Iwi leaders expect regional allocation of fresh water

Models for the allocation of fresh water were under discussion at a meeting between Prime Minister Bill English and the Iwi Chairs Forum on Friday at Waitangi.

Iwi leaders want allocation of a proportion of water in each catchment to iwi as well as direct involvement in decision making.  See http://www.maniapoto.iwi.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-Regional-Iwi-Hui-Presentation-July-2016.pdf

The Government wants to deal with this demand by shuffling the responsibility to local government.


This is being done through an amendment to the Resource Management Act requiring local bodies to invite local iwi into co-governance deals that would cover water allocation. See Section 38 Subpart 2 at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0101/latest/DLM6669131.html?src=qs

We think proportional allocation of water to iwi resulting from such iwi participation clauses would embed an under-the-radar constitutional change that dismantles our democracy in which rights are based on citizenship, not ethnicity.

See “Maori rights to fresh water a big talking point between iwi and the Government” at http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89074115/Maori-rights-to-freshwater-big-talking-point-between-iwi-and-the-government-at-Waitangi  

‘Kawanatanga’ and ‘rangatiratanga’

A point of contention in the Treaty of Waitangi is in how the Maori word “kawanatanga” (sovereignty/government) in the first article relates to the word “rangatiratanga” (chiefly authority) in the second, according to an opinion piece in the Otago Daily Times on Friday.

These two words, “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga”, have been used to justify the Maori sovereignty movement, billions of dollars in treaty settlements, and the current push for co-governance.

But, because the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori there should be no mystery about the meaning of those two words.

Any reading of the English and Maori texts of the treaty shows that the word “kawanatanga” was used to translate “sovereignty” in article 1 and the word “rangatiratanga” translated “possession” in article 2.

However, a back-translation of Te Tiriti in the late 1980s by Waitangi Tribunal member Sir Hugh Kawharu, who was also a claimant, resulted in “rangatiratanga” being re-defined as “chiefly authority”. This achieved the nonsensical result of the treaty ceding sovereignty in article 1 and retaining sovereignty in article 2.

This new meaning has allowed the creation of a grievance known as “loss of rangatiratanga” that is cited in every treaty settlement and has been used as justification for the transfer of billions of dollars to claimant groups.

We think now is the time for a bit of honesty by the Government and the Waitangi Tribunal over the treaty.

Anyone who reads the English draft and Maori texts of the treaty side by side may see clearly the intent of the treaty and understand the failure of the Waitangi Tribunal and of successive governments to implement accurate treaty-based policy.

See https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/honourable-intent-treaty-remains  

Meet Don and Casey

Don Brash and Casey Costello will speak in Hawke’s Bay at 7pm on Tuesday, February 28, at the Havelock North Community Centre.


Join the debate on Facebook. You may visit this page at https://www.facebook.com/hobsonspledge/

Visit our website at http://www.hobsonspledge.nz/

Grow the movement. Forward "The Update" to your friends and family

Donate. Visit https://hobsonspledge.nationbuilder.com/donate

Buy a book. Visit http://www.hobsonspledge.nz/resources

Authorised by Hobson's Pledge Trust, Suite 311, 184 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.