There have been many columns written recently regarding Co-Governance and what it means but the much more important question is the one that no-one seems to want to ask or answer!

 

That is about the right to have co-governance or not.

 

The whole question of co-governance is based on the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi that claims the Maori Chiefs did not concede sovereignty to the Crown on the signing of the Treaty in 1840; they actually signed a partnership agreement as part of the Treaty.

 

In fact a close study of the Treaty documents shows that this interpretation is nothing more than a myth and on further study it is plainly obvious that there was never a partnership as part of the treaty document and this has been recognised and stated by many prominent Maori leaders over the years since the signing of the Treaty.

 

Given that there is no partnership agreement as part of the Treaty then there is also no right of co-governance as is currently being claimed by a section of Maori.

As Michael Bassett stated recently;

 

“the term “co-governance” trips off ministerial tongues with ease but it’s clear most people don’t know what it means. Nanaia Mahuta (Minister of Local Government) would have us believe it simply means that Maori would be guaranteed some sort of undefined say in decision-making. Fair-minded Kiwis think that’s OK.

 

When I was Minister of Local Government I urged local authorities to set up standing committees of local Maori which would be consulted on matters of special interest to Maori. Most complied. But that was nothing like enough for Maori radicals who pushed for Maori wards, and then convinced Mahuta to legislate over the top of local referenda where moves to introduce Maori wards had been voted down, usually by large margins.

 

Now that Maori wards are mandatory for all local councils, the radicals have moved to the next stage. It isn’t enough for Maori who nearly all have majority Pakeha DNA in their bodies. They are smarting from the reality that they form only 17% of New Zealand’s population. They now want that 17% turned magically into majority status in all decision making. That’s what the current calls for “co-governance” are all about.”

 

In effect, Mahuta and her cronies want an end to democracy and compulsory subjection of the rest of us to tribal rule.

 

Under her innocent-sounding system Maori will “co-govern” New Zealand.

A classic example of this is the new Health Authority where Maori have the new Maori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora PLUS veto rights over the one for the other 83% of the total population.

 

The new chair of the non-Maori Health structure (Rob Campbell) has said that his job is to return health care to the days of pre-colonial times when, in his words Maori health “flourish[ed] for centuries”.

 

At that time, those were the days of tribal rule when Maori had a life expectancy of 30; when there was slavery in Maori society; and where as late as 1839 chiefs killed Maori slaves for feasts.

 

Yet Mr. Campbell has been appointed to head our new health system!!

Another example of how co-governance can go bad is the Hauraki Gulf Forum which decided to introduce “co-governance” to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and incorporate the majority of Auckland’s regional parks bought or given to the region over many decades.

 

Five Auckland councillors, voted for co-governance and seven councillors opposed the resolution but the balance was tipped towards “co-governance” by an additional five tribally-selected iwi representatives who were appointed to the Forum and are accountable only to the tribe that nominated them.

 

The five tribally-selected iwi representatives who were appointed to the Hauraki Gulf Forum are not subject to election processes, they are simply appointed by their respective tribes but they get paid the same fees from ratepayer funds, as the elected councillors.

 

In effect the Auckland City Council set up a forum structure under the so-called co-governance requirements of the Treaty where tribes can simply help themselves to ratepayer money and control the treasured public parkland and the islands of the Gulf.

 

This is nothing short of theft of public assets the same as the takeover of the water assets under Three Waters.

 

A further example of what we can expect from “co-governance” was bought to the fore in the court decision this week against Auckland’s Maunga Authority. That authority, supposedly in “co-governance” with Auckland Council, now manages Auckland’s regional cones.

 

John Key’s government made the decision to hand all of the volcanic cones which had been enjoyed by generations of Aucklanders over to a Maunga Authority chaired by a non-Auckland Maori, Paul Majurey. This then authority promptly banned cars from the summits using specious reasoning, and in the case of Owairaka (Mt Albert) set in place plans to remove all exotic trees from the mountain, replanting it with natives.

 

Since Maori had abandoned the Mt Albert area in the 1750s, and the mountain had been used almost exclusively by Pakeha ever since, a band of locals set up a vigil to protect the exotic trees which had been planted by their forebears until such time as Majury’s decision was tested in court.

 

This week the court found that the Maunga Authority was wrong to proceed with the removal of trees they didn’t like without first fully consulting the wider public.

 

As we see from these examples there is nothing “co” about this kind of governance. In practice, “co-governance” means tribal rule. People who aren’t elected by the wider public expect to plunder public resources to indulge whatever whim comes into their heads. And be paid fees by the rest of us for doing so.

 

“Co-governance” as is currently being practised is nothing more than a way to take resources that belong to all of us, irrespective of race, and transfer control to the undemocratically-selected Maori, so-called partners.

 

Co-governance as proposed is nothing more than the implementation of a system of Apartheid and it should be met with fierce resistance.

 

There is no desirable alternative to our democracy where we have one person one vote with all votes being equal, unless we want to head back towards a return to incessant tribal warfare, a life expectancy of thirty years, slavery and cannibalism as was the case prior to the signing of the Treaty in 1840.

 

The only other option is to end up with civil warfare when the non-maori 87% of NZ’s population realise how badly they have been lied to by this government and recognise what has been stolen from them and handed over to the control of a small section of Iwi in the name of Co-Governance.

 

There is no right of partnership under the treaty of Waitangi and consequently there is no right of Co-Governance.

 

This is the Eternal Lie.