The report makes a legitimate point that some Māori communities are vulnerable to severe weather events, especially isolated rural or coastal settlements. But it weakens its own credibility by turning climate resilience into a broad ideological argument about colonisation and governance.
Climate risk is primarily driven by geography, infrastructure quality, income, and preparedness — not ancestry.
A flood does not check ethnicity before it destroys a road, wipes out pasture, or damages a home. Provincial farming towns, low-income suburbs, and coastal communities across New Zealand face the same exposure to storms, erosion, and infrastructure failure regardless of whether residents are Māori or non-Māori.
The article repeatedly implies that colonisation is a central cause of modern climate vulnerability. That claim is only partially true and is often overstated. Historical land confiscations and social disruption undoubtedly affected Māori communities in some regions. But modern climate risks are largely shaped by where people live today, the resilience of local infrastructure, insurance access, flood protection, emergency planning, and economic capacity.
The article repeatedly implies that colonisation is a central cause of modern climate vulnerability. That claim is only partially true and is often overstated. Historical land confiscations and social disruption undoubtedly affected Māori communities in some regions. But modern climate risks are largely shaped by where people live today, the resilience of local infrastructure, insurance access, flood protection, emergency planning, and economic capacity.
The report also shifts from discussing climate impacts into advocating expanded Māori governance authority and Treaty-based decision-making. That is a political conclusion, not a scientific one.
It is entirely reasonable to support local iwi involvement in environmental management where they have expertise or local knowledge. But that is different from claiming climate adaptation requires race-based governance structures or separate authority systems.
Another weak point is the suggestion Māori are broadly “excluded” from climate planning. Māori organisations already have substantial representation within environmental consultation frameworks, Treaty settlement structures, co-governance bodies, and local government processes. Whether those arrangements are effective is open to debate, but describing Māori as absent from decision-making does not accurately reflect modern New Zealand institutions.
The report also underplays the fact that modern New Zealand — despite its flaws — is vastly more resilient to natural disasters than pre-colonial society was. Roads, flood protection, emergency services, healthcare, communications, engineering, and national coordination all reduce climate risk for everyone.
The real issue is not colonisation versus decolonisation. It is whether New Zealand invests sensibly in infrastructure resilience, emergency management, flood mitigation, housing quality, and regional development.
Climate adaptation should be based on exposure and need, not racial framing.
If a coastal settlement is vulnerable, protect it because it is vulnerable. If a marae needs flood protection, support it because it serves a community. If a rural road is repeatedly destroyed, fix it because people rely on it.
That approach unites the country around practical resilience instead of dividing climate policy into competing ethnic narratives.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
It is entirely reasonable to support local iwi involvement in environmental management where they have expertise or local knowledge. But that is different from claiming climate adaptation requires race-based governance structures or separate authority systems.
Another weak point is the suggestion Māori are broadly “excluded” from climate planning. Māori organisations already have substantial representation within environmental consultation frameworks, Treaty settlement structures, co-governance bodies, and local government processes. Whether those arrangements are effective is open to debate, but describing Māori as absent from decision-making does not accurately reflect modern New Zealand institutions.
The report also underplays the fact that modern New Zealand — despite its flaws — is vastly more resilient to natural disasters than pre-colonial society was. Roads, flood protection, emergency services, healthcare, communications, engineering, and national coordination all reduce climate risk for everyone.
The real issue is not colonisation versus decolonisation. It is whether New Zealand invests sensibly in infrastructure resilience, emergency management, flood mitigation, housing quality, and regional development.
Climate adaptation should be based on exposure and need, not racial framing.
If a coastal settlement is vulnerable, protect it because it is vulnerable. If a marae needs flood protection, support it because it serves a community. If a rural road is repeatedly destroyed, fix it because people rely on it.
That approach unites the country around practical resilience instead of dividing climate policy into competing ethnic narratives.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
4 comments:
But the indoctrinated see each and every issue, decision and outcome as political - not scientific or factual. This is NZ's major problem and any opposition to this is likely to end in tears.
Underpinning the demand for more "Maori governance authority" is the urban myth that primitive peoples were good environmental managers. The evidence shows the exact opposite. The conversion of forest into grassland because of slash-and-burn agriculture, and the overexploitation of prey species leading to their extinction, indicate how incompetent they were.
The carrying capacity of these lands would have been in the order of 100,000 people using traditional technology and agriculture. Now they support 5 million with plenty of surplus production for export.
If I chose to locate my house near the sea where a tsunami might destroy it, that's my problem.
If Maori locate a marae in a similar situation it is their problem, not the whole of NZs problem.
These people want the flash marae, not the pre European version and you can be certain that in previous centuries many of them would have been wiped out by Nature, and definitely by the neighbors.
So colonisation is to blame for the bad weather is it? I'm surprised the authors of this report don't don't acknowledge Tawhitimatea, their god of the weather, wind and lightening, and Taungaroa, their god of the sea and the rivers. Much more plausible than colonisation and probably easier to fix with a few well chosen karakias, available to any local body for a very reasonable koha. Win-win, to coin a phrase. Who says co-governance doesn't have its benefits?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.