Waikanae Summerset Retirement Village gets ‘fast-track’ approval

Not by the KCDC, but by the Ministry for the Environment under Section 17 of the Covid-19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 which was one of the new laws the government rushed through Parliament last year. The announcement of it being taken away from the council was made public in March:

The Ministry for the Environment official announcement:

Summerset Retirement Village

About the application for fast-tracking of the Summerset Retirement Village – Waikanae. May 2021

Project ID

2020-031

Applicant

Summerset Villages (Waikanae) Ltd

Project summary

To construct and operate a retirement village, and associated facilities. The project will provide 217 residential units, 56 assisted living suites, 20 memory care suites, 43 care beds and recreational, healthcare and associated dining and retail facilities, and public access reserves.

Location

28 and 32 Park Avenue, Waikanae, Wellington.

Referred projects order

To come

Reasons for decision

The project:

  • will help to achieve the purpose of the Act
  • will provide up to 30 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the first stage (earthworks) and up to 270 FTE jobs in the second stage (construction)
  • will result in a public benefit by providing additional housing supply for aged persons and aged-care facilities
  • will provide investment into the Kāpiti Coast’s aged-care sector
  • will progress faster than would otherwise be the case under the Resource Management Act 1991 standard processes

Any adverse effects arising from the application and mitigation measures can be tested by an expert consenting panel against Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the purpose of the Act.

Section 17 report [this deals mainly with iwi consents which are required under the Act.]


We assume that the details submitted by Summerset to the MfE were the same as those given to the council, but need to find out more, so will have more to say on this soon. —Eds

wither One Nation, One People?

by Pete North

I came here as an immigrant 44 years ago, and long ago became a New Zealand citizen.  I was part of a generation of Kiwis that spoke out against the ethnic separatism taking place in South Africa in the 70’s and 80’s.  Never in my wildest dreams did I envisage that the country I chose to immigrate to, would four decades later move towards ethnic separatism of its own kind. 

Martin Luther King Jr. said things so well.  In saying, “We may all have come in different ships, but we’re in the same boat now,” he referenced America, but the same issue applies to NZ.  Does it really matter to us in the 21st century, who came here first?  Because we all came here from somewhere else.  Being the first immigrant in line does not make Maori indigenous.  Nor should it grant some kind of first-class citizenship, while the rest of us who came later are relegated to 2nd class citizens.  All citizens should have the same status and rights as all others, that is what citizenship is all about isn’t it?

Martin Luther King Jr. also said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”  New Conservative believes all children in NZ should have the opportunity to grow up realising that they can be and do whatever they choose, by determining to live a life of hope, aspiration, integrity, hard work, responsibility and compassion for others. Otherwise, some children with varying degrees of partial Maori ethnic heritage might choose instead to rely on special benefits and privileges.

The founding document of NZ, the Treaty of Waitangi, gives us three critical principles to be the foundation upon which our nation can exist and progress into the future.

The first principle in Article 1 establishes the governance of the nation under the sovereignty of the Queen.  Recent attempts to redefine what was meant by the Maori word Kawanatanga, that it meant partnership and not sovereignty, have led to a situation that some in our country want to utilise to rewrite history.  If there was no Maori dictionary in place in 1840, how is it that people over 180 years later can somehow re-interpret with definitive accuracy what was really meant?  And even if sovereignty was not given, if that were the case, the British crown understood it to be sovereignty and took it.  Global history is full of invasions, wars, occupations, ethnic mingling & mixing.  None of us can rewrite history so why would we ever attempt to?  Are those of us who live here today meant to feel guilty and liable for the actions and language interpretations of 180 years ago?  I don’t see other nations giving land back to the indigenous people, much less the first-in-line immigrants.  This is not happening globally, and it is ridiculous that in 21st century NZ we even contemplate doing so.

