I have a recollection that I saw in the last few days, say last ten days, a comment somewhere that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is actually fully on board with Co Governance.
I do not want to believe that but,……………………………………………………………………a decision like this makes one think doesn’t it.
One thing that is definite is that when put under pressure by an interviewer like Mike Hosking he becomes a waffler and distractor from the Ardern class of media communications.
Am I right?
Is Co Governance still a threat under Luxon’s leadership?
No Minister 
Luxon DOES agree with co-governance. he announced in parliament that he regarded the Treaty as forming a partnership between Maori and the Crown.
How exactly two governments would work (which is the practical effect), he didn’t say
He did not say because he does not seem to have a clue about the track he is on and the damage it is doing to New Zealand.
Exactly!
Mr . Luxon is Prime Minister because some influential people in the National Party chose, supported and promoted him.
Very few people know who these “deciders” are or even that they exist and are the “ruling minority” of every political party.
Mr. Luxon is THEIR Prime Minister.
Some of the deciders are party officials and board members.
Other are the “significant donors” whose “generosity” is essential for the operation and success of the party.
Mr. Luxon represents these influential “deciders” of the National Party. He says what they want him to say. He does what they want him to do.
Why would the most influential members and funders of the National Party support unequal rights, privileges, advantages and allocation of public funds to a minority of people with some Maori ancestry?
Why would they have consistently diverted Billions of taxpayer dollars to help establish and enrich “iwi” corporations like Ngai Tahu and enable them to own and manage more and more public property and the natural resources in that property, that was previously communally owned by the citizens of New Zealand?
These elite deciders in the National Party must expect some personal benefit from this privatization of public assets and wealth by stealth based on false representation of historical facts and documents.
The Foreshore and seabed resources are a good example.
People with Maori ancestry were entitled to ownership these valuable assets if they could validate continual occupation and use since 1840.
The Labour government, led by Helen Clark, sensibly understood that all legitimate claims had been been exercised and that the public ownership remaining resources and assets should be protected by “the crown”.
Along comes a National government, led by John Key, and removes that protection so that “iwi” enterprises can take that ownership away from the people of New Zealand.
This privatization by stealth, opens the door for local and global corporations to gain access to and commercially exploit the assets and resources that used to belong to all the citizens of New Zealand without them agreeing or being compensated.
In fact, the citizens of New Zealand are being forced to pay for the privatization process that robs them and their descendants.
The Treaty of Waitangi granted legal title of ownership of the territories they occupied to the over 500 different tribes of 1840.
The leaders or other members of these tribal groups gradually sold off most of their lands, or in some cases had some confiscated as penalties for trying to rebel and start a civil war.
There were also large areas of land that were not occupied by tribal groups and these “wastelands” became public property held by the crown on behalf of the people.
The influential deciders of the National Party have been and will continue to transfer the legal ownership of these precious assets from the citizens of New Zealand to private owners and obviously expect to benefit from this.
In my experience, the National Party is not of, for or by the ordinary citizens of New Zealand. Its DECIDERS are a minority of well off, privileged people who regard themselves as UPPER CLASS and superior to the “common folk”.
The refusal to agree to a referendum about the fictitious “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi is evidence of this disrespect.
Within the National Party culture allowing the “commoners” to own assets and make decisions will never do.