Really solid call, and timely comments about the divisive politics being imported from America at the moment.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m actually quite familiar with the proposal, and how it involves handing over a huge amount of control over our built infrastructure to Iwi, for very tenuous reasons.

    Now fuck off with the condescending attitude.

    • David Palmer@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are aware that iwi consultation on most natural resources by local government has been the norm for several decades though, right?

      • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Consultation, yes. They don’t get a 50% say, in addition to the same vote we all get.

        You do understand that’s different, right?

        • David Palmer@lemmy.nzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • David Palmer@lemmy.nzOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

              • Rangelus@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Even though this isn’t the case, I agree with you. Why shouldn’t they have a say?

        • Rangelus@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Co-governance does not afford them a 50% say. It is an equal split of Iwi and Crown representatives that decide on guiding principles, advice and direction for the actual water boards. Also, decisions require a 75% majority, so it’s not like any one group can take over.

          This is all ignoring the fact that co-governance is pretty much the bare minimum the crown should do based on The Treaty of Waitangi.