To the those voting ACT or NZF or National this year because you are worried about co-governance.
I have a secret for you.
You have been co-governed by the richest 1% for decades.
That 1%? Their lawyers and lobbyists fill up the select committee appearances, they trade donations for policy, they throw the exclusive events where they get to have more words with decision makers in five minutes than you’ll have in your life.
The co-governance of the 1%?
That’s why you pay more tax than they do.
It’s why your electricity and food is so expensive and their shareholder profits are so good.
It’s why there’s no money to fix your roads full of potholes, your leaky waterpipes and the sewerage washing up on your beach.
It’s why you get paid so much less that you would in Australia and why you are so much easier to fire.
It’s why we manage inflation by increasing your mortgage and rents and not by touching the profits made by the speculators and price gougers that create the inflation in the first place.
In short, if you are willing to suffer all this because you “don’t like the Maoris getting too big for their boots” then you have let them use your racism to make a fool of you. Well done.
Borrowed from Facebook
Aucklanders voting Nact are turkeys voting for Christmas. First Wayne Brown now the Nats? Rich pricks will profit & make everything worse for everyone else.
https://x.com/barryebert57/status/1708317704002957605?s=46&t=YQYWab08lrynsGdyx3LLKg
National’s neglect will literally poison Aotearoa. Our water supplies and sewage treatment systems are in a dire state, but Luxon doesn’t give a 💩
https://x.com/kieran_mcanulty/status/1708289805107495377?s=46&t=YQYWab08lrynsGdyx3LLKg
Those 1%ers. and/or Nat till they die, wont care (and..can probably afford a rate increase).
However, everyone else ….incl those Renting (as their Rent will go up to cover ) should vote Left !
But for the first 100 days they will be singing National's praises because he will abolish the Auckland regional fuel tax. That's about as good as it will get however, as they will find out eventually.
So we should then be able to name these people.
There are so few of them. They are defined across a nexus that includes not only wealth control, but also their position on decision-making boards, their capacity to change the minds of decisionmakers including lawmakers, their relationship to oligopolies, and of course just a few of them are also elected.
Few of them are responsible for any specific price going up. Some are.
My top 10 of the .001% of NZ power would be:
1. Peter McBride Chair of Fonterra
2. Sir John Key Chair of ANZ
3. Adrian Orr Governor of the Reserve Bank
4. Matt Whineray Chief Executive of NZSuperFund
5. Hon Dame Helen Winkelmann Head of the Supreme Court
6. Craig Ellison Chair of Ngai Tahu Holdings
7. Graeme Hart owner of Rank Group
8. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins
9. Hon Steve Maharey Chair of ACC
10. Grant Robertson Minister of Finance
11. Peter Thompson and Stephen Barfoot, Barfoot and Thompson
12. Dr Keith Turner Chair of Transpower
13. Grant Robertson Minister of Finance
14. Hayden Wilson Chair Denton Kensington Swan
15. Margie Apa Chief of Whatu Ora
16. Hinerangi Raumati Chair Tainui Holdings
17. Dr Jim Mather Chair Ngati Awa Holdings, RNZ
18. Rebecca Kitteridge, CE DPMC
19. Patrick Strange, Chair AIAL, former Chief at Transpower
20. Jason Boyes Chief Executive of Infratil
Argue their relative places all you like, but this is the bus NZ would not want to go over a cliff.
Edit: GR at 10 & 13. You don't rate the Maori king? G-G? Speaker? Other Supreme Court judges? The female immigrant owner of Stuff? Winston as kingmaker in a couple of weeks??
Maori King barely controls himself let alone anything else.
Winston is a tail not a dog. Parliament is over-rated as a source of power.
Heh. Dog-wagging tail. I suspect the MK has mana but am agnostic how much. I surprised by your view of parliament though.
My view of Parliament is a pretty simple consequence of Jesson, Easton and Kelsey's consequences of the wilful shrinking of the ambit of the state from 1985-1997. Much of the power Parliament and indeed the state more broadly used to have was permanently shifted to the private sector.
Murray Horn wrote about it in a 1998 book, basically boasted that what they done could not be undone by any future government (not within a generation).
That dimension (shrinkage of authority/power) does seem a part of the democracy sham yet nation states are still taken as seriously as active agents on behalf of their people as they ever were. Yielding to market forces was a relative transformation for all, true, yet to what extent is any market player that powerful really? An obscure situation.
The neo-liberal regime (where the Cold War was no longer just against the WP but also left wing deviation within democracies) whereby any nation state opting out of the international order of international market forces was to be deemed a socialist one – thus the parameters of "social democratic" government are limited.
Thus the attacks on our government for its example in limiting freedom during the pandemic.
