Labour’s refusal to debate Winston’s co-governance spite is weakness

Jacinda quite rightly criticised Winston Peters on the weekend for ‘politicking’ and making ‘grandiose statements’ to get headlines, but she won’t ‘entertain’ the comments, i.e., she won’t engage with the substance of his comments. As if to talk will legitimise it.  This is a weak ‘moral high ground’ strategy that has a long history of failing.
Yes, perhaps you don’t want to offend a future coalition partner (it didn’t worry Peters) and yes, history might show its just vote catching race baiting largely without policy substance.  But he accuses the government of pursing a ‘separatist agenda’ and driving ‘inverse racism’. This drives against the substance of our civil society and our supposedly (should be) founding document, The Treaty of Waitangi.
His comments might all seem like childish nonsense to a well informed person but many people aren’t. He has almost always pulled in over 5% of voters with these appeals. And it will be real to some people because there is social change to reflect the rights that are contained within the Treaty for Maori. A people whose lands and income assets have largely been stolen or prised from them. Mr Peters can’t be just left in a vacuum as his ideas and fantasies will expand to fill it. It needs to have a strategy to debunk and create a counter narrative.
And this is where the moral high ground approach is not based on understanding people and their experience; it is not engagement with others reality. The moral high ground is a self centred snobbish ivory tower, we are above this, approach to politics and society. The centrist fear is that the election will spin into talking about race and racism, which no civilised person should discuss, rather than discuss the ‘real issues’. But Mr Peters has already done it, the genie is out! Are centrists afraid of defending anti racism?  Defending Treaty obligations?
It is this self centred arrogance of holding the moral high ground that helped bring down Helen Clarks government to the ignorant imp Key. She did not directly defend Maori because that was to lower herself to the slurs. And she felt powerless to take on some myths over the foreshore and seabed (absolute stupidity and centrist fear driven action on her part). The same type of process even helped Mr Key resign, his chosen powerlessness to act on rising housing prices made him look an out of touch fool with his continual, ‘there is no housing crisis’ comments.  And this is the arrogance or complacency of government that commentators forever ramble about without really knowing why it occurs. It’s about a Government finding it hard to know how to deal with an issue so ignoring or downplaying it, (the centrists playbook) and getting caught looking out of touch and therefore arrogant. Labour is currently walking right into the same obvious trap over race believing it to be the moral high ground. The issues Mr Peters raise are real for some. Deal with it forcefully and directly by vision (positive message) and attack/refutation (negative message).
Negative messaging is critically important as many people take political comments from people like Mr Peters at face value because they lack the background knowledge or experience to question it. Negative messaging helps people think, it does the hard work for people so they see the other side.  And the engagement of the ideas looks like honesty, strength and respect. But the snobby centrist elites think racism is a fixed point of moral high ground that they own. But Mr Peters is playing that fixed point against them. He is positioning as the anti racist. Are the centrists stupid?  Centrists must defend their position or they surrender it even if only for a few.  Mr Peters has a real argument because it connects to some peoples idea of what equality means on race, i.e. rather than seeing it as treaty rights. Jacinda needs to be forceful, not aloof and disengaged.
p.s. The centrists need to reject the childish Michelle Obama rubbish “when they go low we go high”. That approach didn’t turn out so well did it. Supporters wanted the US to be great again, to look after its people again. Hilary didn’t fight for this narrative. Hilary thought she was claiming the moral high ground by not fighting stupidity. But in doing so she actually showed the inherent ivory tower bigotry in her own position; calling her own people, voters, ’a basket of deplorables’ instead of seeing them as people struggling. They were only made into deplorables by having one side of the negative arguments presented. Hilary may have been a better president but she was a poor leader, because she was a centrist fool.
Now being ‘forceful’ should never be attached to intellectual stupidity. Like Helen Clarke on the foreshore and seabed; there was no problem in the court case except the one in her head. But the current Labour/Greens are on the same losing slope. The local body elections largely confirm  this, and one of the central issues is the stupid Labour/Green strategy on affordable housing (i.e. allowing bully building by private developers so they can maximise profit) that will simply not deliver affordable housing or fix the housing crisis. Currently a declining housing market but still completely unaffordable.
But the centrists chant, we can’t back down or rethink or we look weak. No, it is better to look weak rather than stupid. Stay true to three waters but back down over housing in historic suburbs. Brown fields are central, build affordable housing over them. Your current strategy to build in suburbs is stupid. Even the Lake Hayes build is miles out with massive new infrastructure needed. Build on central brown fields and the infrastructure is there.


