Treaty of Wai­tangi

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -


The Treaty of Wai­tangi Tri­bunal has taken 20 years to con­clude that the New Zealand Gov­ern­ment is in breach of the Treaty of Wai­tangi re­gard­ing in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty rights and tan­gata whenua (peo­ple of the land/af­ter­birth) con­nec­tion and re­spon­si­bil­i­ties to Taonga like rongoa (tra­di­tional medicine), awa (rivers), Maunga (moun­tains) and moana tai­whenua (fore­shore and seabed).

John Key is mak­ing light of the need for ac­tion. Con­sti­tu­tional lawyer and in­ter­na­tional judge Moana Jack­son be­lieves its time for con­sti­tu­tional trans­for­ma­tion – a legal model change.

WAI 626 high­lights the il­le­gal hege­monic sta­tus this and all pre­vi­ous gov­ern­ments have held since 1856. I re­mem­ber in 1998, Moana speak­ing of tan­gata whenua and the Crown ini­tially sitting side-by-side. Then tan­gata whenua be­ing pushed off their chair and the Crown putting their feet on the chair. Peo­ple from Bri­tain and other na­tions queued up to join the Crown. Tan­gata whenua were moved to the back of the queue.

Moana de­scribed the Crown and tan­gata whenua both head­ing in the same direc­tion to­gether. How­ever, tan­gata whenua were row­ing fac­ing for­ward and the Crown row­ing fac­ing back­ward. This metaphor of mov­ing for­ward to­gether each in its own way is a vi­sion of co-op­er­a­tion be­tween two iwi (peo­ple/tribes).

Sev­eral things need to hap­pen first:

1 Queen El­iz­a­beth II ini­ti­ates utu (act of seek­ing equi­lib­rium) and for­mally ac­knowl­edges that Ran­gatira chief sig­na­to­ries to Te Tir­iti o Wai­tangi did not cede sovereignty on Fe­bru­ary 6, 1840.

2 The New Zealand Gov­ern­ment ceases to ex­ist.

3 Like Nor­way, Ger­many and New Zealand dur­ing MMP coali­tion ne­go­ti­a­tions, there will be no Gov­ern­ment from three months up to two-five years. The world goes on as usual.

4 Tan­gata whenua de­cide on con­sti­tu­tional trans­for­ma­tion dur­ing this pe­riod.

5 Some peo­ple may want to leave the coun­try. Most will be mid­dle to lower in­come work­ers.

Don’t panic. What’s the worst thing that could hap­pen? I am call­ing for a cit­i­zen-ini­ti­ated ref­er­en­dum to this ef­fect. TIPENE TE MAKATEA,

Taka­puwahia. the dis­cus­sion oc­curred, PCC has con­tracted to pur­chase two Steyne Av­enue prop­er­ties.

The fi­nalised An­nual Plan has now been is­sued. An ad­di­tional $100,000 is recorded on page 66 for Ti­tahi Bay Beach Man­age­ment but it is not one of the items doc­u­mented ei­ther in the plan or in press as be­ing in re­sponse to sub­mis­sions. It there­fore seems to be a late idea of PCC. How many more of these are there?

The prospec­tive fund­ing state­ment on page 67 now records a to­tal of $7.7 mil­lion of prop­erty ex­pense and $7m of cap­i­tal fund­ing, of which only $700,000 is ex­plained in the plan it­self. While we can guess that $1m of this re­lates to the Steyne Ave pur­chases the other $6m is still not dis­cussed in any way.

Those who were at the Te Rau­paraha meet­ing will re­call that the mayor con­sid­ered this trans­ac­tion too se­cret to tell the com­mu­nity about.

He also con­sid­ered that it was there­fore ac­cept­able to doc­u­ment in the plan the in­tent to bor­row $4.5m in new debt when PCC fully in­tended to bor­row an­other $6m for this se­cret pur­chase.

Given such bla­tant be­hav­iour how can our coun­cil con­sider that it is con­duct­ing an open and con­sul­ta­tive process in set­ting the An­nual Plan?

BRIAN COLLINS, Pa­pakowhai. Mayor Nick Leggett re­sponds: Mr Collins may be con­fused in his un­der­stand­ing of how the coun­cil makes its bud­getary and strate­gic pur­chase de­ci­sions.

Mr Collins would like peo­ple to think the coun­cil is spend­ing many mil­lions of dol­lars an­nu­ally on pur­chas­ing ran­dom prop­er­ties. That isn’t the case.

The fig­ures that he throws around are ac­tu­ally lim­its – and they are rarely met.

The whole point of an an­nual plan is to seek an over­all bud­get for the coun­cil’s work, not fore­cast ev­ery de­tail of spend­ing as Mr Collins would like.

It’s like say­ing at the start of the year that you are go­ing to spend up to $7000 on gro­ceries but that you have to ac­count for ev­ery sin­gle item pur­chased up­front!

Porirua res­i­dents, I think, ap­pre­ci­ate that some pur­chase de­ci­sions can’t be dis­cussed in pub­lic.

In ad­di­tion, of­ten the coun­cil has to take op­por­tu­ni­ties as they oc­cur, and does so within an over­all strat­egy such as the City Cen­tre Re­vi­tal­i­sa­tion Pro­ject. Spe­cific con­sul­ta­tion would prej­u­dice the out­come of the cost to the com­mu­nity.

When the coun­cil in­di­cates an in­ter­est in a prop­erty the ven­dors’ price ex­pec­ta­tions usu­ally rise and this is an­other rea­son why the coun­cil works in the com­mu­nity in­ter­est by not sig­nalling a prior pur­chase in­ter­est in spe­cific prop­er­ties.

I can un­der­stand that Brian Collins is prob­a­bly frus­trated that he isn’t hav­ing a say on ev­ery de­ci­sion the coun­cil makes.

The rea­son for that is be­cause he wasn’t elected to the pub­lic of­fice he sought last year.

Cre­at­ing ‘red her­rings’ from noth­ing won’t solve that prob­lem for him though.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.