
These are the same seats the National Party and the New Zealand First Party have stood candidates in. So what’s the difference? - Unquote
Response:
1. At a National level of governance it is about ideology (how a country should be run), whereas at Local level of governance it is about addressing a communities needs (ie infrastructure, consents, freshwater, resource management, parks and playgrounds, community centres, libraries, sports arenas, concert halls, beaches and rivers etc) therefore it should be free from ideology.
2. Only a fool would justify a wrong with an existing wrong, Local Govt largely hasn't had Maori seats (up to 2021, when Mahuta intervened) why should Central Govt have them?
In 1986 the Royal Commission recommended abolishing Maori seats but the Bolger government was too woke to do so.
Moeahu writes >The establishment of Māori wards in local councils is a significant step towards promoting genuine partnership between Māori and wider communities. - Unquote
Response:
1. Mr Moeahu appears to support racial separatism as he sees Maori separate from others in the community.
2. “Partnership” ideology is a nonsense pushed by the woke.
Moeahu writes > These changes pave the way for more sustainable and resilient governance structures, benefiting everyone in the region. - Unquote
Response: That is Moeahu’s opinion only
Moeahu writes > While some argue that creating specific wards for Māori could contradict democratic principles, it is essential to recognise that true democracy seeks to provide equitable opportunities for all voices to be heard. - Unquote
Response: Those that affiliate to cult Maori have the same equitable opportunity as other New Zealanders to have their voices heard as individuals on a general roll.
Moeahu writes > Māori wards are a corrective measure aimed at addressing historical and systemic inequities, enriching the governance and social fabric of Aotearoa. - Unquote
Response:
1. There are at least 20 special Maori only privileges that are not available to others in New Zealand > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-special-privileges
2. Funding for Maori is repeated every year and is at least $1.16-billion (2012-13 figures, no doubt much more now), and is on top of other funding distributed through Health, Housing, Social Development, and Education. > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/race-based-funding-cost
3. Treaty settlements $4.6billion > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/treaty-settlements-list
4. Aotearoa?? > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/maori-agendas/renaming-new-zealand-by-stealth
In closing, influential members of our society should be uniting our country not driving division with separatist ideology. And Governance must be based solely on citizenship, not ethnicity
Moeahu writes > The Waitangi Tribunal under urgency released a damning report on the bill stating multiple breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi demonstrating the coalition Government failed in its Treaty obligations to protect and consult with Māori. - Unquote
Response:
1. The Waitang Tribunal is not a dispassionate, fact-finding body. It is heavily biased towards Maori preference and should be abolished.
2. There is nothing in the Treaty that states or even infers that Maori have to be consulted, and Article 3 grants Maoris the rights and privileges of British subjects which gives them the same ‘protection’ as other New Zealanders.
Moeahu writes > Furthermore, the bill does not affect any other ward, only the Māori ward causing further prejudice to Māori. - Unquote
Response: Other wards do not change the voting system as does introducing Maori wards with a new voting system based on the Maori Electoral Roll and the General Roll.
Moeahu writes > More than 50 mayors and chairs from around Aotearoa signed an open letter challenging the Government’s overreach and providing their support of Māori wards. - Unquote
Response: LOL, only 50 out of 5 million? See here for real numbers > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/polls-results
Moeahu writes > The cataclysmic event which occurred in 2014 when then Mayor Andrew Judd proposed the introduction of a Māori ward in the New Plymouth District Council.
The vote barely passed 7-6, setting off a chain of events that included a petition from the president of the New Plymouth Grey Power branch to force a binding referendum. - Unquote
Response:
1. Moeahu slyly cut short of publishing the results of the 2015 referendum being 83% against Maori wards and only 17% for separatist Maori wards > https://www.npdc.govt.nz/council/about-the-council/elections/previous-elections-including-expense-returns/maori-ward-poll-2015/
2. It appears that the only people, who want to divide the country by race, through Maori wards, are a small but vocal minority of tribal elitists and their supporters like LGNZ – and the former New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd.
Andrew Judd started his battle over Maori representation on the New Plymouth District Council in 2014. He had been approached by local iwi demanding a greater say in council decision-making, but since the Council rejected his plan to appoint iwi representatives onto council committees with full voting rights, he proposed Maori wards instead.
This was challenged by local resident Hugh Johnson, a retired engineer and former Lower Hutt councillor, who collected signatures from more than 5 percent of voters to force a referendum. The Maori ward was rejected by 83 percent of local electors.
Mr Johnson explained that he called for a referendum because he believed voters should have a say in a change as fundamental as the establishment of Maori wards: “I believe we are one country, one lot of people, not divided. The Maori seats in Parliament separates the Parliament and we don’t need to spread it out into local government. It’s as simple as that. If you want to get voted on council, you go through one voting system.”
In response to the defeat, Mayor Judd called the citizens of New Plymouth racists, and vowed to fight to remove the right of local electors to call for a poll on Maori wards. He also called for 50 percent of all councillors to be Maori.