  1. The use of pejoratives for non-Labour politicians completely undermines any arguments you might have had Stephen. As for the whole revisionist sham of “co-governance” refer to Article 1 of the Treaty.

    • Reply to Salacious Crumb at 6.26am. No it doesn’t. Mr Key was an extremely uninformed politician, who said maori pakeha relationship were just about perfect. He was ignorant of New Zealand’s history. The imp reference is a slight at his moral standing though I do understand he is short. I’m very familiar with the much abused Article 1 and note it does not remove and ignore articles 2 and 3

  2. Standing up for minorities is political suicide – whether it’s immigrants, the poor, beneficiaries or Maori. The white backlash has reached our shores and is seeping into NZ politics like a poison. I’m sickened and enraged when I listen to my middle class peers whine about the government that has delivered a booming economy, low government debt and massive inflation of their assets. NZ voters are complete and utter fuckwits. I hope they pay the price just like they’re doing in the UK.

    • You need to come to visit Rotorua. You can see how the government delivered there. 11% unemployment, Skid Row made in Aotearoa, and hungry kids.
      This government should govern for all, not just for a few minorities that may help those in government keep jobs in the future.

      • Taken up that offer to visit Rotorua yet Peter?
        Nope didn’t think so . . worried you might have had your rose tinted glasses stolen by one of your ‘beloved and oppressed minorities’?

  3. co-governance means dividing up power, assets and control along strict racial lines. I thought this was what we have been fighting against?

      • Which is why the co-governance argument has legs, because those pushing it, will not define, explain or debate the issue, so it just festers and will cost Labour the next election. If they have a plan, explain it, address the peoples concerns, debate the issue, establish that there is a mandate and backing for any proposed changes, bring all the people along on the journey into New Zealand’s future, not just the chosen few. Otherwise, the backlash will be severe and any changes will be swept away by the incoming National / ACT government.

        • So, you can’t come up with working solutions to address actual theft of land by the Crown (which National were already doing but that seems ok in 1ZB land), because that would be racist? You would have to ask the Crown why they only decide in general to take Maori land I guess (was that racist?)

      • In fact Hosking isn’t one at all except when it comes to white male privilege. He is someone who knows absolutely zilch about colonisation.

  4. She won’t engage because she’s afraid she’d lose the debate. Because the facts are on Winston’s side.

    It saddens me that Luxton has got the balls to say essentially the same thing.

    • Probably because he would look like a raving f’ing hypocrite Andrew. Who started co governance models and sign us up to the UN whatever? It’s tricky to race bait when not so long ago your mob, that actually believes in laws etc, were trying to come up with proactive solutions.

    • What is wrong with you people? Turn off talk radio for 10 minutes and learn your history – real history. And FFS develop some empathy and humility. I have to stop myself swearing at this point.
      I grew up in NZ in the 80’s. I lived through the 81 tour protests – I know the other side of the Kiwi psych – it is dark, resentful and full of inarticulate spite and now I’m seeing it again crawling out of the repressed anger and bitterness of NZ’s white middle class.

      • Your ‘anger and bitterness of NZ’s white middle class’ is being fueled by our kids turning up to school in the morning and being asked to repeat “Good Morning” over and over again until they instead use “Morena’ and that is then accepted (which is exactly what has happened to my own kids) . . both should be perfectly acceptable and up to the individual child.
        The woke have started a culture war and (some) NZ Europeans are now starting to realise what is going on and it is time to do something about it.

      • Peter this is exactly why I find your position so hard to reconcile: you grew up fighting apartheid, a race based power system, yet now in 2022 we find you advocating for a race based power system.

        How did you manage to do such an ideological 180 without noticing that you have become the very thing you once fought against?

        • XstraightXedgeX

          The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or … Fuck sake bigot you’re a fucken tool

  5. This argument is idiotic.

    Plug your fingers in your ears and pretend a complete ideological takeover of institutions, a radical & politically bias reshaping of the Treaty of Waitangi, blatant race-based policies, and an elite bashing of working class as racist dumb bigots isn’t happening. It’s just politicking. So down, shut up. All is well.

