Successful Partnership schools have a serious challenge ahead of them *UPDATED

Partnership schools haven’t been around for very long ?but a number of them are already facing the challenge of demand exceeding supply due to their outstanding results and popularity. Yesterday I chatted on the phone to David Seymour ?about the challenge that these successful schools are facing.

One of the things we discussed reminded me of a choice I was given as a child. ?I wanted two things but was told I could only have one. ?I had to ask myself which of the two was the most valuable.

Imagine that a rich relative has given you two choices:

1.The ownership of a house valued at $500,000 for the rest of your life that is built on land belonging to your relative?that you are never allowed to sell. If your family grows and needs more space the relative will either rebuild the house to suit you or build a second house on the section.

2. A weekly income from a Trust fund equivalent to the average rent charged on a $500,000 house in the same area that will be adjusted annually to reflect inflation.

Read more »

Angry Andy thinks providing Iwi with tax free status is a winning move…


The Taxpayers’ Union is?querying?Labour Party leader Andrew Little’s comments at Waitangi that New Zealand should consider allowing Maori to?make?their own laws, including?tax laws, in?reference to?rules applicable to Native American tribal lands. Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the Taxpayers’ Union says:

“Like many New Zealanders, Mr Little may be surprised to learn that iwi do not currently pay income tax, even on profits of their commercial investments.Read more »

Maori Mafiosos coming for your money

Remember Democracy Action, the group set up to oppose Auckland Council?s iwi consent regime that?extorted?required Bob Jones to cough up to 13 iwi just to let him?replace a window in his own building?

It looks like they?re?finally?getting organised and taking on Len Brown.

We?ve launched an online tool for Aucklanders and other concerned New Zealanders to tell Len Brown and the Council what they think of the radical Mana Whenua provisions that affect up to 18,000 Auckland property owners.

These Mana Whenua provisions have not gone through the standard submission process and infringe on every Aucklander?s basic property rights. They establish a significant financial burden on property owners and provide another obstacle on future land development.

Read more »

Questioning the Extremely Dodgy Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Ctd

Fenton "Jong-un" Wilson

Fenton “Jong-un” Wilson

One of the most troubling aspects of the dodgy socialist dam promoted by the extremely dodgy Hawkes Bay Regional Council is that the local Iwi, Ngati Kahungunu, have been treated like lepers by the regional council hierarchy.

Legitimate concerns from Ngati Kahungunu have been ignored, and the ratbags at the council have tried to get around the dominant iwi in Hawkes Bay by buying up some tame Maoris who will tell the council what they want to hear.

Sources inside the council were dismayed when this happened, and continued to be dismayed that the council has failed to uphold their Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Light needs to be shone on this so the public can decide if the council has been ethical in its dealings with Maori.? Read more »

Thanks Len

Len Brown’s Unitary Plan is pandering to Len’s natural constituency in South Auckland.

What is proposed is out of control ridiculous

A couple have been told to apply to 14 different iwi to keep the water running to their home.

Brent and Jennifer Tassell will need approval to renew resource consent on a bore hole that has been operating for 10 years, supplying water to eight Puhoi homes.

The bore draws water from 305m underground and is the only source of water for the properties in Slowater Lane, on the northern outskirts of greater Auckland.

“It’s a hole in the ground that’s been there for 10 years,” said Jennifer. “It’s completely over the top for our situation.”

Under the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, all applicants for resource consent for new or existing developments must apply to iwi for them to assess whether it would have an adverse effect on mana whenua.

Who needs the Resource Management Act to stifle the ecomomy when you can have your local Iwi do it for you? ? Read more »

Clever stuff by John Key

John Key is a master politician.

Check this out from Waitangi:

Before the fish protest Key had attempted to convince local iwi leaders that fossil fuel exploration was in Maori interests. He invited the leaders of the hikoi to Wellington to spend a week with his ministers going over the facts around environmental risks and job creation.

“If I am wrong and you are right, I will walk out and join that protest,” he said.? Read more »

In other words…pay the taniwha

Unsurprisingly Maori are upset over something that has the potential to fill their coffers with extortion payments…er…payments to the taniwha to appease the spirits.

Plans to drill for oil only 220 metres from the Egmont National Park boundary were described as desecration and a disgrace yesterday.

Commissioner Mick Lester was holding an independent hearing into Tag Oil’s application to drill up to eight wells at 1045 Rowan Rd, Mahoe.

If oil or gas is found, Tag Oil is proposing to use the site for production purposes, with associated pipelines, for up to 30 years.