Perception vs reality, seems to me. Socialism & social democracy both went out of fashion historically as political belief systems due to inherent inability to maintain relevance. All a movement needs for mass influence is a critical mass of adherents & when they lose faith in the belief system they evaporate as supporters. Plenty of examples around of leftists transformed into rightists by loss of faith. Not that they illuminate their depth psychology much in their accounts tho…
Surely you mean the baby boomers chose middle class privilege over social democracy, but once the importance of their version of reality has moved on … which is surely what Murray Horn was noting – they had captured that generation.
You have left out "Charities" "Churches" and Development moguls plus Media and Rotary.
Power is not always "evident money." Power can be sway.
Not even the Salvation Army or the Bishops Conference would get into a Top 40.
Rotary are terrific fund bundlers, but seriously they're a Top 60 at best.
Forest and Bird, and Federated Farmers, they might get into a top 30.
Media mostly have power over politicians, and only two politicians made it. MSM power is vastly overrated IMHO. Social is a different matter, but they’re all foreign.
Not a mention of the Todd family?
No they're too subtle and stick to their knitting.
Or Bob Jones?
Why does Grant Robertson get 2 places?
Twice as bad?
Or is your list just pure rubbish as we all suspect?
The fact we are rorted by the global elites dosnt make it ok to be additionally rorted by our indigenous elite.
There is no public benefit to add sinecures to the already unaffordable cost of upgrading our infrastructure to functional…and thats not counting the absurd rate of immigration that is unaccounted for, and socially divisive nature of having a preferred class of citizen
Two wrongs have never made a right.
Of course it is not even the "global elites" (conspiracy theory, anyone), who most cause issues of inequality in NZ, it is our home grown property and supermarket barons who do the job for us just nicely.
Who controls our credit?….think about it.
And adding locally to that rort does nothing for the average kiwi citizen.
The 1% monopolizing everything leave crumbs for the peasants! Most of the printed money of the Covid 19 recovery stimulation around the world ended up in the hands of the 1% who increased their wealth by a very large percentage.while the rest of the world is seriously worse off.Now these money/ wealth hoarders are getting Tax Cuts on top of a vast wealth increase .while the rest of us are paying more for everthing.
Just out of interest, when moari get an automatic seat on a board or any other thing that's being cogoverned, is the representative elected by the hmthe Maori in that area, or are the pit up by the tribe,or is there another selection system?
I believe, direct appointment by a designated iwi.
The iwi involved seem to be designated in the enabling legislation (or, at least they are in the two examples I've checked: Waikato River Authority & Canterbury Regional Council)
While it would be entirely possible for these positions to be voted on – either within the iwi or on the Maori roll (nothing in the legislation prevents it), it seems, so far, to have been direct appointment by the leadership of the iwi.
Not a hint of democracy then?!
And thankyou
To be fair, on the WRA – the other half of the board are direct appointments by the Crown (so not democratic either).
However the balance of the CRC are currently elected.
Rivers lakes and shorelines and the sea were never purchased or confiscated technically Maori still own all waterways and foreshore but democracy is afraid to return to the rightful owners. Had it been owned by European everyone would have to pay or get permission to go on privately owned land.Maori ownership even on proven land owned by Maori ,Maori generally allow access along with respect.
Well, that's one argument. There's another one under British common law, which says that water (which, after all comes from the sky on a regular basis) belongs to no one, and is administered for the benefit of all citizens by the government (local or national)
https://www.environmentguide.org.nz/issues/freshwater/freshwater-management-framework/ownership-of-freshwater/
I am pro co-governance practically speaking, because according to people I know, co-governance or similar arrangements have always resulted in decisions being pushed in the direction of long-term thinking. I would like opponents of co-governance to tell me where else that perspective will come from if the concept is binned.
Some people just don’t think that ethnicity should be the basis of any allocation of power or resources. This is a perfectly ethical position to take and I would defend the rights of anyone who takes this position. Characterising all opponents of co-governance as fascist rednecks is silly, disrespectful, and contributes to political polarisation for no real benefit.
Where is the evidence that long term thinking is enhanced by co governance?
The more likely facilitator of long term thinking is expertise, not appointment on the basis of ethnicity.
No evidence, Pat, but I agree with ethnic rights in principle and also expertise. One may include opportunity, perhaps…
Opportunity based on ability yes…based on happenchance of birth, no.
Damn it, can't recall the bio I read by a kiwi a bit older than me, telling how he was child in the 1950s in a family with servants who were still employing them in the 1960s when I was at college. Only instance I know of.
But the social system gave him the opportunity to succeed despite the handicap of being upper class in Aotearoa…
Even in 'classless' little old NZ there are silver spoons, but that dosnt mean we should legislate for it….there is a difference between what happens and what we accept as law.
