Skipping stones
Hasn't been much posting on the Red Alert blog after the warfare at and following the conference, but Nanaia Mahuta has written a lengthy piece on the water case which is worth a read.
She explains the following points:
-----
➢ The Crown has a moral obligation to recognise the tino rangatiratanga that Maori assert over their Taonga and a fiduciary obligation to protect those rights and interests
➢ That the common interest that all New Zealanders have in water is not prejudiced by Maori seeking greater protection of their proprietary rights and interests in water
➢ That the common interest that all New Zealanders have in water is not prejudiced by Maori seeking greater protection of their proprietary rights and interests in water
➢ That s.9 of the SOE Act was a mechanism used by Maori to protect their interests vis-à-vis Crown actions and the new clause inserted in the Public Finance Bill does not ascribe the same level of protection
➢ That the Treaty Settlement process does not adequately provide for Maori proprietary rights and interests in water that may be specific and localised to whanau and hapuu
➢ That the final determination of the extent of Maori rights and interests in water will need to be accommodated in Resource Management legislation alongside Treaty Settlements
➢ That the Crown does not have the moral mandate of Maori to sell 49% of shares in State Owned Energy Companies because it prejudices the ability for Maori to assert their tino rangatiratanga over a significant Taonga that is managed in the common interest of ALL New Zealanders
-----
She concludes:
-----
I remember a kaumatua once saying that:
“…the trick to walking on water is knowing where the rocks are…”
-----
I note that a Green MP has a river-related Bill in the House:
-----
via Twitter:
Catherine Delahunty@greencatherine
She explains the following points:
-----
➢ The Crown has a moral obligation to recognise the tino rangatiratanga that Maori assert over their Taonga and a fiduciary obligation to protect those rights and interests
➢ That the common interest that all New Zealanders have in water is not prejudiced by Maori seeking greater protection of their proprietary rights and interests in water
➢ That the common interest that all New Zealanders have in water is not prejudiced by Maori seeking greater protection of their proprietary rights and interests in water
➢ That s.9 of the SOE Act was a mechanism used by Maori to protect their interests vis-à-vis Crown actions and the new clause inserted in the Public Finance Bill does not ascribe the same level of protection
➢ That the Treaty Settlement process does not adequately provide for Maori proprietary rights and interests in water that may be specific and localised to whanau and hapuu
➢ That the final determination of the extent of Maori rights and interests in water will need to be accommodated in Resource Management legislation alongside Treaty Settlements
➢ That the Crown does not have the moral mandate of Maori to sell 49% of shares in State Owned Energy Companies because it prejudices the ability for Maori to assert their tino rangatiratanga over a significant Taonga that is managed in the common interest of ALL New Zealanders
-----
She concludes:
-----
I remember a kaumatua once saying that:
“…the trick to walking on water is knowing where the rocks are…”
-----
I note that a Green MP has a river-related Bill in the House:
-----
via Twitter:
Catherine Delahunty
Last day to submit to Select Committee on my RMA and rivers Bill, thanks to all supporters so far!
-----
The Bill appears to be on the parliamentary website where there is a link to make a submission.
The Bill is to limit discharge permits to 5 years.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home