Wrong wrong wrong

June 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm by David Farrar

Chris Trotter repeats one of the great myths of the left as he makes excuses for legislating away the rights of Maori to go to court:

But, of course, your enemy’s enemy can just as easily be your enemy too – and in the case of the foreshore and seabed debacle this was especially true. Labour’s erstwhile deputy-leader, Michael Cullen, was telling no more than the truth when he pointed out that his government had no room to manoeuvre over the Foreshore & Seabed Bill.

From the moment the Court of Appeal’s decision was announced, Labour’s pollsters began to register a rising level of anti-Maori feeling in the Pakeha population. Clearly, it would require a strong, bi-partisan effort to withstand such political pressure. Of course, National’s pollsters were picking up the same racist vibes as Labour, but, rather than stand against them, the strategists surrounding National’s new leader, Don Brash, opted to exploit them.

The Orewa Speech delivered by Brash in January 2004, and the extraordinary shift in political allegiance from Labour to National that it accomplished, destroyed any hope of a bi-partisan approach to resolving the issues raised by the Court of Appeal.

I’ve seen Labour push this version of events often, and am disappointed that Chris has fallen for it. Quite simply it is a lie, and the dates prove it.

  1. Thursday 19 June 2003 – Court of Appeal announces decision
  2. Monday 23 June 2003 – Clark and Wilson announce they will legislate to prevent any applications for title

Yes Labour announced the legislation just four days (or two working days) after the court of appeal decision. I’m sick of the fucking lies about Labour backing down under a nasty Don Brash led campaign that finally forced Labour to legislate.

Labour announced legislation as their first reaction – not their last. They panicked – totally. Thursday they hear the decision, and within 24 – 48 hours they would have resolved to recommend to Cabinet they legislate.

Even more stupid is the attempts of the left to portray Labour’s decision as being linked to Brash’s leadership and his Orewa speech. The dates for those are:

  1. Brash becomes Leader on 28 October 2003 – 127 days after Labour announced they would legislate.
  2. Brash’s Orewa speech was on 27 January 2004 – 218 days after Labour announced they would legislate.
Tags: , ,

43 Responses to “Wrong wrong wrong”

  1. mwood1935 (6 comments) says:

    David – think you might be forgetting about the massive and sustained campaign undertaken by National during 2003 as the issue heated up. This campaign, as I recall, featured massive taxpayer funded billboards across Auckland featuring Bill English (who was the leader at that stage) with a slogan that was something like “keep the beaches for all of us”. Labour’s approach to the issue aside, you’re being selective in your summary of the history if you ignore the role of the right in whipping up a backlash.

    [DPF: And *all* of this was after Labour announced they would legislate. Look at the dates - Labour announced legislation just four days after the court decision]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Joely Doe (31 comments) says:

    Saw Chris’s blog and wanted to post – couldn’t remember the dates (Brash/Orewa) but it seemed off. Posted comment and received as my Verification code “Trator”. Seemed appropriate, and the comment disappeared into Moderation, probably never to reappear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Joely – my code was “colonal” which is appropriate since the post seems to be straight from Trotter’s colon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    You’re missing a date – the actual legislation wasn’t passed until November 2004, Brash’s Orewa speech in January of 04 specifically cited the proposed Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Labour was forced to change their legislation, which provided for consultation with Maori and this didn’t reach a crisis point until July of 2004, when Turia left Labour and formed the Maori Party. Your dates are technically correct but don’t disprove anything Trotter said and cannot erase the legacy of National’s race based Iwi/Kiwi campaign.

    [DPF: You miss the point. I never said National did not run such a campaign. I am saying that Labour's decision to legislate away the rights of Maori to go to court were made after just four days and many months before Brash was leader. They have no one to blame for that decision but Clark and Wilson who panicked. They should have merely said we will appeal to the Privy Council]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    They should have merely said we will appeal to the Privy Council.

    I’ll probably cop more demerits for this, but why are the Right so afraid of NZ making its own laws and standing by them? Why are you so hung up on hanging on to mummy’s petticoat? When will you ever grow up?

    What would Freud make of the NZ right?

