Maori ward 'duty of allegiance'

I understand WBOPDC has two Maori committees representing East and West, and the members collect a generous meeting allowance for attendance.

The RMA is clear that councils must consult with Maori and the Local Government Act ensures that communities are consulted.

Whilst council members are elected from wards, their allegiance is sworn ‘to the district at large’.

Maori ward members would only promote Maori interests (as did the Maori Party in government) and would therefore fail in their ‘duty of allegiance’ to the wider district’s ratepayers.

My 20 years in local government saw Maori interests generously and fairly represented at the council table.

The decision to have Maori wards, made by the Mayor and seven councillors does not represent the whole district when wider consultation of ratepayers has not taken place.

M Anderson, Pyes Pa.


26 Comments

Peter

Posted on 13-02-2018 14:58 | By NZer

Laws can be changed by any goverment with having to negotiate anything with anyone. If you have the numbers you can change the law. Any goverment can change the law and delaclare the treaty null and void. You dont like this fact of law. Anyone objecting to the fact that the goverment can change or delete any treaty law do not produce credible reasons for their objections....

P. Dey and waxing

Posted on 13-02-2018 12:01 | By tutae.kuri

The ToW currently is an agreement between Iwi and the Crown. Local Bodies are not the Crown and are owned really by the Ratepayers to provide essential services to the Community. Ad hoc Maori Marae and individuals are part of the community but, hardly the Treaty Negotiators.Councillors would be well advised to remember this when they collectively go way off track and follow pressure groups.Sometimes I think my friend’s dog ( she’s been dead for 10 years) could do a better job of fact analysis.

NZer, the Treaty could be renegotiated if both parties agreed

Posted on 12-02-2018 10:37 | By Peter Dey

NZer, there is no reason why the government and Maori would want to renegotiate the Treaty. The government has put the Treaty into law. It is a brilliantly fair treaty. People who object to the honouring of the Treaty do not produce credible reason for their objections.

Peter

Posted on 11-02-2018 20:53 | By NZer

Remember all laws can be democratically changed and Treaties annulled. Like Trump showed the world change is coming....

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 11-02-2018 15:43 | By waxing

How could you have got it so wrong? Easy. You don’t do your homework to get your facts right. So perhaps you could start to do your own work to answer your questions rather than me doing it for you all the time. You may even find it enlightening..... Your last comment is just silly, an increasing trend with you when you run out of arguments.

Please King of England & us

Posted on 10-02-2018 21:40 | By crazyhorse

We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand coming to take away our land, therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these Islands, lest through the teazing of other tribes should come war to us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.

Why didn't

Posted on 10-02-2018 16:03 | By crazyhorse

Maori choose the French Waxo?.

Golly that's telling me

Posted on 10-02-2018 13:15 | By crazyhorse

I heard the king of England got a letter from some chiefs up North asking for protection from the French who they had killed and eaten, took the poms a quite a while to "agree" about a treaty, how could I have got it so wrong?.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 09-02-2018 18:27 | By waxing

The fact that you don’t know shows just how little NZ history you actually know. Disappointing for someone who proclaims so much about it. So, firstly, Britain was the only country to recognise the Declaration of Independence by Maori chiefs in 1836. Indeed the King went so far as to assure them of his protection. This gave Britain a considerable advantage over the other countries interested in settling NZ or wanting assured access to NZ’s seal and whale oil. Secondly, in the early 1800s, Kororreka (now Russell) was the first permanent European settlement and a vital supply port for sealing and whaling operations. But it was a community without laws and was full of prostitution and drunken mayhem and murder, thus known as the "Hell Hole of the Pacific". So the key motivation for Maori in choosing Britain was its legal system/protections (as clear in the Treaty Preamble).

Now Waxo says

Posted on 09-02-2018 12:52 | By crazyhorse

Maori chose the British over the French, and others, weren’t the British lucky to have been chosen, why didn’t they choose the French Waxo, this should be good for a laugh.

NZer, our democracy includes honouring the Treaty of Waitangi

Posted on 09-02-2018 08:26 | By Peter Dey

NZer, our democratic parliament has decided that the Treaty should be honoured, and that there is a partnership between the government and Maori. That is the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. That is not whinging, simply pointing out a fact. The whingers are the people wanting to spend $70,000 on a poll to stop Maori wards that will make no material difference to them at all, and will be more fair to Maori.

Peter

Posted on 08-02-2018 17:32 | By NZer

Our law here is Democracy. You might not like it but it is law. Your representatives should not have signed the treaty hundreds of years ago if they did not like this law. Whinging now wont change the law. It just makes you a whiner. You provide no credible evidence to the contrary. Get over it.

@ private

Posted on 07-02-2018 16:10 | By waxing

So are you saying that Maori aren’t tangata whenua? Which only means I assume that you believe in some of the original people conspiracy theories promoted by amateurs but not recognised by any professional historian, geneticist, anthropologist or sociologist. And Maori are Maori are Maori. You probably take the One New Zealand Foundation view that the treaty only dealt with Maori as a distinct race. Please show me where this is specified in the treaty? And since there were already Maori of mixed parenthood in 1840, are you trying to argue they weren’t Maori and therefore not covered by the treaty? And if you deny anyone with Maori ancestry identifying as Maori, you don’t know Maori at all (which would explain a lot of your posts here).

@ waxing

Posted on 07-02-2018 08:16 | By Captain Sensible

By calling maori the " tangata whenua" you have demonstrated that you know zilch about the treaty or what the treaty says. Oh dear. What was the definition of "maori" in 1840? Do you know?