The public response to Andrew Judd’s divisive proposals was outrage. As broadcaster Mike Hosking said at the time, “Is it a pre-requisite to be an idiot to run for local body politics? New Plymouth’s Mayor Andrew Judd has dreamed up the idea that the law should be changed so that half of all councillors are Maori. He’s already wanting to create a Maori ward. He bases all of this on the Treaty – yes, the same Treaty the Tribunal suggested hadn’t ceded authority to the British. Top tip for the Andrews of this world: firstly, councils are in the business of mowing lawns, collecting rubbish, not for social and historic engineering; secondly, no country’s future is based on segregation – or giving one race a false hope, or false start, or false advantage based on nothing more than skin colour. This is a recipe for disaster and acrimony, and New Plymouth – not to mention the rest of the country – deserves a hell of a lot better.”
https://www.nzcpr.com/local-democracy-undermined/
Moeahu writes > The growth of Māori participation and representation in local government since 2001-2002 has been significant.
Response: Yes, as a result of the on-going pressure on councils from Labour and iwi to adopt Maori wards 32 councils imposed separatist Maori wards on their communities knowing that, with two exceptions, whenever a vote was held, substantial opposition from the community overturned such proposals. Maori are now seriously over-represented in local government.
Moeahu writes > Even with this progress, it still only equates to 13.5% of the overall representation within local councils.
Therefore Māori wards are necessary to address the under-representation of Māori in local government, aligning with the partnership principles in the Local Government Act 2002. - Unquote
Response: Moeahu either cunningly or unknowingly is quoting old stats - see following excerpt from a NZCPR newsletter.
Back in 2020 a LGNZ survey showed the proportion of Maori elected to local authorities was 13.5 percent – virtually identical to the 13.7 percent of Maori in the adult population according to the 2018 census.
This means that before Labour abolished petition rights, there was no under representation of Maori in local government. All of the claims about barriers to Maori representation were deliberate lies.
There was no need to introduce Maori wards because Maori were quite capable of getting themselves elected in general wards.
However, as a result of Labour opening the floodgates, the number of councils with Maori wards exploded from 3 to 35, and Maori representation has blown out to 21.6 percent.
That means Maori are now grossly over-represented in local government – just as they are in central government.
https://www.nzcpr.com/coalition-promises/
Moeahu writes >This approach is similar to the Māori seats in central government, which have been in place since 1867 and have increased in number to reflect the growing Māori population.
These are the same seats the National Party and the New Zealand First Party have stood candidates in. So what’s the difference? - Unquote
Response:
1. At a National level of governance it is about ideology (how a country should be run), whereas at Local level of governance it is about addressing a communities needs (ie infrastructure, consents, freshwater, resource management, parks and playgrounds, community centres, libraries, sports arenas, concert halls, beaches and rivers etc) therefore it should be free from ideology.
2. Only a fool would justify a wrong with an existing wrong, Local Govt largely hasn't had Maori seats (up to 2021, when Mahuta intervened) why should Central Govt have them?
In 1986 the Royal Commission recommended abolishing Maori seats but the Bolger government was too woke to do so.
Moeahu writes >The establishment of Māori wards in local councils is a significant step towards promoting genuine partnership between Māori and wider communities. - Unquote
Response:
1. Mr Moeahu appears to support racial separatism as he sees Maori separate from others in the community.
2. “Partnership” ideology is a nonsense pushed by the woke.
Moeahu writes > These changes pave the way for more sustainable and resilient governance structures, benefiting everyone in the region. - Unquote
Response: That is Moeahu’s opinion only
Moeahu writes > While some argue that creating specific wards for Māori could contradict democratic principles, it is essential to recognise that true democracy seeks to provide equitable opportunities for all voices to be heard. - Unquote
Response: Those that affiliate to cult Maori have the same equitable opportunity as other New Zealanders to have their voices heard as individuals on a general roll.
Moeahu writes > Māori wards are a corrective measure aimed at addressing historical and systemic inequities, enriching the governance and social fabric of Aotearoa. - Unquote
Response:
1. There are at least 20 special Maori only privileges that are not available to others in New Zealand > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-special-privileges
2. Funding for Maori is repeated every year and is at least $1.16-billion (2012-13 figures, no doubt much more now), and is on top of other funding distributed through Health, Housing, Social Development, and Education. > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/race-based-funding-cost
3. Treaty settlements $4.6billion > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/treaty-settlements-list
4. Aotearoa?? > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/maori-agendas/renaming-new-zealand-by-stealth
In closing, influential members of our society should be uniting our country not driving division with separatist ideology. And Governance must be based solely on citizenship, not ethnicity
4 comments:
Not mentioned is the huge influence of inevitable cancellation applied to any councillor who dares be seen to publicly oppose. A confidential public vote in large part counters.
I for one fear maori wards and rthe onsequent mana seeking, money and time wasting associated obstruction and other posturing. And proliferation of confusng convoluted hard to remember and spell, macron riddled maori names for parks, streets, landmarks etc.
Well done Geoff, and so well written. A great response to the councillor in every way and I totaly agree with you. I wonder if the local media rag would publish your responses or perhaps Stuff??
Hope this has all been put in a submission to the current Bill, well collated and presented. Will National and PM Luxon wake up and smell the awful stench that has replaced the gental whiff of roses in this Country? Our economic woes will never be overcome unless the inequities mentioned above are not properly addressed. Please, please can we have some real leadership instead of this insidious "Nothing to see here" silliness? We are seriously considering our options to quit that stupid racist A-word. The only thing that will keep us here would be if it reverts to being New Zealand and we really become one people.
So we have a He Puapua supporter AND a district Councillor (no conflict of interest here then) being given free rein to influence the public with his “unbiased” opinion? What a Ninny?
I hope the Taranaki Daily follow up with a counter from a non He Puapua supporting Councillor ( if one exists) opposing Maori Wards, while highlighting the agenda behind them.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.