    [DPF: Stop trolling. The Privy Council was at the time the court you appealed Court of Appeal decisions to. This is not a thread about whether it should have remained]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    So it is National’s fault for stopping Labour being Labour. They made a calculated decision when they passed that legislation and it has proven to be a mistake. When Maori want welfare and state dependancy generally they will vote Labour in droves, that is all Labour offers Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mwood1935 (6 comments) says:

    Labour’s swift move to legislate nothwithstanding, the problem with this post is that it suggests that pre-Brash, National was benignly standing by, supportive of the legal process being able to run its course, and unwilling to make race-based political capital out of the issue. This is demonstrably untrue.
    We all know that policy doesn’t emerge from a vacuum and this piece of legislation was forged against the backdrop of a racially charged public mood, which the right must take some responsibility for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,899 comments) says:

    Does it really matter to us ordinary folk who said what or when they said it?

    The foreshore and seabed bill remains the only piece of legislation passed by Labour that I supported, it ensured that the beaches of NZ remained open for ALL Kiwi’s, for that and that alone Clark and Cullen should be applauded.

    Having said that, I suspect that our socialist PM Neville Key will soon overturn that bill as a sop to his good mates in the Apartheid party, soon we will all have to pay a toll or ask permission from the local tribe to fish or swim simply because Neville wants to be PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    The relationship between Labour and National is by necessity dynamic. An action by one elicits a competitive response from the other. In many public policy issues it is difficult to pin down the exact point at which this chain of events started. The adoption of a particular policy by a Government may in fact be the culmination of policy work underway – with Labour and National “flavouring it” to make it their own. Thus a Government announcement isn’t necessarily indicative of when the chain of events started.

    Trotter’s thesis is that Labour’s action in removing the right of Maori to go to Court on an issue of landownership was entirely National’s fault. In this scenario Labour is not responsible for its own political choices; everything is the fault of the racist National Party creating a political environment that forces Labour to behave in a particular way.

    The cunning racist National Party and its boosters then go on to dupe the stupid Maori (who formed a party) into their fold. Thus the gullible Maori Party is the enemy. The only wise Maori in this scenario are those that are Labour Maori MP’s for they are smart in the ways of Pakeha racism.

    DPF’s thesis is that Labour’s actions pre date anything done by National.

    I suspect that what actually occurred were two separate things. Labour’s response was entirely driven by Helen Clark’s assessment that by quickly acting to remove the right of Maori to go to Court, Labour would neutralise the issue. She would do over Maori for they had nowhere else to go politically; her concern was a cold hard pragmatic one; swinging voters (between National and Labour) don’t like Governments “pandering” to Maori. She opted for these swinging votes and against Maori.

    In the event it was poor politics; National adopted a leader who had firm views about laws being blind to ethnic origins and he unilaterally decided to campaign on that anyway. Labour’s actions were merely grist to the mill.

    Clark’s big miscalculation was that in thinking Maori had no other political option than Labour. That is why Trotter’s thesis is so odd: why would the Maori party not seek to chart an independent course from Labour, and why should the Maori Party be the play thing of a “progressive Labour” given the circumstances of its creation.

    Look at the odd ‘group think’ in Trotter’s article: smart Maori stayed in Labour who abused Maori interests. Dumb Maori left Labour formed a Party only to be duped by the racist National Party (and Business Roundtable). The only innocent in all of this was Labour which would have been more progressive if the racist National party would have let them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. whalehunter (479 comments) says:

    of course, only whites are racists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Nice analysis Chris

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    DPF – I am a little perplexed why you are so agitated by another leftist attempt to re-write history to suit their version of events. It has been the left’s default position for as long as I have followed NZ politics. In fact, I have watched Labour and their toadies doing it for so long that my default position is I now trust NOTHING that they say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    i was so taken with Chris’s posting I ripped it http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/06/hostage-post-on-labour-and-foreshore.html

    Eye thenkyu.
    Lee – MWT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    I’m not surprised at all. Trotter, the fellow traveller, will do whatever it takes to advance the cause of socialism in New Zealand.

