Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Mayor Strikes Back (Again!) | Main | District Plan 'First Cut' »

Sandra's Dogwhistle Revival

There seems little doubt of Ms Goudie's thirst for politics - any politics. Not too sure yet whether to throw the hat in the ring at the local or regional level, but in the ring it will surely go.

Her call for a referendum on Maori representation at the Regional level in today's HH has the smell of an old boot that has been hauled out to get the dogs growling and howling, and we have plenty of dogs on the Peninsula ready to respond to her whistling. This follows her equally strident call for the throwing out the SNA's, and demanding the cessation of any form of Council planning that in her view interferes with the rights of landowners.

Her apparent ignorance of the reasons for the SNA's in the first place, even though she was on the Council at the time that the moves to create such areas was required of Council by the Environment Court is instructive. Anyone who was around at the time will recall the Court imposed requirement to progress this in order to impose any form of mining restriction on the Peninsula. Landowners, encouraged by Ms Goudie conveniently forget this reasoning, and continue to use Council planning as the whipping-boy for their frustration at being unable to sub-divide at will. 

This latest move to promote her poisonous and extreme anti-Maori views, and reverse the excellent work that has been done by Chair Peter Buckley in particular to advance the cause of Maori involvement in local politics, and provide redress on a regional level for 150 years of exclusion is merely the first shot across the bows of the long awaited Hauraki settlement, due to be signed off before the end of the year.

Ms Goudie and her cohort will no doubt be ready to do their best to mire the settlement in controversy and dissent despite it having been brought to fruition by her own Party. The withdrawal of support by her own colleagues would have been no surprise to anyone familiar with the arcane inner workings of Caucus. Her spiteful attempt to exact retribution for this insult looks likely to work itself out in these anti-Maori ravings that are likely to appear from time to time in her local media vehicle of choice - the splendid 'Thriller", more devoted to rugby and fishing than local politics, but always happy to hand out 'guest editorial' status to our late unlamented Member.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (10)

With her history of grandstanding and reckless poor performance, electing Sandra to any local government position now would be like eating a cold burnt sausage for todays lunch while trying to believe that it was the hot succulent sausage you had at last nights barbeque.

June 16, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDal Minogue

Will at least the sausage was hot and succulent at some stage

June 21, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Morrissey

Gentlemen, hot succulent sausage? Never thought you were that way inclined..

June 21, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJim Archibald

Ha very good Jim
The Nats or council might get you to organise their next fund raising BBQ to give you a bit of sausage experience but it actually has to make money and there can be no council bail outs if it doesnt

June 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Morrissey

It seems that denigrating the messenger is more important than the message. What was the message? That two WRC councillor positions are to be based on race. i.e. privilege by birth. This is not legally wrong because gov. has passed laws that allow it. This from the country that stood against South Africa's aparthied. If we made the other council positions only open to europeans wouldn't there be a fuss. Or even one seat for Asians!! (Based on population numbers.) If the maoris who will fill these council positions could only vote on matters concerning maoris then that would be fair, BUT I'll bet they are going to vote on matters that are political to me. I'm denied the right to vote for these two positions through accident of birth or stand for them likewise. THIS IS RACISM! I wonder if Maori see the danger in this 'separate development'. They don't seem to be saying yay or nay publicly. WRC councillors will say we had the chance to petition against their action but the resource needed is only available to a person like Sandra, and at least she is doing something about combating the PC rubbish that will come about through WRC councillors lack of spine.

June 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPeter H Wood,

I aree with you on most things Peter, but I take issue with you on this one.
If councils continue to ignore their responsibility to make provision for better representation of Tangata Whenua, then Government will take the initiative, and legislate. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, Maori do not have representation nationally and locally for one bloody good reason - they have been shut out by the majority Pakeha for whatever reason - not worth exploring here. THIS IS RACISM! All I will say is that I am very glad that steps are being taken in almost all of local governement to ensure that places are provided at the table to enable the views of Tangata Whenua to be heard. Do you think that for one moment that this Council will be in a position to fairly provide governance on this Peninsula when the Hauraki Collective in whatever form are in a position of majority ownership, but zero representation. If you believe that is just Peter, then all I can suggest is that perhaps you should think it through a little more thoroughly. The situation is about to change here, and clearly not to your liking. The failure of our Council to take similar action to that of WRC is a reflection on its vision, and puts it out of step with action being taken elsewhere. Its excuse of 'waiting until the Settlement is signed off" is pathetic, and indicative to the general lack of courage amongst this bunch, otherwise exemplified in their reneging on the MOU with Watchdog Coromandel. They are now working exclusively for votes in 2013.

June 23, 2012 | Registered CommenterBill Barclay

I am sure that Maori representation on the District council is something that deserves a serious community debate before making a decision. And lets face it, if you can't take the majority people with you on a matter such as this, then no-one will be the winner, Maori or Pakeha.

What bothers me is the early emergamce of a 'polarity of opinion', where we divide ourselves into two sides, neither of which is prepared to listen to the other. simple not listening to one another and pre-empt that debate.

Sandra would be the worst protagonist of this approach and it is a little worrying that you, Peter Wood, usually quite an open minded soul, should should be going down that track.

I think the idea of Maori Council representation would be to ensure that a Maori perspective is included in decision making, rather than dominating it. What's wrong with that?

Are we all too scared that David Taipari might actually be better at putting a case through the democratic process (and ultimately be more successful) than the common place 'drovers dogs' that the National Party electoral elite shove down our throats?

However, I am not trying to say that Maori electoral representation should happen, only that it is time for community debate about the matter, bearing in mind, as Bill has suggested, that the Waitangi treaty settlement will create a 'new world' for all of us.

June 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDal Minogue

Thanks for your comments Bill and Dal. I note that the unfairness of basing voting on race is not addressed. More that because maori are going to be large land owners they need favoured representation. A TV poll (unscientific) showed 82% of respondents believed that maori are not "special"/more important than the rest of us. With the future wealth of Treaty settlements maori could put forward their own candidates for office just like the business and wealth groups do now. Indeed maori have always been able to stand for office because the Treaty gave them the rights of British citizens. If they didn't get in, well that's our style of democracy. Plenty of us stand but don't get in and we don't blame other races for that.During the Gov. budget debate I noted that the Maori party zeroed in on the advantages to maori and ignored other universal points. This is what seats based on race will give. Advantages based on priviledge of birth. Do we really want to go back to the times of kings, queens and tribal chiefs? Maori do not have the right to make political decisions for me when I did not elect them and cannot.

July 8, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPeter H Wood,

so by that last comment Peter -'when I did not elect them and cannot' means you are opposed to MMP as well?

July 15, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterThamesite

Hi Thamesite, very perspicacious of you to notice. Of course the maori seats in parliament are racist and were never meant to have lasted this long. Each major party sees their continuation as an advantage to them. Do we really want this form of Aparthied (separate development) where priviledge by birth continues. Is it paternalistic? Aren't we all equal under the law? (Ignoring the power that wealth brings.) Which other countries in the world have government seats reserved for races? Australia? Britain? Fiji? Does priviledge by birth truly have a place in a democracy? I thought the Magna Carta was a founding document just like the T. of W.

August 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPeter H Wood,

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>