If only this focused zeal for opposing Māori silver spoons and 'privilege' could be harnessed to tackle inequality in wider Kiwi society – imagine.
It works for some Pākehā, and does not work for others. Because the category "Pākehā" is not a particularly useful category. Working-class Pākehā or Pākehā living in poverty who read that kind of thing will conclude that the left has nothing to offer them because of the colour of their skin. And then they will go and vote for Winston First or ACT. And that's why we will lose the election.
The word "poverty" is not mentioned once in that article by Dr. Ronald. An entire article on health inequalities that does not once mention the most consistent and proven driver of health inequalities (as proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the Dunedin study).
To be fair, on re-reading that article it does address some of the points I raised.
I don’t have evidence, what I have is an informed opinion from someone I trust. I’m taking a practical approach and IMHO we need long-term thinking right now, and it is being provided by co-governance.
Your question is totally legitimate and I too would like evidence. In the meantime I just want long-term thinking right now, and I’m not fussy about the details, because ecosystems are collapsing across the world and we are in a crisis.
If we weren’t in a crisis I might think differently.
I already did a post on this a while back.
All there if you want to have your mind changed.
Where is the evidence that long term thinking is enhanced by co governance?
It's not the sort of thing that would be susceptible of evidence; more a matter of judgment.
Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary.
Remember Bastion Point land illegally confiscated then most of it stolen by very wealthy Europeans .Maori won the legal battle but didn't seek compensation for $millions of stolen land and the land they got back through the courts after decades of racist treatment Maori gifted the rest of Bastion Point to the Nation.
Yet all those who built mega mansions on the Stolen land keep their illegally stolen land.One law for the Colonisers no law for the indigenous original owners they get gaslighted and scape goated by the thieving colonisers to make sure they know their place is at the bottom of the pile
The co-governance model derives from the
1WT response to National's sale of 49% of the power companies (water use and or management rights claim).
2Taking control from councils allows long term investment planning (the voters do not re-elect those who increase water price) and ability to repay loans (raise revenue by charging).
3Appreciation that councils are limited by debt caps and or lack of ratepayers (these amalgamated into larger groupings) from borrowing enough.
The model is a threat to some farm and business groups (as to water use and charging) – these groups dominate local councils …
Like +100% I don't think Co-Governance is as bad as everyone is making out if all parties agree on the same objective and results it will be in the best interests of all New Zealanders. A majority of the Maaori population are sane and intelligent people, it is the radicals and the gangs that give te Maaori people a bad reputation. The NZ Press tend to group all Maaori into this group, which is not suprising as the NZ Press is Offshore and Corporate owned, with muppets masquerading as journalists.
Do they oppose the Treaty? The Māori seats? The Treaty is what everything in the co-governance debate rests upon. If one recognises the Treaty, then how can one be opposed to sharing power with Māori?
Yes indeed,
Everyone's wondering how National could fund it's tax cuts.
According to stuff.co.nz, the answer is simple. Just unpalatable for a party coalition that says it wants the best for Mom and Pop NZ but is arguably leaning towards a plutocracy.
Here's the link:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300878382/newsable-billions-likely-lost-to-tax-evasion-as-white-collar-crime-investigators-go-underfunded#:~:text=Tax%20evasion%20in%20New%20Zealand,brought%20to%20you%20by%20BNZ.&text=It's%20the%20type%20of%20crime,by%20their%20type%20of%20work.
Extremely unpalatable to the point of not digestible to NACT.
Gutting the comm comm, merging units and underfunding what remained was inside the first 90 days of the Key govt.
Tax Cuts = Benefit Cuts = Zero Sum Game
I still do not understand why Chipkin's knocked down a potential Capital Gain's Tax recommended by Robertson and Parker, he would have better off keeping his mouth shut and defering those decisions until after the Election. It proves Labour are controlled from outside of Government.
While I don't necessarily think it was the best strategy – I can certainly see what Hipkins was trying to do. Exactly the same thing as Ardern did in 2020 – shut down speculation that Labour planned to implement a wealth tax (in whatever format).
If he had not done so, the election narrative would all have been about "Labour plans to implement a wealth tax"
And, to be fair – it is really irresponsible of any political party to plan on making such a significant decision after being elected – without campaigning on it.
Part of the issue that many people had about co-governance is that it was not explicit in the Labour 2020 election manifesto.
You either have to campaign on this as a major policy plank, or decide not to implement in the next term.
I think Ardern went too far with the 'not while I'm PM' promise – as in it might have come back to bite them if/when political circumstances changed – although in retrospect, it didn't matter, she didn't last until the next election campaign.
Voting Blue or Red is just like Pepsi and Coke, however the Coke is a little bit more palitable.
These kinds of analyses need to be packaged up into easily-accessible and easy-to-understand statements that all voters can get to grips with.