    Let me say this again. This is idiotic gaslighting of the first class.

    Go home and have a lobotomy before you speak again, Stephen – it would be an improvement on this drivel.

    • Reply to David at 8.42am. The world is possibly less overtly racist than it used to be. Your world view looks back and can’t see the racism that sustained the old world you long for. The treaty is not apartheid it is simply being recognised properly so it is assigning rights, like ordinary property rights, that you so love. You should be out there protecting maori ownership rights, they are like private property rights. You have many private rights as well, protect others rights and you protect your own. Honour your word, honour our treaty.

      • With respect, Stephen, the world WAS less racist. We were solidly on the way to a world where the content of character mattered more to each other than race. We had a Waitangi Tribunal since 1975, numerous Maori programmes, separate Maori seats. A proud mingling of identities. Imperfectly and slowly for some yes, but we were addressing past injustice and building buy-in.

        I grew up in an uber-Pakeha Nelson school in the 80s yet we loved singing Maori songs, doing the poi, visiting the marae. Because it was organically shared as part of NZ culture, not a moral baseball bat to beat us with and separate our fellow Kiwis with.

        And now, what happened? Maori elites saw an opening. The new racism stepped in. Bullshit American theories of critical justice imported to NZ (ideological imperialism much?). Fight past racism with more racism, celebrate helplessness, is absolutely no way to build unity and positive change.

        Radically re-interpret a Treaty, fund the media to slavishly promote this view, abuse the political system to pursue an ethno-state then slander a desire for democratic debate on all this as racism.

        This is regressivism and it’s beyond nonsense. I believe beneath your moral posturing you can intuit this, like any sane person does.

  6. Well said Peter Bradley unless one has walked in someone shoes, they have no idea what it is like or continues to be like. Maori are being blamed for Shakespeare not getting funding and we saw a deluge of nasty low down scummy white trashy racisms all this from a country that is supposed to be world leading in indigenous advancement and public relations. We have Maori health professionals being stalked and followed home and threatened, we have Maori politicians being called (online) black racist cunts this makes my blood boil. I am sick and tired of all this bullshit happening in our country. Politicians like Seymore and Winstone are stoking up the racist divide perhaps someone needs to stalk them and threaten them but then that would be lowering oneself to these peoples’ level.

    • also I find it interesting that the guys standing up against racism and apartheid and pro an egalitarian society are the ones being labelled racist by the left

      comical and shows how far the woke have fallen

      • xxx the Left are the only people allowed to define racist they make the rules.
        To that end they deliberately set out to divide NZ it’s integral to their strategy.

      • XstraightXedgeX Before commenting know what the fuck word means before sprouting your white supremacist garbage!!

        The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or …

  7. Winston has my vote now. I want him back to stop the “inverse racism” we see in the media on a daily basis.

    This is not going to be a Zimbabwe!

  8. A people whose lands and income assets have largely been stolen or prised from them.

    Yes that did happen. The NZ Govt through Treaty settlements have been world leading in redressing the land issues. Tanui as a tribe now have 1 billion dollars. Nga tahu, well they are doing well thank you.

    During the muscat wars that killed approx 20,000, Maori fought each other, the winners taking the land and casting some of the losers into slavery. The guns the victors used of course were bought from the European via prostitution.
    But Stephen keen to hear your arguements about why Winstone is wrong, especially as you rightly point out, Jacinda, Labour and the Greens will use the old No debate tactic (which is weak and arrogant)

    I don’t won’t raced based policies. I just won’t people to have homes, healthcare and education. And of course the right to practice their religious or cultural beliefs free of interference.

    • Anker, The total paid out in treaty settlements since the process started in the 1980s is now just over $2 billion. It represents less than three percent of the value of land and assets stolen from Māori. (The last of the big settlements, the largest in fact, will be with Ngapuhi which is yet to start negotiations)

      And for useful comparison, never forget that John Key’s National cabinet, after a 10-minute discussion around the cabinet table, agreed to pay up to $1.7 billion to the wealthy investors in the collapsed South Canterbury Finance.

