Garner on National and Maori Party
July 7th, 2009 at 2:19 pm by David FarrarDuncan Garner blogs:
So the Maori Party offer Key the seats he needs to get over the line. Without Sharples and co, Key could struggle to get a second term.
He wants a second term – he doesn’t want the t-shirt saying: ‘I was a one term PM.’ And he’s being helped by Labour and particularly tough old Trevor Mallard. Mallard appears to be alienating the Maori Party MPs as each day passes.
I couldn’t help but witness the tension between Mallard and Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell in Parliament this week. The more Trevor needles them about their relationship with the Nats, the longer the marriage will last.
If Labour wants a shot in 2011, I suggest Goff grab Trevor by the neck and give him a smack in the chops – if he won’t then at least get Tau Henare to throw in the peoples elbow.
Mallard is seriously affecting Labour’s future chances of having any decent relationship with the Maori Party. One Maori Party MP this told me this week, “Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011.”
Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens. Labour have an opportunity to have a better relationship with the Maori Party now that the author of “haters and wreckers” and “last cab off the rank” has been exiled overseas. But to date they seem to be doing their best to push the Maori Party towards National – and that may be a decision they bitterly regret.
Hat Tip: Blaise Drinkwater
Related posts:
- Thanks to Helen, the way to entrench the Maori seats is to have Maori Party go with National
- National – Maori Party Agreement
- National and Maori
- Goff instructs Maori Party to support him
July 7th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Its good to see someone in the Labour Party has the balls to stand up the the haters and wreckers, to the racists, to the thieves that are the maori party. If only John Key could also grow some balls and throw the lot out of the tent. Who cares if they’re outside, pissing in? Leave them out in the cold where they can do less harm.
Could someone buy the maori a calandar and point out that the 19C ended 108 years ago?
They ARE the last cab off the rank; the last to realise that their time has been and gone. They had their chance to create a great nation and their ancestors blew it.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I completely agree with MyNameIsJack. If one Maori Party MP told Garner this week, “Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011″, then that really says a lot about their principles and arrogance. I know politicians can sometimes be rude and ignorant but Hone Harawira is on another level. I would not be surprised if he was the idiot who made that remark.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens.”
I completely agree, which makes Neville Key’s deal with the commies all the more hard to understand, surley Key knows that the watermelons will go running back to Labour at the very first opportunity.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It’s better to have a T-shirt saying: “I was a one term PM who made beneficial changes to the country” than “I was a populist three term PM”.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
MyNameIsJack and Ruby, there’s a Winston Peters who needs your help re-building his party. Good luck, morons.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Auberon, been reading too much redbaiter? How about contributing to the debate, or are you maori?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Sure thing. I’m not Maori. My take on your position is that ignoring the Maori Party, as if it didn’t exist and hadn’t gained seats under our current electoral law, is better than engaging with them and in doing so making them more realistic about what can and can’t be done, and in doing that make them realise the short-sighted, emotive and sometimes erroneous basis upon which they’ve generated some of their policies. From where I’m sitting that’s what National is doing. That it might help National gain another one or two terms and make some decent changes to the wreck of a country Labour left us is an understandably positive byproduct.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
BB why would the Reds go back to Labour?
The current lot are a damned sight more left (and more free-cars-for-maori) than any Labour party in living memory.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
can’t agree, I think its a whole lot better to ignore tha racist party and let it fall in to irrelevance. key will regret his dalliance with the dark side.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The problem with some of the right – as evidenced by some of the comments above – is that they don’t look back at the injustices of the past to understand the present.
Conversely, the problem with some Maori (not all) is that they won’t look forward to the future and what is required to make things better for Maori and for NZ as a whole.
While there will be some real friction, surely it’s better for NZ that Maori interests are aligned more closely with National than Labour – a focus on commercial/business achievement rather than dependency and class hatred.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Auberon, I was with you pretty much all way until you threw in “the wreck of a country” – countries like ours don’t toggle between heaven and hell at each change of government. Sure, it’s possible the country could be in better shape if some things had been done differently or not been done by Labour, but it’s at least as possible it could be a damn sight worse.
Most governments do most things reasonably most of the time, even if they piss off ideological opponents along the way. Key’s pragmatic politics may be a bit wobbly at times but it’s showing the way towards a positive inclusive approach. It might take a few of the pundits to learn.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Thanks Cerium, I guess my point is that we don’t have much room to move, given that we’re not a particularly wealthy country, and my real beef is that we weren’t exactly under-governed in 1999 but over the following decade Labour managed to take state spending as a percentage of GDP from about 30% (about the OECD average) to over 40%, with a not-surprising decline in productivity. Please forgive me for getting emotional, but I tend to use words like wreck when confronted with evidence like that.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Key could struggle to get a second term”.
