The New Zealand Herald article 26/4/16
By Dr Don Brash
ACT OF PARLIAMENT MADE WATER OWNERSHIP CLEAR
In the Weekend Herald recently, Lizzie Marvelly used her column to deplore what she called “racist sentiment . . . from a disaffected group of extreme right-wing former politicians” who had been responsible for running advertisements highlighting the Government’s intention to involve iwi in decisions about the allocation of water.
I don’t see myself as “extreme rightwing”, but I am certainly a former politician and, as the spokesman for the campaign to highlight the Government’s intentions with respect to water, it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that she was referring to me.
Ms Marvelly said some things with which I agree. She listed the ways in which all New Zealanders have an interest in water— rivers, lakes and coastlines.
She made the point that all New Zealanders have a strong interest in ensuring water quality is improved and maintained. Precisely. Then why does she support the Government’s proposal to give a racially selected group of New Zealanders — those who can claim at least one Maori ancestor — a preferential role in planning how water can be used?
SURELY THOSE WHO WANT TO PROVIDE PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO ANY RESOURCE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF RACE ARE THE REAL RACISTS, NOT THOSE WHO OPPOSE RACIAL PREFERENCE?
Make no mistake: A PREFERENCE BASED ON RACE IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES. In the consultation document issued a few weeks ago, it states the Government wants to ensure “iwi and hapu are able to participate in decision-making about fresh water in their rohe”.
The document notes the Government proposes to amend the Resource Management Act to provide for new rohebased agreements between iwi and councils for natural resource management. These agreements will be initiated by iwi through notice to the councils, and set out how iwi and councils will work together in plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws and councils’ other statutory responsibilities.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES CO-GOVERNANCE BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND IWI ON A VAST SCALE.
Ms Marvelly may see nothing wrong with that, and refers at one point to Maori being the Crown’s “Treaty partner”.
She further claims that Maori interests in water “are supported by the common law custom of Native Title”, the basic tenet of which “is that a change in sovereignty doesn’t automatically mean a change in property ownership. In our local context, it means Maori have rights and interests in land and water until they voluntarily decide to gift, sell or assign them”.
But to suggest that Governor Hobson really saw himself, on behalf of Queen Victoria, entering into a partnership with a large number of chiefs, many of whom could neither read nor write, has to be a total nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding. Yes, a change in sovereignty does not automatically mean a change in property ownership, and Article II of the Treaty made that quite explicit — the property rights of those who signed the Treaty were to be respected.
Land was to be bought from Maori, not merely confiscated, and where confiscation took place in a way seen as unfair nearly 200 years later, today’s taxpayers are paying compensation for that action.
But as several prominent Maori have said in recent times, Maori never regarded themselves as owners of water, and even had they done so, an act of Parliament almost 50 years ago made it clear that nobody owned water.
This month former Maori Council chairman Maanu Paul said any commercial operation should have to pay a fee for using water “because these people are profiting from the use of a common good that belongs to Maori”. Total nonsense.
There may well be merit in local governments charging a fee for the use of water, but if so that fee should belong to the local government levying it, not to a group which claims ownership because some of their ancestors were Maori.
The Treaty of Waitangi conferred on Maori the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, an extraordinarily far-sighted thing to have done in 1840.
But there was absolutely no suggestion in the Treaty that those with one or more Maori ancestors should have superior governance roles over resources, or in local government, 176 years later.
It is also ludicrous to suggest that, when Maori sold land, they somehow imagined that they retained an ownership interest in the water which flowed over it.
ENDS.
A marine sanctuary will go ahead in the Kermadec Islands regardless of iwi opposition, Prime Minister John Key says.
Legislation which will establish New Zealand’s largest ocean sanctuary 1000km northeast of the North Island will be introduced in Parliament tomorrow.
Mr Key told reporters this afternoon that “everyone is excluded” from the 620,000sq km sanctuary, including Maori whose Treaty settlements granted them fishing quota rights within the proposed boundaries of the reserve.
Iwi had not taken up these rights and the migratory species found at the Kermadecs could be caught elsewhere, he said.
The relevant Treaty settlements would not be re-negotiated because “Parliament has the sovereign right to do what it likes”.
Read more at: Whale Oil.
When the campaign kicked off to buy back a privately owned beach in Abel Tasman National Park, my first thought was, how long it would be before Maori try to claim it.
While this didn’t happen initially, I forgot about my question, until at the last minute of the campaign, some local Maori stood up and said it should be given to them. It seems no matter what Kiwis collectively decide to share, Maori want to take it for their exclusive right. But they often try to soften the blow by saying they promise public access.
Awaroa Inlet Abel Tasman National Park
This is so typical of New Zealand’s gravy train. When a chance to gain some land or sea (i.e., money) is to be had, then the request is predictably made.
While it was great to see New Zealanders from all walks of life pull together and buy this beach back for all New Zealanders (including Maori), it seems that many Maori are only interested in owning things for themselves at the expense of all others. But don’t worry they say, we will give you public access (for now). But then perhaps they try to figure out how to monetize later what they have gotten. Do they really think we are that stupid?
Who is to blame for this name it and claim it culture in the first place? I cannot pin it on any one person. but politically correct thinking is probably the best answer. The same thinking that is wreaking havoc in some European countries right now.
Race related political parties represent a particular race which is another way of saying they are biased toward that race. They are racist to their core. So why should there be a Pakeha Party then?
Unfortunately it is a forced move. In order to create balance and give all races a voice where racial parties exist, you need to follow suit or be left out. Ideally, in the political landscape, all parties would represent a variation of politics for all people of New Zealand and not segregate by race. New Zealand is well down the road of race related politics however, so Plan B needs to happen.
The conclusion is this: It is wrong to focus on people because of their race, but once that box is opened, then other parties based on race need to arise to restore some balance. At which point, people might decide that race parties are not that good an idea and abandon them completely. I won’t hold my breath though.