  9. I too think she wont debate this because she foisted this and He PuaPua on to NZ without discussion or debate with the NZ people. She didnt mention it in her election campaign and kept He PuaPua from NZ First prior to the election. Whatever the merits of her chosen approach are or arent, she has no ‘moral’ high ground to preach from.

    Then there is 3 waters being foisted on councils when they were asked for submissions but the decision to proceed had already been made. Or the moral high ground around ‘refusing to discuss issues’ with protestors because we are too good for all that. Or the moral high ground of not only backtracking on mandates but holding onto them for far too long after doing so. Or the moral high ground of truncating consultation periods to 2 weeks on controversial legislation and refusing to accept submissions via email.

    Then there is the moral high ground of not improving hospitals and housing and poverty after 7 years of being voted in twice for this express purpose. I could go on and on, there are so many blots on the Govt’s copybook that it now looks like a Rorschach test.

    Elvis has left the building, Labour do not have a leg to stand on.

  10. Tainui had f…k all given back they lost the most land due to the Rebellious act Anker. This country was founded on race-based policies the suppression of the tohunga act, the native land and court act (Primarily to get Maori land) to name a few. Then we have the four Maori seats created by who and what was their purpose, we had native schools and fifty years of being hit for speaking our own language and no act needed the act was the beatings and humiliation administered by the pakeha school teachers. Then we had government departments in housing doing pepper potting and putting Maori applicants in the slum areas now flash apartments worth hundreds of thousands. EEO is not worth the paper it’s written on when no one monitors it and it here say. The justice system is appalling talk about white privilege.

    • Well don’t get me wrong, there were some grave injustices committed towards Maori. But my point was the crown has set up a process to right the wrongs, although let’s face it whenever wrongs are done, they can never really make up for the suffering people experienced. For example people who were wrongly imprisoned might get a sizeable payout. But that never makes up for the lost years.

      I think it is not entirely true what you say about the tohunga Act one of the main proponents was the first Maori Dr, Dr Pomare. Not the European.
      Will try and post a link in this. Same with kids talking Maori at schools. The move to prevent this came from Maori. Will also provide a link. Kids use to be strapped at school for what today would be seen as non issues, such as talking in class as well as speakingMaori. But after the Native education act onThe 1870s, the Eastern Maori MP and a group of about 300
      Maori petition Ed parliament calling for Maori kids not to speak Maori at school. Will try and post link

      Prisons, yes the stats are bad. As are housing and health. I am all for trying to improve the outcomes re poor housing and health. For everyone

  11. Here are some explanations for 3 waters – it is about the future and generations still to come who need more than a bunch of provincially minded and inadequately funded councils to build their national water infrastructure.

    Why is this needed?
    This reform is needed to ensure all New Zealanders can enjoy safe, affordable and sustainable drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services – now and in the future.

    The signs of a system at breaking point are all around us: regular or permanent boil-water notices, broken pipes, outdated sewage plants, environmental harm, and poor resilience to climate change. Addressing these issues is essential for the health and well-being of our communities and our environment.

    We cannot risk potential repeats of the Havelock North campylobacter outbreak that made more than 5,000 residents sick and is thought to have killed four people from drinking public water supplies. An estimated 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking water annually.

    What will this cost to fix?
    The investment needed to fix our failing systems and to build and maintain the required infrastructure in the future has been estimated at between $120 billion and $185 billion over the next 30 years. This will be beyond the reach of many communities.

    • Peter, I think what you are reading is in part true but if you really dig into 3 Waters, what you have just outlined here is part propaganda and part truth ie: Politics.

      I agree we need to deal with the above and we need to up our game for the future and it is important.
      Most of the people who are opposing 3 Waters are doing so for a variety of reasons. A significant amount of people dont like the co Governance side, many like myself feel that the proposed way forward is a hugely costly sledge hammer to hit a nut. Many feel the model is not looking at like with like or encompassing the entirety of the issue such as source water, Or just generally that it is not a good model.

      Many dont like the asset grab and denigration of local government (Smaller councils will have to merge as a result to keep costs down and that means less communities having a voice). Some simply hate centralisation and big government. Some are very worried about the debt structuring proposed which is a real poisoned chalice from what I can tell. Some like me live in well run council areas where there is no problem with 3 waters and we dont feel particularly inclined to pay a lot more for places like Wellington who have voted in successive high spending, low value supporting councillors.