    It would be good to send him to Noth Korea for a few months to experience first-hand the joys of the system he propounds. Trotter is getting rounder and more rotund by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Trotter was looking very ’round and rotund’ when I observed him fine-dining amongst capitalist pigs at the Chateau Tongariro last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    That is a good post by Chris and it brings to our attention a very pertinent argument advanced by Rodney Hide.i.e.that legislation in NZ is made at whim rather than on a sound principled basis. If we consider the scenario that Chris puts forth then that is clearly demonstrated. Rodney quote the Dog Legislation of recent years. Al gets attacked by a dog and severely injured. The news is full of the attack and everyone is horrified. ( Note here He is not underestimating the severity nor the horror of the attack) however the pair of dogooding parties in Parliament(both Socialist) can’t write a new law quick enough to ban dogs and have them micro chipped.
    Rodney’s question was and remains “well how is that going to stop anybody being attacked by a dog?”
    Errr Don’t know but ” if you are being attacked you will be able to wave your scanner over the dog (and note here that you will have to go allover for the chips move around under the skin), and then you will be able to find out the name of the dog and talk to it!”. But what happens if the dog runs away???
    Well you get my drift, really mindlessly stupid actually to make legislation on a non principled basis.

    Which brings us to a very important subject and that is a written constitution that establishes the rights of individuals and the limits of the power of the state and determine the principles on which legislation should be founded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sarkozygroupie (207 comments) says:

    Manolo

    I and a few others saw Trotter at a boutique brewery in Mt Eden a few months ago. He was holding court with some wide-eyed acolytes hanging on his every word. The annoying thing was – apart from him drinking expensive hand crafted boutique beer the frigging hypocrite – was that he had fashioned his own private sitting room by placing a table and chairs in the (large) entrance way, necessitating everyone else skirt around him through the side entrance, and ensuring we all took notice of who he was because we couldn’t not fail to notice. Prat.

    I recall a similar situation of Kim Hill on a holiday show as the guest presenter showing us around Cuba. She struggled to hide the look of increduality mingled with palpable distaste at the way Cubans are forced to live, for the entire programme. Even her voice betrayed her disbelief at the state controls necessitating Cubans to break the law by taking in tourists to make a few dollars to buy food and toilet paper; the state control in the bookshop she visited; the age of the cars (50’s) and the ingenious ways that had been found to keep them on the road in the absence of spare parts including batteries and garage facilities. And the ‘placid’ way the Cubans accepted their fate which really surprised her!!??!!

    How do people like him and Kim Hill justify their way of thinking and then every day enjoy the freedom of democracy without ever questioning their outrageous hypocrisy?

    Time to start a travel fund to send both Hill and Trotter to DPRK so they can *truly* understand what it is, hand-on-heart, they believe in. They are the worst example of chardonnay socialists bar one; Nicky Hagar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. peterquixote (231 comments) says:

    Chris Trotter is an angry old socialist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. georgedarroch (317 comments) says:

    Labour chose to appease the slobbering racists and talkback hordes. That was a choice. Trotter is absolutely right when he says that anti-Maori feeling was rising in New Zealand. It was measurable in the polls at the time, and was real. It was being stirred by the usual suspects. The National Party sat there enjoying it. Labour may well have had to face an angry electorate at the next election, they may well have even lost enough support to put their Government at risk.

    But they chose their actions. No-one made that decision for them. They never even tried to fight for public opinion – I got the very distinct impression at the time that Helen Clark thought it wasn’t worth the large cost of political capital it would have incurred, and thus was a non-issue. This defense of Labour is a more shameful one as a result. It is admitting that you did the wrong thing, but failing to admit that you didn’t have the will to defend right and instead claiming you had no choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    Imagine socialists without propaganda and spin. What would they have without re-wring history all the time – Oh I know – they would need to face up to the fact their ideology has failed every single time it has been tried….

    Trotter is a complete muppet – I don’t understand how he looks at himself in the mirror these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bruceh (102 comments) says:

    How come those who are attracted by the notion that laws should be colour-blind to ethnic origins are called racists? Duh!

    Maori as original population can achieve ‘original status’ through our general respect for the underpinning notion of property rights – something which ‘progressive thinking’ holds in modest regard only.

    It was a property right claim that was to be tested in court in the foreshore and seabed issue. Maori, like all others living under our rule of law, should have been able to have their day in court.