However, several iwi are opposing the application to the Stratford District Council. Ngati Haua Whanui Inc, a subsidiary of Ngaruahine, said they were not properly consulted by Tag Oil over the proposed drillings. ? Read more »

My First Te Reo – P?HARA, WHAIRAWA

It is Maori Language Week. Let’s learn some Te Reo.

P?HARAState housing in South Auckland

(loan)?(stative)?be poor, poverty-stricken, broke, hard up, destitute, impoverished.


(stative)?be rich, wealthy.

Modern usage:

The government has paid billions in treaty settlements but many pori are still?p?hara.

The settlements have delivered them nothing, they are still?p?hara.

Meanwhile the lawyers and iwi leaders have become?whairawa.

As their iwi remain?p?hara?so they have become?whairawa.

This is called honouring te tiriti.


No surprises there

? NZ Herald

No?surprises?that?the?vested interests and greedy iwi of the Waitangi Tribunal have called for a halt to asset sales so they can better evaluation how much koha the taniwha is going to need to be appeased:

The Waitangi Tribunal has urged Government to delay its planned sell off of state assets until a claim over Maori water rights has been resolved.

In a recommendation returned this afternoon, the tribunal said a planned partial sale of state assets should be halted until it delivers its full findings on a water rights claim in September.

It said selling shares in state assets before the Tribunal delivered its full findings could “cause a significant disadvantage to [Maori] claimants” if their claims were subsequently found to be well-founded.

As a result, it said the status quo should be maintained and the Crown should not proceed with asset sales until the Tribunal had completed its report into the issue, expected in September.

Ignore them.

Franks on Water

? Stephen Franks Blog

Stephen Franks comments on the vexing water issue and whether or not Maori have a valid claim:

The Treaty promised?ownership irrespective of the owner?s waxing and waning alliances or family size etc. Article 2 property rights were (and were so described by Maori who bought the Treaty package) ?a dramatic improvement on custom. Maori valued exactly that change, both in speeches in favour of?the Treaty, and by choosing ?to have their lands surveyed and registered. Among other things the vagueness of customary law was a serious problem in selling to pakeha they wanted to come and live with them, and fraudulent or contested claims were causing whanau and hapu v hapu strife, when they were all trying to recover from the musket war devastation.

So Maori today claiming ownership absurdities like the right to radio waves and language and the much more credible claim for water would run a major risk if they faced a serious analysis of the common law tests for property rights. A genuinely scholarly property rights analysis?of both tikanga and the 1840 English common law would show that there are almost no areas where Maori (or anyone else because Article 2 is a promise?to all?New Zealanders)??could own water rights adverse to the Crown. They could not establish?continuous exercise of ?the right kind of power.

Clearly iwi and hapu control has been superseded in all practical respects for decades by the Crown, local authorities and the neighbouring landowners both pakeha and maori, who have used water in their non-blood determined capacities.

That would be a sucks boo to you Maori…but, as Stephen explains, for the Crown’s neglect in addressing this before the Tribunal:

[A]s far as I know there is no one putting before the Tribunal an expert view on the underpinning of the common law on customary claims and rights. That was what?an NZMC lawyer told me a few weeks ago. They were astonished by the Crown omission to attack the substance.

I knew the Crown would probably pull its punches. I tried to encourage some of those with vital interests in the outcome (like generators)?to pay for a world expert to come and give evidence. I?d have liked to help indigenise such evidence. It seems?there is too much? fear of being seen on the wrong side of fashion in these matters. So they could all be?just watching another seabed and foreshore train wreck develop

I think there is a simple explanation if the Crown is still not arguing the substantive current emptiness of customary law. It?could be?because it would highlight the falsehoods legislated in this government’s replacement of Sir Michael Cullen’s legally masterful Seabed and Foreshore Act.

A proper defence against baseless customary rights claims would not fit the ridiculous Crown theory that no one owns things like the seabed and foreshore. The Prime Minister’s retailing of that nonsense last week would chime with a view that?Crown Law ?has not been allowed?a convincing theory of the case, because it would not fit with the ‘no ownership’ nonsense. .

The Key government ?sacrificed ?intellectual integrity to?Eddie Durie J’s?slippery inventions in the report the preceded their replacement?of the?Seabed and Foreshore Act? That was apparently (like the unbelievable decision to support the draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights)??in the hope that gratitude or even friendship can be bought from Maori leaders.

There will be no gratitude, nor friendship…there never has been. Even after all the largesse from Sir Douglas Graham there was nothing but insults. i know of one National MP who had a spreadsheet that worked out the ratio of money given in settlements to Maori votes for National…there was an inverse relationship. The more money National gave in settlements the less maori voted for them. That MP even worked out how much to actually pay out until there wasn’t a single vote from Maori to National.