As Field Marshall Montgomery once said, when politicians no longer do the job, they send in soldiers.

That’s why I’m concerned with the government sending our SAS to Afghanistan…

It’s just that the Treaty was signed, and as long as the government recognises it (ie it’s legal) than that is what we have. It is enshrined in our legislation, Sir Geoffrey Palmer sorted that out as Attorney-General. The problem was that he didn’t define what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are!!

The thing that concerns me George, is when you have people that cry wolf everytime something that is Maori occurs. This is the thing that really frightens me in New Zealand. It’s as though they’ve got nothing better to do than to kick Maori metaphorically in the guts. And when you have a non-Maori majority that have the same attitude, the prospects don’t look good, regardless of the one person, one equal vote.

Just remember, as I said about the 28th Battalion fighting for NZ’s freedoms, as the King was the HOS of your country as well as ours, they fought for YOURS. I regard sacrifice as one of the highest forms of honour and entitlement, considerably more so than a man in a yellow jacket throwing his toys out of the cot because he disagreed with the Royal Commission.

I do feel that before any meaningful discourse can be held on the position and status of maori within NZ in the 21st century we need a sensible definition of what ‘maori’ means. We certainly don’t at the moment.

The introduction of all laws is a complex process. The SuperCity one is particularly complex because there are so many stakeholders, so many different paths to go down, and so many people with a view on how it should be done. Obviously it’s impossible for the government to make all parties happy on this one. Like you, I might not be a fan of some of the finer aspects, but this is to be expected. Overall it is a major step in the right direction, and any bumps can be ironed out down the track as they become known.

I’m sure that when you lived in Britain and someone would have taken your rights away you wouldn’t have liked it. So ditto.

I don’t see how just having Maori seats creates a culture of divisiveness. As Tracey said, the stats for non-Maori are better than they are for Maori. So you’re in the group that’s better off aren’t you?

That said I’m opposed to Maori-only things in general institutions, this is where I think problems could lie. Just like I’m opposed to Maori owning the foreshore and seabed, because I’m for assets being owned by the State. ACT and part of National don’t agree with this.

It’s when it’s Maori institutions (and the Maori roll) that Maori have rights. Because if there weren’t Maori institutions, the culture would be wiped out. You’re not going to have non-Maori advancing the issues of Maori, simple as that. So surely it’s better to have Maori things which are accountable to Maori.

I believe the way to deal with Maori and Pasifika issues isn’t through treating everyone the same (on the general system) but through Whanau Ora. Take a look at what I said on the other blog.

I have no problem with changes to Auckland Councils, I have no problem with the corporatisation (in parts) of activities.

IF the Royal Commission Report is what the promise was based on then that is what is implemented under the mandate, not selected parts?

The detail is very important. The CCO’s are the heart of the changes interms of the way things will be done, accountability, appointments and so on. They are crucial to the plan. Ministers make appointments all the time. Noproblem with that BUT here they are making appointments which would otherwise have come via an accountable elective process. THAT is a major change.

Consultation is all well and good except when the driver and others say at the outset “we wont be changing X or Y” regardless of the outcomeof the consultation.

Aucklander or no, I urge anyone on this issue to go and read about the CCO’s, their powers etc… It’s important and it could be coming to a town or city near you.

The media is only recently focusing on them but fo rme, they are the crux.

Yes, I never implied they implemented the Royal Commission report in full (I just said “following on from”). Do you think they should have? As I understood it, it was changed after further consultations, not that everybodys submission was included in the final law of course!