    It’s a great pity that the blatant property rights abuses of Maori by over 100 plus years have not been primarily settled and compensated for on such a basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Absolutely correct but hey try taking the property rights off either band of socialists and look at what we get.
    Hypocrites from all sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Oh dear

    This debate got off the wrong foot from the start. It is the trouble with legal debates, most people do not understand what exactly was being debated.

    The original Court of Appeal decision suggested that Maori may be able to get “title” as opposed to “rights” to the foreshore and seabed.

    Title is a very european concept. It allows the owner to sell or mortgage the title. Eventually the title could be owned by overseas or private interests and they could then insist on the exercise of private rights by, for instance, excluding others from the beach.

    What the Labour Government offered was for the “right” to be recognised but that there be no title for it. Maori could continue to do things they had done for centuries, but they could not sell it. The deal with Ngati Porou on the East Coast recognised this and their customary rights were acknowledged.

    Rights were not taken away, only the ability to seek what is a very european concept concerning ownership, that is a title.

    National did adopt a very racist approach. They wanted to recognise neither the title nor the right. DPF may or may not be right and Orewa may have postdated the decision but the sorts of noise that National was making did not. DPF’s umbrage would be more persuasive if National did not ultimately adopt its stance to recognise no rights for maori.

    And the Maori party’s decision is weird. They have sided with the party that wanted to recognise no rights. At least Labour wanted to recognise the right but not the ability to title it.

    Act’s stance was actually principled. Their view was that this was a private right being discussed and Maori should be able to transfer it. At least their stance was principled. National’s stance was based on nothing more than a dog whistle.

    [DPF: Mickey does not think the right to go to court is a right.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    “How come those who are attracted by the notion that laws should be colour-blind to ethnic origins are called racists?”

    Because those calling the colour blind people racist are themselves the true racists, and they revel in their hypocrisy while callously oppressing the very people they insist they “care” about.

    It is easy to identify these people. They are anyone who takes Brash’s speech calling for equal treatment of all people as a path to racial harmony and claims it is racist.

    Those are the sort of people would pass the Jim Crow laws, shoot MLK, and lock up Nelson Mandela for more than half his life. They would own slaves and piously claim that they only did it because the slaves couldn’t look after themselves, poor things.

    They are not nice people and Chris Trotter is one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    I see that Chris Diack, doyen of the right wing and who once wanted to be a Labour MP and whose conversion occurred immediately after he realised that the party thought he was a plonker has posted.

    He stated “In the event it was poor politics; National adopted a leader who had firm views about laws being blind to ethnic origins and he unilaterally decided to campaign on that anyway. Labour’s actions were merely grist to the mill.”

    I agree that this is the nub of the problem and has been debated continuously for the past 170 years. The way I see it is perhaps simplistic but these are my views:

    1. Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand
    2. Eurpoeans arrived and signed a treaty with Maori promising that what was important to them would remain theirs.
    3. By definition adherence to the treaty would result in unequal treatment of Maori, they would be enjoying rights that pakeha would not enjoy.
    4. Other rights continue indefinitely. Just look at most wealthy families and check out their history.

    National’s supporters can get upset if they want. They believe in privilege and the preservation of rights but not if Maori enjoy this. “Equal treatment” meant preservation of the privilege they believe they should be entitled to enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. georgedarroch (317 comments) says:

    Mickysavage, it took it away, took away even the right to contest ownership in the courts. At least have the courage to admit that, rather than obfuscating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. kiki (425 comments) says:

    And now national can right this wrong by giving the maori back their right to have this issue questioned in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    I see, the foreshore and seabed act was “rushed” and a product of Labour “panic”

    So therefore we can repeal it so we can complete the deal John made with the Maori Party!

    Personally I’ll be glad to see it go, but really Mr Farrar like with the Trust thing yesterday this is a not very good, partisan talking point.

    [DPF: Again you win the moron prize. I think I see another post coming on highlighting all your factual fuckups. I did not say the Act was rushed. I said the *decision* to legislate was rushed and made in an obvious panic]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Seems to me that National was quite keen to legislate as well:

    The Herald on 23 June 2003

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3508821

    National MP Nick Smith said the decision would “open the floodgates to more Maori claims over beaches, estuaries, harbours and almost any stretch of coastline”.

    Iwi including Ngati Apa, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa, Rangitane, Ngati Koata and Te Atiawa are claiming customary ownership.

