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

  • 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?

        • 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?

        • 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.

          • David Palmer@lemmy.nzOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So your position is that iwi involvement in government is a good thing, but you think there is already enough of it?

              • David Palmer@lemmy.nzOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok, good to know. You’re entitled to that view.

                Earlier you said:

                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?

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

                  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.

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

                    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?