      So firstly we cant assume it is just about Co Governance and Racism because it is not at all that simple no matter what Stuff will tell you.

      Secondly this could have all been avoided if the Minister and the Govt went to the people and local Govt for education, consultation and hui before the specific approach was decided on.

      If the Govt wasnt wedded to a specific outcome, much of this could have been avoided and 3 Waters would be much further along its way to being a done deal. But they had an ideology to fulfil and that meant that control was the most important aspect to 3 Waters from a government perspective.

  12. This wasn’t hard to find.

    Ben Thomas, who is a public relations consultant and former press secretary for then-Minister for Treaty Negotiations Chris Finlayson, said the emotional reaction and fear of co-governance comes from it being unknown.

    “People don’t know, or they think they don’t know, what co-governance is, and people are afraid of new things. It’s actually pretty understandable,” he told The Hui.

    “We’ve been through this before. When I was working for Finlayson down in Wellington, we went through this with the first round of co-governance, or co-management, agreements for natural resources… You would have comments from these scared lobby groups worried that it meant they were going to be cut off or people were going to lose something.”

    Thomas said the fear of that abated and much more significant co-governance agreements were signed “without any public alarm” – “and the reason is because nothing happened”.

    • Thanks Peter. There are lots out there that simply won’t acknowledge this not new. Fantail is a classic example, as seen above. They are the same people that say Labour are disorganised and incompetent (there is clearly merit in some of these statements), but somehow are actually evil geniuses with master plan. Give me a break. Could it be they are just carrying the ball forward on some issues from last administration (prior to coming in 2017)

      • Thanks Wheel. I agree entirely that Co Governance is not new but there are 2 aspects that those who use this argument dont seem to address effectively.

        1. Rather than localised arrangements for special purposes which we have had for a while, it signifies a major shift to national governance levels without even signalling to the electorate that this would happen. And significantly, also very differently, it equates 16% of the vote with 50% of the vote on the basis of race. In fact, often more than 50% as Maori veto in one sense or another is present in almost all the arrangements.

        This is specifically outside of our established constitutional arrangements (of 2020). It is simply not egaltarian or democratic and to me that makes it fundamentally wrong without a clear mandate.

        2. Despite law changes via the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, we do not have a written constitution. Therefore those tweaks over time which are of course of consequence, are ultimately subordinate to parliament. As with foreshore and seabed they can pass a law nipping it all in the bud at any time if the Govt wants to.

        So people shouldnt assume that because ToW interpreted something a certain way recently that it is inevitable and that we have our constitutional arrangements switched out as a matter of course. The only inevitable thing in NZ politics is that every three years we make our wishes known and vote for or against certain policies and governments.

        And this is where the system broke down in 2020. Rather than tell voters of its intentions to effect radical ‘constitutional’ change and introduce widespread race based governance, it was hidden. Why?. I know this because I went through the website and read the policies, what was in there was once over very lightly with the odd hint but nothing that said we will radically alter the definition of democracy in NZ.

        I am not scared of Co Governance or have any particular view for or against Maori, I simply do not think that Tribal Governance in NZ will work well in the long run not for all Mana Whenua or for Tau Iwi.

        I also dont believe that what is now being touted as Co Governance is actually Co Governance. It is closer to Race based separatism than Co Governance which I believe is used euphemistically as a term so we can all say of course, this was always our intent, we have been doing it for years – as Ben Thomas said in his article and yes, I read that article too a while back and thought it was a crock.

        I dont think Labour are evil geniuses. Far from it.

        As a lifetime labour voter, I think they are the most ignorant and arrogant bunch of politicos to ever darken parliament’s doors and as someone who loathed John Key and his government, that is saying something. They do have a plan but its the very opposite of evil genius. It’s called, how to crap on your own voters 101 and expect them to love you afterwards.

        They have abandoned class politics and democracy and have demonstrated this at every turn. They gave massive profits to asset owners and banks all the while screwing the poor.