@ roofer

Posted on 05-02-2018 20:31 | By waxing

Maori are the tangata whenua. They chose the British (against competing interest in NZ from France, the US, the Dutch and Russia). As the Preamble to the treaty makes clear (in the original English), Maori were promised that the Crown would protect their "just Rights and Property". All of this is what makes them different to any other ethnic groups in New Zealand and to you and your "Husky owners who drive green cars". The Bay of Plenty Region has one of the highest Maori populations. The Regional Council recognised that Maori in the Eastern Bay of Plenty weren’t being consulted or represented sufficiently, so they established Maori wards for there. These have worked extremely well and have seen co-operation at all levels, including the development of commercial ventures. So why would we ever be so scared of the same thing happening in the Western Bay of Plenty?

Roofer, this is NZ founded on the Treaty of Waitangi

Posted on 05-02-2018 16:03 | By Peter Dey

Roofer, you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi began our nation as a nation of two peoples, Maori and Pakeha, and it has not been superseded. So right now as a nation we are in the business of working in partnership between the government and Maori. Other minorities do not come in to it. They did not sign any treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi is now law. You may not like it but that is what parliament did.

DEY, BELL, WAXING

Posted on 05-02-2018 14:47 | By the roofer

What about other ’minorities’? Are they going to have their own wards? What about in some areas where non-Maori may be the minority? Will they get their own ward? What about us Husky owners who drive green cars? We are a minority. Do we get our own wards too? Or is it only the Maori who will get these special race based rights and allowances and privileges? And you still say separate wards for separate races is not separatism!!! Is it April fools day?

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 04-02-2018 16:18 | By waxing

Councillors in Maori wards are elected - wherever did you get the notion that they are not? And if you are going to quote so extensively from ex-ACT MP Muriel Newman’s newsletters, you could at least credit her with an attribution. Peter Dey has already explained the Far North referendum. It shows clearly that Maori want representation, not separatism. And you need to keep up re Wairoa. The 2012 result was overturned by a 2016 poll and Maori wards will be created in the Wairoa district at the next local body elections in 2019.

Crazyhorse, Maori ward councillors would be elected

Posted on 04-02-2018 16:08 | By Peter Dey

The election of Maori ward councillors would be totally democratic, just as the present ward system is totally democratic.

@ private

Posted on 04-02-2018 16:03 | By waxing

What is truly ugly is your continuing abuse of anyone who you disagree with and your constant inability to maintain any form of rational argument. I and Peter Dey have already clearly demonstrated that Maori are not represented in local government. Maori wards address this issue and for the life of me I cannot understand why you feel so threatened by it.

Crazyhorse, Maori say no when they have representation

Posted on 04-02-2018 13:43 | By Peter Dey

The Far North and Wairoa councils have elected Maori councillors, and Maori voters know that they are not shut out by the Pakeha majority, because that majority is not extremely large. The Western Bay council is different because the Pakeha majority is 80 per cent to 20 per cent Maori. Hence Maori wards are a fair solution to get Maori representation on the council, whereas in the Far North and Wairoa that is not necessary.

Please don't patronise Maori

Posted on 04-02-2018 11:33 | By crazyhorse

Hey Waxo, giving unelected maori seats on council or anywhere else is exactly that ""PATRONISING!"".

MAORI SAY NO!

Posted on 04-02-2018 10:15 | By crazyhorse

The result of the Far North District Councils referendum on the establishment of maori wards was a resounding No The result is even more notable because nearly 44 percent of the Far North District is of maori descent well above the national average of around 16 percent. The Northland result is consistent with the result of a referendum in the Wairoa district in 2012, where their councils Maori ward proposal was defeated in spite of Maori constituting 46 percent of their electoral population, does the "average maori want "separatism" or just the elite that feed from the trough of the NZ tax payer?.

waxing's inflated sense of entitlement

Posted on 03-02-2018 16:23 | By Captain Sensible

Your sense of entitlement and greed is truly ugly and embarrassing for NZ. Explain why only part-maori, and no others, should have their own special racist wards? Are maori not part of the human race?

MAORI SAY NO!

Posted on 03-02-2018 12:32 | By crazyhorse

The result of the Far North District Councils referendum on the establishment of maori wards was a resounding No The result is even more notable because nearly 44 percent of the Far North District is of maori descent well above the national average of around 16 percent. The Northland result is consistent with the result of a referendum in the Wairoa district in 2012, where their councils Maori ward proposal was defeated in spite of Maori constituting 46 percent of their electoral population, does the "average maori want "separatism" or just the elite that feed from the trough of the NZ tax payer?.

Please don't patronise Maori

Posted on 02-02-2018 12:30 | By waxing

Maori wards ensure that Maori are consulted and represented, and that their voice can be promoted at Council meetings. To say that Maori ward councillors "would only promote Maori interests" is patronising at the very least. Ward councillors already represent their wards and promote their interests at council meetings. But they still vote and act in the interests of the district at large’. What an amazing attitude to suggest that Maori will not act in the same way! Patronising and indeed much worse. Perhaps Maureen could check with the regional council to see if her allegation is supported with the Maori wards there? She will be disappointed.She argues that she has seen Maori interests generously and fairly represented at the Council table. Why then wont Maori wards opponent, Councillor Lally, tell us how he consults with Maori?

Leave a Comment



Sorry, Newsie is no longer accepting comments on this article.

Opinion Poll

Is Tauranga in for its coldest winter yet?

Yes
No
We’ve had colder

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS