Collins and the “monster” board

Written By: - Date published: 10:21 am, December 7th, 2015 - 43 comments
Categories: accountability, auckland supercity, Judith Collins, law, Maori Issues - Tags: , , ,

Idiot turn of phrase or deliberately inflammatory? You be the judge:

Collins wants ‘monster’ Maori board dumped

National Party MP Judith Collins has called the Auckland Council’s Maori advisory board an “unaccountable monster” that thinks it’s “outside the law”.

This is the Maori advisory board set up by Collins’ very own Nat government of course, when they rammed through the formation of the Auckland supercity.

In her address as guest speaker at the [ACT] conference, the Papakura MP said the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) was neither elected nor accountable, and should be dumped. “The Maori statutory board is an unaccountable monster. It believes it is outside the law,” she said in her speech.

“I recall my experience trying to get some basic information about its members. The IMSB ignored the request and ultimately I had to get the Office of the Ombudsman involved.” Even under instruction from the Ombudsman, the board still refused to comply, she said.

I’m not even sure that, as an advisory body, this board falls within the Ombudsman’s remit (can anyone clarify?).

Anyway, looks like the Board is just following the example set by the Government. If Collins doesn’t like it, well pardon me if I can’t manage to muster up any sympathy.

National’s example: National have opposed and ignored the Ombudsman, and worked to systematically weaken the office. At a superficial count the Nats have also ignored:
The law
The High Court
The Bill of Rights
Its own Select Committee
A Royal Commission
Inland Revenue
The Law Society
Treasury
Due process
The public’s right to know
New Zealander of the Year Dame Anne Salmond
And that’s not to mention all the scientists and advisors that the Nats ignore as a matter of course.

43 comments on “Collins and the “monster” board ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    7 December 2015 at 10:42 am

    Judy whining about others abusing the OIA? Priceless.

  2. Wairua 2
    7 December 2015 at 10:48 am

    Is this part of the PM’s exit strategy ?

  3. Lucy 3
    7 December 2015 at 10:55 am

    so now she is in cabinet again that means she has to give back her car right?

    • Matthew Hooton 3.1
      7 December 2015 at 12:19 pm

      She will also be required to support the IMSB as it is government policy that it should exist.

  4. Tc 4
    7 December 2015 at 11:00 am

    Todays entry in pre xmas DP distractions from one who knows this game very well.

  5. Jenny Kirk 5
    7 December 2015 at 11:21 am

    Perhaps you could call it sheer ignorance, but I would plump for inflammatory – a sure way to rouse the hackles of the red-necks in Auckland and if Collins is going after the Mayoralty, that’s what she’ll have to do (tho it won’t be hard to do …..lotsa red-neck hackles just waiting to be inflamed). She might have miscalculated tho – she’ll also be going after the Chinese vote in Auckland, and many Chinese are sympathetic towards Maori.

  6. shorts 6
    7 December 2015 at 11:33 am

    back in cabinet… back in the news – one must say she doesn’t muck about

    tough on Maori, soft on serco

    *sigh*

  7. TepidSupport 7
    7 December 2015 at 11:54 am

    Funny how as she’s back in ‘the fray’ she makes a right wing speech to a right wing group to set herself up for support going forward… PM aspirations still?

  8. acrophobic 8
    7 December 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Setting aside the irony of what a disaster the super city (Nationals own invention) is, Collins makes some good points. The IMSB is neither elected nor accountable. It does Maori no good, because it is simply viewed by many as an example of racial privilege at ratepayers expense. If people of any race want to participate in local Government, stand for election.

    • Sacha 8.1
      7 December 2015 at 12:41 pm

      There’s this thing called the Tiriti o Waitangi. You may have heard of it.

      • Gabby 8.1.1
        7 December 2015 at 1:04 pm

        I’ve heard of it. What are its Principles again? I’ll ask Helen.

      • acrophobic 8.1.2
        7 December 2015 at 4:05 pm

        Can you direct me to the part that is in any way relevant to the IMSB?

        • Sacha 8.1.2.1
          7 December 2015 at 4:09 pm

          Having a say in governance arrangements, especially over natural resources. Huge amount of case law if you want to do the reading.

          • acrophobic 8.1.2.1.1
            7 December 2015 at 4:28 pm

            You seem to be suggesting that the only way Maori can ‘have a say’ is by subverting the democratic process. Maori have a say in national decision making via the Maori electoral franchise. Why could that not have been the mechanism for Maori participation in Auckland? Why do we have to have a Maori voice that is, as Collins stressed, undemocratic and unaccountable?

              • acrophobic …
                7 December 2015 at 4:44 pm

                Seems a shame. From your citation:

                ” the Government rejected the recommendation that Maori have three seats on the council, saying the council could establish the positions itself if there was community support.”

                Well that’s what happened, so I’m not sure you can label the Govt in the way you have. They were, after all, proven right. I just don’t remember being asked if I supported it. I don’t. I think it’s undemocratic.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  7 December 2015 at 4:50 pm

                  Then I expect allowing the leader of a racist goon party with 0% support to restructure the entire Auckland electoral process must have really upset you.

                  No? Oh well, no-one really cares what lip-service you give democracy in other contexts then. Sauce, meet goose.

                  • acrophobic …
                    7 December 2015 at 8:19 pm

                    The restructure of Auckland was initiated by a Government with overwhelming popular support. It was a stupid idea, made worse by by an incompetent mayor. But it was democratic. The IMSB isn’t.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 December 2015 at 2:04 pm

                      “Overwhelming”.