        We waited so long in the political wilderness for a Labour Government to come and save the poor and what did they do, screwed them left (poverty), right (housing) and centre (Alienated their own voters with mandates and refusing to listen or care- just turned water cannons and sound cannons on them).

        I have my view, you have yours, there are no rights or wrongs just different POVs, Roll on 2023.

        PS: If you want to know my views on a particular topic, feel free to ask, I’m always happy to share, you dont need to assume.

        • Fantail, ‘And significantly, also very differently, it equates 16% of the vote with 50% of the vote on the basis of race. In fact, often more than 50% as Maori veto in one sense or another is present in almost all the arrangements.’

          This is actually a false dichotomy because the TOW that promises Maori property rights under article 2 which hasn’t been upheld has impoverish Maori future generations that reflected today. Pakeha (Europeans) have received immensely more rights than what they’ve been entitled to under the T.O.W and that also reflected today.

          So let look at Article 2 under the Treaty of Waitangi?

          Article 2
          Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

          ‘I also don’t believe that what is now being touted as Co Governance is actually Co Governance. It is closer to Race based separatism than Co Governance which I believe is used euphemistically as a term so we can all say of course, this was always our intent, we have been doing it for years – as Ben Thomas said in his article and yes, I read that article too a while back and thought it was a crock.’

          Co-governance has been working very well for a long time for Pakeha (Europeans) ONLY!! Historically Illiteracy seem to be your achilles heel Fantail because your ilk can’t be bothered to get off your lazy arse and do some soul searching instead of blatting away as if you’re some sort of expertise on NZ/AO history

          ‘We waited so long in the political wilderness for a Labour Government to come and save the poor and what did they do, screwed them left (poverty), right (housing) and centre (Alienated their own voters with mandates and refusing to listen or care- just turned water cannons and sound cannons on them).’

          The Left and the Right have fucked ova the poor with fake promises Fantail so sprouting your high moral virtue signalling ain’t gonna fool no-one but your devoted fan ‘Bob the Last’ and co.

          I have my view, you have yours, there are no rights or wrongs just different POVs, Roll on 2023

  13. Winston is going to have a humdinger the next election, I’ve seen same comments all over the internet “I’m voting Peters”.. and so they should, peters is going to pull down Adern from her sick communist saddle.

        • So Ardern wasn’t in a “communist saddle” in her first term? She’ just somehow changed is that it? Is that a bit like Winston who you used to vote positively on co governance (according to Chris Finlayson) arrangements?

    • Winston is going to take votes from Labour, not sure if anyone on the right will vote for him because he simply can’t be trusted.

      Simply put, those that want a change in govt, won’t vote Winston. I don’t think he’ll mind, he’s one of the few politicians who seems to relish being in opposition.

    • Communist how do you get that. She has moved our country further to the right and further into the arms of the United States. She is sooooo very far away from being a communist. Now if she were she would be doing something serious about the gap between the rich and poor and in particular in her portfolio of child poverty.

      • communism is bogeyman word for the intellectually challenged michal it translates roughly as ‘I don’t cotton to none of that reading malrky but I knowz I dun loike it’

  14. Stephen Minto – I hope you have read the Three Waters cabinet paper thoroughly from start to finish. If you haven’t then I say you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you have then I suggest you read it again and if you still don’t understand it then read it again until you do.
    It is race based governance in no disguise. That is apartheid.
    Please do tell me someone; is apartheid ok now?
    I just want one country with one set of rules for everyone to be able to just get on with living. We have treaty settlements that have put wrongs to right. We have a Bill of Rights that no-one is complaining about. However, the co-governance provisions that are being enacted into our laws are actually contrary to provisions in the UN charter.
    Also they are sneaky and have not been presented as policy at any stage of this majority government.
    The whole concept is unmandated, contrary to UN charter, and indefensible. That is why they will not debate it.
    I challenge the author to make a compelling explanation of why co-governance is such an excellent idea. Practical and sensible ideas, not wiffly, touchy, feelies and overgrown grievances. Tell us how it would benefit everyone of every class in NZ.
    Or anyone else here defending it? Bring it on.

    • How is co governance contrary to the UN Charter of indigenous Rights? That’s a genuine question. You sound like you have read everything.

      • I suspect Wheel that he is talking about another treaty.

        But presumably Wheel, you understand that constitutionally UNDRIP? is not binding.