The second principle in Article 2 guarantees the rights over property and the protection over such.  Clearly our history shows that this aspect of the Treaty was breached and led to inequities.  I am very proud to be part of a nation that has overwhelmingly sought (regardless of political leanings) to redress those injustices of the past, while also addressing the consequential inequitable outcomes from such.  The problems arise when we have to consider when is enough going to be enough?  Treaty settlements continue to drag on and on, and there has developed a culture of grievance that has disempowered many people.  We need to see these matters fully and finally resolved so that all New Zealanders can move forward into the future aspiring to be one people in one nation.  Regarding the inequitable consequences, these should be addressed, as they are for any situation, based on need alone and not ethnicity.

The third principle in Article 3 gave Maori equality, with full rights and privileges of British subjects.  New Conservative has campaigned continually on the concept of equality of all, yet somehow we are continuously labelled racist for doing so.  We do not agree with the re-interpretation of Article 1 into partnership and co-governance.  Instead we uphold the historical truth of Crown sovereignty, and this apparently somehow makes us racist and against Maori people.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I suggest we are both realistic and compassionate.  We agree the injustices done should be fully addressed under Article 2.   We also care for and respect every immigrant who has come here, whatever their country of origin, whatever their ethnicity, and whatever date they came here. 

The recent public access to the document He Puapua written in 2019 is very concerning for a number of reasons.  Firstly it shows a clear plan in place to achieve co-governance by Maori by the year 2040.  The very concept of co-governance being workable in any nation is incomprehensible.  Co-governance seeks to enshrine separatism based on ethnicity.  Secondly, it is called co-governance but in the text what it really says is that the rest of us have to be given permission for this or that by Maori. In the health reform being proposed it says that Maori can veto how the health of those who are not Maori can be addressed.  Is this what we all want?  I think not.  And that is not even co-governance.

Thirdly, the current Labour Government has held this document back from the public since it was finished in November 2019.  One wonders why it was not released prior to the 2020 election.  One wonders why it has not been released by the Government at all, only coming to public scrutiny thanks to being released under the Official Information Act.  And more recently, the Prime Minister has stated that He Puapua shouldn’t have been released in case taxpayers didn’t understand it.  Peter Williams of Magic Talk says, “The sheer arrogance of that statement is frankly breathtaking.”  I couldn’t agree more.

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr. yet again, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”  Join us in speaking up.  Join us in standing strong for equal rights and privileges for all NZ citizens.  Join us for keeping New Zealand one nation and one people.

(Pete North is CEO of the New Conservative Party – nc.org.nz)

Tucker Carlson: How many Americans have died after taking Cv vaccines?

In 1976, 45 million Americans were vaccinated for the swine flu and 53 of them died from it. The vaccine was pulled from the market. So far, around 4,000 people have died from Covid-19 vaccines, but both the government and mainstream media have said nothing.

From Children’s Health Defense and Tucker Carlson (video is in linked article at lewrockwell.com:).

Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson frequently reminds viewers that overall, he thinks vaccines are a good thing — but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have questions about Covid vaccines. In fact, he has a lot of questions.[…]

Tucker Carlson: How Many Americans Have Died After Taking COVID Vaccines? — STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

cartoon of the week: NZ democracy about to be submerged

Commentary by Michael Bassett:

National, Labour and He Puapua

At last some discussion about He Puapua. The document has been hatched in secret at the behest of the Labour Government and it had to be prized out of Te Puni Kokiri recently using the Official Information Act. Commissioned by Nanaia Mahuta, He Puapua was written by nine people, most of them with European surnames. It is a plan to introduce racial segregation into every aspect of our public service. It would divide our society into Maori who form 16% of the population on which 50% of political power would devolve by 2040, while the other 170 ethnicities in this country who constitute 84% of the population would share the rest. The 16% would enjoy their privileged position because they possess a drop or more of Maori blood. Without that drop, the rest of us are destined to become a rather crowded group of second-class citizens.