    Dr Smith said the whole issue had developed from confusion around the definition of land in the constitution of the Maori Land Court.

    The situation could be fixed quite simply by amending the law to include a definition of land that did not include the sea, he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Galeandra (30 comments) says:

    I’m not surprised at all. Trotter, the fellow traveller, will do whatever it takes to advance the cause of socialism in New Zealand.
    It would be good to send him to Noth Korea for a few months to experience first-hand the joys of the system he propounds. Trotter is getting rounder and more rotund by the day.

    Nasty, ad hominum, irelevant, spiteful….
    In keeping with many of the threads on this blog site.
    But then. I mainly read it for insight into the minds (sic) of NZ righties.
    Play in the gutter, get mucky I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Fuck them David. The Orewa speech was bang on and most people know it. This turned National into a party with something decent to say and gave it the support that Labour thought they had forever. Brash saved National and this speech was the business. I only wish National still had the balls to do what they think now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Mickeysavage
    Maori allegedly arrived here first. They did not originate from NZ, they are not indigenous. If we are to give preferential rights on racial order of arrival who is going to tell the Indians and Pakistanis they have less rights than anybody else?

    The treaty is a document intended to settle unrest at the time. It’s no longer relevant. If we are to honour every principle around 1840 women still wouldn’t vote –
    (it’s well past time to move on)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. voltaire (40 comments) says:

    One thing one can bank on is that Trotter writes in an artificial language that pretends to mask in pseudo scientific terminology his unwavering philosophy that to be of the left one needs to obfuscate and dress every political decision in terms of class warfare. The Labour Government’s law change was nothing more or less than pragmatic politics. Voltaire is of the view that that the foreshore and seabed claim should have gone to the PC and NZ would have coped with whatever the PC determined, after all if the claim was proven then Maori would have been hoist with their own petard as a NZ Government of whatever persuasion would have by Act of Parliament put matters to right and if Maori had lost then the status quo would have prevailed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    I guess I should not break a habit of correcting Mickey’s poor legal understanding.

    “The original Court of Appeal decision suggested that Maori may be able to get “title” as opposed to “rights” to the foreshore and seabed.”

    Just so we are clear: title in NZ land law represents the highest quality of landownership available i.e. the best quality “basket of rights” that someone can have in land. It’s a statutory creation. At the core of this basket of rights is the notion of exclusive possession.

    Mickey then mixes it with the common law doctrine of customary title which is also obviously a European concept.

    What Labour took from the Maori was the opportunity to have whatever rights in the seabed and foreshore made certain through the opportunity to put their case before the Courts. The primary purpose of the Maori land Court is to do just that. The purpose of any subsequent appeal on either fact or law also provides certainty. It is a basic right of citizenship to have one’s day in Court to get certainty.

    That is the system (for better or for worse) that New Zealand operates to determine issues around rights in land. Part way through Labour changed the rules on Maori because they did not like the potential political consequences flowing from a Court decision making certain the right of Maori in this land in favour of Maori who would have been recognised as its owners.

    Maori are justified in feeling aggrieved. This behaviour by the Government is extremely bad in principle and unfair to Maori who have not always been well treated by the operation of land law in New Zealand. They however have and must play by those rules; until in this case a Prime Minister comes along and unilaterally decides to change those rules when they are politically inconvenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Chris Diack

    My understanding of the law is fine thank you very much.

    “What Labour took from the Maori was the opportunity to have whatever rights in the seabed and foreshore made certain through the opportunity to put their case before the Courts.”

    How does this compare with section 33 of the FSA 2004? This states:

    ” High Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights

    The High Court may, on the application of a group, or on the application of a person authorised by the Court to represent the group, make a finding that the group (or any members of that group) would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1), have held territorial customary rights to a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed at common law.”

    There could then be negotiation with the Crown for redress (section 37) or the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve and the appointment of a board of guardians to manage the reserve. The purpose of a reserve is to acknowledge the exercise of kaitakitanga by an applicant group and to permit the are to be held for the common use and benefit of the people of New Zealand.

    Land is taken all the time for public benefit. Compensation is always paid. What Labour enacted here was no different than what happens all the time with land.

    The interesting bit of this debate is how will National deal with the issue?