        So even though we have signed up to UnDrip, legally, we are still able to park it if the Govt wants to.

        Please note I am not commenting on whether we should or should not honour it.

        • Yes I am aware that it’s not binding to countries that sign it. I am also aware that Labour opposed signing it but National pushed ahead. I think partly because it was getting embarrassing that we were one of a few that had held off. My question was still how is co governance contrary to that agreement.

    • Reply to Magit 1.42pm. Three waters is not apartheid. A treaty was signed and it gauranteed certain rights to Maori. All that is happening in three waters is those rights are being protected. Just like when the Canterbury Regional council was disbanded so that private business could get their view of water entitlements given to them. Except this time in 3 waters the Treaty rights are being enforced. As importantly though, three waters benefits everyone as the local councils are so poor at looking after water infrastructure. They are failing and it is costing communities.

    • Okay, I can understand you well I want for a change all of the rules to be based on Tikanga, not from a Westminster pakeha lense which they have been since time began.

  15. Sure is weakness,but the refusal to debate is more than that – co governance goes specifically against the treaty principle of equal rights.
    Remember Mahuta refusing to release the legal advice on 3 waters?
    All no doubt because it’s bullshit.
    She won’t talk about it, Ardern won’t talk about it.

    A friend of mine works for a council and was present during an early 3 waters meeting with Mahuta.
    She was asked a polite question about the iwi arrangement for management as far as governance was being arranged. She sat there and totally clammed up and didn’t utter a single word and everyone shuffled paper uncomfortably , he says it was the most bizarre behavior he’d ever seen at a meeting.

    3 waters and co governance (3 waters actually equating to Maori governance) are the biggest lie and travesty yet inflicted against the New Zealand population.
    This government are utterly dishonest.

  16. That picture of Jones and Peters reminds me why the lost in 2020. The arrogance has not changed one bit and more fool those who get taken in by the hype to put Jones in particular back in parliament.

    Its time to ignore and boot out these scumbags who are legal squatters in our parliament.

  17. Te Paupau was never meant to be officially released by the Labour Government, as it was an internal Labour party SECREAT. It was leaked to the public. Ardern has since effectively lied about her intention to force it upon New Zealand society without our permission.

    Remember Winston Peters had absolutely NO influence to get the Labour Party reelected for its second term. The New Zealand people reelected Ardern and gave her the majority control to govern NZ. This we did as no one knew about Te Paupau and her Socialist/Communist believes. We did not know how she Lies and deceives us on a daily basis.

    At time goes on we can now see her for who she really is. She has got to go!!!

    I have talked to many people over the last year and have not meet a single person who freely admits that they voted for her or supports the Labour Party. Are They just too ashamed to do so????????

  18. Stephen that is a very poor explanation of what I asked for i.e.
    “I challenge the author to make a compelling explanation of why co-governance is such an excellent idea. Practical and sensible ideas, not wiffly, touchy, feelies and overgrown grievances. Tell us how it would benefit everyone of every class in NZ.”
    A. Very. Poor. Explanation.

    • Maglt, well here’s what your precious apartheid means under international law and get back to me if you believe Maori are practicing this abominable act?

      The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or …

  19. Wish Winston would just retire completely, I mean hes collecting his pension while doing all this.
    Every coalition govt he breaks coalition agreements, there is always this level of corruption that surrounds all his business dealings, funnelling cash through trusts, the guy is dodgy as yet somehow he manages to litigate his way out of every situation.
    He’s just a fly in the ointment of every coalition govt, a toxic character who just ruins every good intention a govt has.

  20. I never mentioned apartheid as a crime, so you appear to be clutching at straws. Here is a definition or two:
    [əˈpɑːtheɪt, əˈpɑːtʌɪd]
    (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
    prejudice · bias · bigotry · intolerance · narrow-mindedness · unfairness · inequity · favouritism · one-sidedness · partisanship · sexism · chauvinism · racism · racialism · anti-Semitism · heterosexism · ageism · classism · ableism
    segregation on grounds other than race:
    “gender apartheid”
    Definition of apartheid 1 : racial segregation specifically : a former policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination against the non white majority in the Republic of South Africa.
    And you still haven’t answered the question.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.