Mahuta carefully selected her group of advisers to produce a vision of how New Zealand could be brought into compliance with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When the report came to ministers in 2019 it wasn’t released publicly, probably because the Labour government realized that it might be unpopular. No mention was made of He Puapua at the time of the 2020 election. Instead, once re-elected, ministers seem to have decided to implement its separatist recommendations in dribs and drabs. Mahuta has given us Maori wards in local authorities, over-riding public opinion, and shortly Andrew Little will establish a separate Maori Health Authority. It will exercise power in the area of Maori health and also enjoy some rights – yet unexplained – to interfere in health decisions relating to the rest of us. He Puapua proposes separate court and justice systems and contains a timetable for the establishment of a Maori Parliament. We know, too, that the government intends to inflict a disgracefully one-sided history curriculum on our schools, pushing the notion that only Maori values have been important to New Zealand’s history, and that the values of the colonizers who brought reading, writing, arithmetic and a system of justice to a country ravaged by the musket wars in the early Nineteenth Century are of no historical importance.

Why is New Zealand concerning itself about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with its clauses about freedom and equal treatment? In 2007 New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States voted against the Declaration, and only came around to joining up (with qualifications) several years later. New Zealand joined because of political pressure on John Key’s government from the Maori Party. In 2007 each of the four opponents of the Declaration possessed well-developed human rights guarantees in their constitutional structures that protected all minorities, including their indigenous people. Moreover, there was quite a strong feeling that Maori, who beat Europeans to settle New Zealand by only 400 to 500 years, were hard pressed to argue they were indigenous. Certainly, they didn’t compare with Aborigines who had arrived in Australia 60,000 years ago, nor some of the first nations in other parts of the world. What is more, Maori had the security of a Treaty with New Zealand’s colonizers, Article 3 of which contained a guarantee that the Crown would “protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (ie the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.” No other colonized people anywhere in the world received such a guarantee. Helen Clark’s government seems, quite rightly in my opinion, to have decided that signing up to the UN Declaration couldn’t further protect Maori rights.

Read the rest

Commentary from John Robinson of Waikanae:

It is important to recognise that New Zealand has become a racially divided country.  An apartheid system of two unequal races is in place and is continually being strengthened.  All New Zealanders, of all political beliefs, should welcome the suggestion that the National Party may fight separatism and assert equality.  This is vitally important and even a socialist (such as myself) should support the move.

It will be a big job to turn this monster around, calling for firm statesmanship, standing above the immediate political fray, with a recognition of both the past sensible actions and the wrongs of both major parties. 

Thus, the Electoral commission was right to call for an end to Maori seats and National was right to support that, Labour was right to bring in a modest Foreshore and Seabed legislation and National was right to criticize the remaining differences, Labour was right to refuse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Labour was wrong to extend the remit of the Waitangi Tribunal and to increase the number of Maori seats, National was wrong to bring in an extreme Foreshore and Seabed legislation and to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  A clear admission of that latter wrong will clear the air and provide an assurance that Collins really means what she says.  That is essential, or we will all understand this to be just another empty political speech.

Please, force me to vote National next time.

John Robinson

More comments on this Chris Trotter post

new Coastlands building complete, KCDC occupies the top floor

by Geoffrey Churchman

The two-storey building, named Takiri II, is a mirror image of the existing Takiri I, which opened in May 2017 and both are named after the late Takiri Love, an original Coastlands shareholder.

Takiri II has a ground footprint of about 400 sq metres and has about 800 sq metres of lettable space.

The 420 sq metre top floor is fully let to the council, like the top floor of Takiri I.

Richard Mansell of Coastlands tells us, “KCDC lease the top floor of the new building. According to the property person with whom I negotiated the rent for the property, the premises they shifted out of and our one were very similar. The change to us was because of the quality of the new building and the desire to create a campus type environment.”

We’ve heard a tongue-in-check comment that the council should build a walkway between Takiri II and the KCDC headquarters directly opposite on Rimu Road, called ‘The Bridge of Sighs’. 🙂