    Brash proposed the decision be overturned and no compensation paid. If this is followed the coalition with the Maori party will surely dissolve. If however National offers more than what Labour provided you will be able to hear the howls of indignation from its supporters from the rooftops.

    I look forward to seeing how Key handles this issue. I bet he wishes he was still a money trader at Merril Lynch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “[DPF: Again you win the moron prize. I think I see another post coming on highlighting all your factual fuckups]

    After the last time made you look so good?

    You are turning into an angry wee man David, must be hanging out with all those right-wingers in Washington.

    [DPF: As expected you gloss over your mistake. Don;'t you ever ever get embarrassed at being wrong so consistenetly and on such simple factual matters?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. georgedarroch (317 comments) says:

    would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1)

    That’s not title. Your understanding is lacking. That’s the Crown assuming title, and then setting the terms and conditions under which Maori use that land.

    Then a few lines later you admit that it is a confiscation.

    I will be interested to see how National handles this. I suspect they’re going to have to make decisions they’re not comfortable with.

    National was active in fostering public outrage. Nick Smith talked about being contacted by “large numbers” of Pakeha angry about the foreshore, and National worked with the racists to try and use this as a wedge between Labour and a section of the white population. So it’s strange to see them in this position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Absolutely true George. Both Labour and National cynically pandered to redneck public opinion on this one. Of the parties in Parliament at the time, only the Greens and ACT came out of it with their commitment to principle intact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Galeandra (30 comments) says:

    DPF for your eyes ….eventually.
    “David – think you might be forgetting about the massive and sustained campaign undertaken by National during 2003 as the issue heated up. This campaign, as I recall, featured massive taxpayer funded billboards across Auckland featuring Bill English (who was the leader at that stage) with a slogan that was something like “keep the beaches for all of us”. Labour’s approach to the issue aside, you’re being selective in your summary of the history if you ignore the role of the right in whipping up a backlash.”
    Read it again, you maybe missed it last time. I need no expletives nor do I anticipate a langourous dissection of YOUR errors. Tidy up a bit. Moronic abuse says a great deal more about the speaker than the target.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Gumby (22 comments) says:

    I am one of those naive people who believe the law should be colour blind. The treaty was a nice way of saying we conquered you and you are now British subjects. We have honoured this by giving Maori full access to our resources / technology and treating them equally. Now we are all the same ie New Zealanders.

    Society evolves and it is misleading to suggest that the intention was to forever enshrine particular practices that were occurring at that point in time. Rather the treaty recognised that the Maori way of life was different and we recognise that. Now we have moved on (things change for all of us eg Magna Carta) and the same laws should now apply to all. Brash was tapping into this egalitarian sentiment. If you want privilege why not give it to everyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    My point stands David, despite your rather out of character nastyness.

    The foreshore review is reporting back very soon National has to repeal the Act to stay chums with the Maori Party, this is your first shot at softening up your support for the coming about turn.

    Thats all I said, you must be more nervous about it that I thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Meatballs (2 comments) says:

    It’s heartening to see that the F&S legislation is still a ‘live’ issue. One might even begin to have a certain amount of faith in the living status of all issues treaty related. Though, given the tenor of a few of the above comments, maybe that would be going far too far. Nothwithstanding these zombied emanations from the deadheaded I’m very interested in what this all portends. What, indeed, is the ‘where to now?’ of this still beating issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Sam Buchanan (501 comments) says:

    Trotter will always make excuses for Labour – but is particularly keen to do so when Maori are involved as he continually writes off issues around colonisation as “identity politics”.

    “The treaty was a nice way of saying we conquered you and you are now British subjects. ”

    Intriguing, given the British presence in 1840 was minimal. What did the conquest consist of? There were four British troops in the country at the time.

    “We have honoured this by giving Maori full access to our resources / technology and treating them equally.”

    Except for the bit about treating them equally, which we haven’t. And where does the Treaty mention giving Maori access to technology and resources? And when was this done? Is there somewhere my Ngati Raukawa flatmate can go and get us a new lawn mower?

    Technology transfer happened via the market as far as I know. Treaty didn’t come into it.

    “Now we are all the same ie New Zealanders.”

    With British laws, a British system of government, an expectation of English-speaking and lots of land taken by the government under highly dubious circumstances and never returned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote