Yes they’re different, my point is that consultation with them has not resulted in any negative outcomes I can think of. That’s why I reckon increasing their role in resource governance makes a lot of sense, especially given the context of pre-colonisation customary rights over water and te tiriti. Why don’t you think they deserve a partnership role in governance?
I recommend reading the He Puapua report to get a better understanding of the purpose and intention of co-governance. It’s a slog but well worth it.
Who currently gets to decide what counts as “unreasonable”? What if it’s the council appointees who are being unreasonable?
I’m fine with iwi having some veto power. If a project involves building a septic tank on an urupā or draining a wāhi tapu wetland why shouldn’t iwi have the power to stop it?
I mean, the council appointees are ultimately beholden to the voting public, so they get to decide what is and isn’t reasonable. And, in recent history, councils have been very eager to accommodate Iwi on these matters.
They also have a very effective boycott in the form of protests, look at the case in Auckland for example.
And, in recent history, councils have been very eager to accommodate Iwi on these matters.
Bearing in mind that the voting public in New Zealand is overwhelmingly not māori, what happens if a council is elected that is not eager to accommodate iwi? What happens if multiple anti-māori racists are elected to a council, scrap any iwi consultation and decide to do everything they can to run roughshod over tangata whenua?
I suspect they would be unable to do much at all, Iwi have shown a willingness to protest ferociously and with great effect in the last few decades, most notably the multiple successful occupations they have staged over the years.
So rather than remedying the lack of indigenous representation that is forcing them to protest in the first place, we should just let them keep protesting in lieu of having a seat at the table?
Yes they’re different, my point is that consultation with them has not resulted in any negative outcomes I can think of. That’s why I reckon increasing their role in resource governance makes a lot of sense, especially given the context of pre-colonisation customary rights over water and te tiriti. Why don’t you think they deserve a partnership role in governance?
I recommend reading the He Puapua report to get a better understanding of the purpose and intention of co-governance. It’s a slog but well worth it.
Mostly because they are, in most cases, an advisory committee, and we can disregard their advice if they are being too unreasonable.
This will mean an Iwi can deadlock a project or proposal if they don’t get their way, something I’m not at all looking forward to.
Who currently gets to decide what counts as “unreasonable”? What if it’s the council appointees who are being unreasonable?
I’m fine with iwi having some veto power. If a project involves building a septic tank on an urupā or draining a wāhi tapu wetland why shouldn’t iwi have the power to stop it?
Even though this isn’t the case, I agree with you. Why shouldn’t they have a say?
I mean, the council appointees are ultimately beholden to the voting public, so they get to decide what is and isn’t reasonable. And, in recent history, councils have been very eager to accommodate Iwi on these matters.
They also have a very effective boycott in the form of protests, look at the case in Auckland for example.
So your position is that iwi involvement in government is a good thing, but you think there is already enough of it?
Correct.
Ok, good to know. You’re entitled to that view.
Earlier you said:
Bearing in mind that the voting public in New Zealand is overwhelmingly not māori, what happens if a council is elected that is not eager to accommodate iwi? What happens if multiple anti-māori racists are elected to a council, scrap any iwi consultation and decide to do everything they can to run roughshod over tangata whenua?
I suspect they would be unable to do much at all, Iwi have shown a willingness to protest ferociously and with great effect in the last few decades, most notably the multiple successful occupations they have staged over the years.
So rather than remedying the lack of indigenous representation that is forcing them to protest in the first place, we should just let them keep protesting in lieu of having a seat at the table?