                      ~30% of the electorate is your idea of overwhelming, is it?

                      Recent elected governments have taken steps to honour the treaty. Meanwhile, the racist party gets 0%. Just to put your lip service to democracy into more context.

                • Sacha …
                  7 December 2015 at 6:13 pm

                  “I’m not sure you can label the Govt in the way you have. They were, after all, proven right.”

                  The IMSB was dictated by the government in the super-city enabling laws. Please do some basic research before disagreeing with others so confidently.

                  • acrophobic …
                    7 December 2015 at 8:23 pm

                    You didn’t read the full thread of posts did you. The context of my comment was the remark “saying the council could establish the positions itself if there was community support.” Which is exactly what happened.

                    I’m well aware of how the IMSB came about. I’m well aware of how it it’s members are appointed. It is thoroughly undemocratic.

                    • Sacha …
                      8 December 2015 at 9:28 am

                      The council did not establish the positions itself. Democracy does not mean mob rule, and there is more than one way of delivering accountability.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 December 2015 at 1:57 pm

                      Democratically electing representatives is not ‘mob rule’. You’re right about accountability, but in the case of the IMSB they are purporting to represent Maori and making a contribution to decisions that affect many non-Maori. At the very least, they should be democratically elected.

            • Grant 8.1.2.1.1.3
              7 December 2015 at 8:39 pm

              You could hire out the Orewa Rotary Club for a night and live stream an address to the nation on the subject and see how that works out.

            • Tracey 8.1.2.1.1.4
              8 December 2015 at 12:46 pm

              It is a partnership agreement which goes beyond merely getting to cast a particular type of vote every 3 years. I know some struggle with that concept. What will be interesting is how much white kiwis will struggle with its desire that all things come down to anumbers vote, when they become demographically a minority…

              • acrophobic …
                8 December 2015 at 2:00 pm

                I have lived and worked in countries where my ethnicity is in the minority. That concerns me not. But neither would I expect the special privilege of an unelected group representing my interests over those of other ethnicities.

    • Ad 8.2
      7 December 2015 at 12:55 pm

      I agree that the IMSB is largely shit.

      It’s a filthy compromise from the 2010 restructure and legislation.

      But it’s also a reality check that absent Maori seats – which Aucklanders would have to petition via Council for – it’s the only Maori input other than from bureaucrats that gets in to Auckland Council.

      Being shit is just not enough to kill it.

    • maui 8.3
      7 December 2015 at 1:45 pm

      Of course there is no racial privilege in land being put into nz european hands through deception and theft since the 1800s and the profits accrued from those transactions every year since by the following white generations.

      NZ europeans celebrate matariki every year with great respect to Maori realising the gift they’ve been given. Giving money to, participating and supporting local Maori community is a favourite pastime of most pakeha…

      • acrophobic 8.3.1
        7 December 2015 at 4:07 pm

        We can dwell on injustices of hundreds of years ago, or we can acknowledge and remedy them, and move on. Hopefully we are doing the latter. Patronising Maori with undemocratic representation is not helpful.

        • Grant 8.3.1.1
          7 December 2015 at 4:21 pm

          How many hundreds of years ago was that?

        • Sacha 8.3.1.2
          7 December 2015 at 7:10 pm

          “We can dwell on injustices of hundreds of years ago, or we can acknowledge and remedy them, and move on. Hopefully we are doing the latter.”

          Sounds like the Waitangi Tribunal process. What’s your problem with it?

        • Tracey 8.3.1.3
          8 December 2015 at 12:49 pm

          Can you tell me the time limits for other arrangements? The Treaty is an ongoing committment to partnership, protection and participation. Even if wrongs are redressed by settlements it doesn’t magic away those pricnciples, they remain.

          It is not only this Board which has lack of democracy to criticise. There is the Government bullying in Canterbury… the flagrant disregard of OIA, most recently highlighted by the High Court against Groser… Neithe rof the last two things were a result of any mandate.

  9. NZJester 9
    7 December 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Ignoring the scientist and advisers?
    I thought the Nats where paying very big attention to them by working out how best to muzzle and dismiss them. Or even how to replace them with brown nosing puppets.

  10. Stuart Munro 10
    7 December 2015 at 1:42 pm

    I think it’s slowly dawning on Key that while Gerry may do a rousing karaoke chorus of ‘I am the walrus’ he’s not the sharpest spoon in the ne0-liberal cultery draw – even this tired old beater can do better. Wants a bit of paint though.

  11. Macro 11
    7 December 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Talk about pot, kettle, black! I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard this reported over the weekend! What a f**kin hypocrite. Of course the Ministry of Truth aka MSM will fail to draw any comparison between this outburst aimed at the redneck right, and Judy’s past performance as a “Minister”.

  12. mike 12
    7 December 2015 at 5:53 pm

    What is the word to describe a person accusing another of being guilty of something that describes the accuser perfectly?
    For example. We homos, along with others, were routinely told we were immoral and unnatural by the leader of the Christian Heritage Party while he was engaging in acts that later had him convicted as a pedophile.
    Now we have Judy describing another group of people as a ‘monster’. No Judy, if you want to see a monster, look in the mirror. There’s only one monster here darling, it’s you, the Ilsa Kock of the New Zealand National Party.
    What is that word?

  13. Tracey 13
    8 December 2015 at 12:36 pm

    “an “unaccountable monster” that thinks it’s “outside the law”.”

    Hmmmm, who does that pharse pu tme in mind of…????? Thinking, thinking, thinking…