Key is struggling to get through his first term with Maori… The Maori Party has no loyalty to anyone.. Key will soon find that he and his party will be just another watering can full of holes in their backs… from dealing with and trying to please Maori..
Vote:Bring back Winston… I hear you say.. or is that Don Brash
July 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
MyNameIsJack, your comments remind me of what my old man was told as a wounded returned soldier by a pakeha dickhead after WW2, ballot farms are not for the likes of you he was told.
And the sad thing is, you would agree with those sentiments.
Amusing that the Brethren who had to be dragged kicking and screaming on to the ship as rear only medics got ballot farms.
Heh, you remind me of the bloke who would not go to his daughters wedding because she was getting hitched to a hori.
Vote:Now he is whining that he has a legal right to see the grandkids, to bad , he gave that right away.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Auberon (279) Vote: 4 0 Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
My take on your position is that ignoring the Maori Party, as if it didn’t exist and hadn’t gained seats under our current electoral law, is better than engaging with them and in doing so making them more realistic about what can and can’t be done, and in doing that make them realise the short-sighted, emotive and sometimes erroneous basis upon which they’ve generated some of their policies.
That is 100% correct. The cost of engaging them and in doing so making them more realistic about what can and can’t be done, and in doing that make them realise the short-sighted, emotive and sometimes errneous basis upon which they’ve generated some of their policies is too much, especially when they have MPs like Hone Harawira who thinks he knows best and isn’t open to any challenge to his views whatsoever. Take for example when discussing having Maori seats for the new Auckland governence – the best response he could come up with to Rodney Hide’s statement that Maori could be represented by being fairly elected just like any other ethnic group when they were debating the issue on Maori TV was: “bullshit”.
It’s idiots like you and John Key who are willing to compromise to such great extents with the Maori Party that holds the country back from social progress. To take your example, you might as well be saying that it’s sensible to go into coalition with New Zealand First while agreeing to having their leader as Treasurer for the sake of getting into government… Oh wait.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
MNIJ – I suspect that you don’t believe what you wrote in your initial comment, but you’re just trying to turn the thread into a pointless flamewar and/or encourage other people to make similarly extreme statements so you can later label kiwiblog as a den of racists on the basis of the few who undoubtedly are. You’re pure troll, I suspect. That’s the charitable explanation for your post!
Everyone Else – If you agree, please quit humouring him.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Mallard has always been a liability. Cut the fool loose, Goff.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Key should dally with anyone who is representing us in parliament who has something potentially useful to offer. At the very least he should be prepared to listen to anyone that is prepared to talk civilly. Labour have been trying hard to look like an opposition party, but it often doesn’t come across favoyurably. My impression with Goff is he is trying hard to be something he is not comfortable being.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Well put Camryn, I shouldn’t really have bothered, but then I did lose my rag and call him a moron.
Ruby, it’s been six months, and I don’t for a moment think it’ll be all sweetness and light, but please, give it a chance. Better us than bloody Labour at the helm.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
And the sad thing is, you would agree with those sentiments.
Actually, you’re wrong there, but don’t let that stop you making assumptions. I would have agreed ballot farms were for all returners, not just some. just like I agree the beaches are for all, not just for some.
Heh, you remind me of the bloke who would not go to his daughters wedding because she was getting hitched to a hori.
Wrong, again. It is not up to me to choose my children’s partners. I don’t have to like them, but I would acept and respect their choice. Why don’t you learn to forgive and forget and let your father in law see his grand kids?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011.”
“I know politicians can sometimes be rude and ignorant but Hone Harawira is on another level. I would not be surprised if he was the idiot who made that remark.”
LOL that would (probably) be a pretty safe bet.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
As one who along with others correctly forecast the Nats would seek to work with the MP IMHO there should be no surprise that their relationship is working so well.
Again IMHO the relationship between Labour Ratana and the Maori faction within the Party was not natural. History shows that the Maori people were entrepeneurs from way back until they conned into social welfare by Labour to provide tame voter fodder fro the party. The Maori leaders in the 30s 40s and 50s pleaded with the then governments not to throw welfare at their people.
I see young Maori continuing to support a MP that advocates for opportunity not handouts. Have a look at the stats and talk to the MED about the numbers of SMEs being established and thriving.
The big fear for Labour is the combination of young Maori and young Asians who want to own and run their own businesses and be financially independent rather than on welfare.
Because Labour has no counter to that philosophy
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Camryn (180) Vote: 1 1 Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
MNIJ – I suspect that you don’t believe what you wrote in your initial comment, but you’re just trying to turn the thread into a pointless flamewar and/or encourage other people to make similarly extreme statements so you can later label kiwiblog as a den of racists on the basis of the few who undoubtedly are.
Camryn, I stand by every word I wrote, it was not a troll, it is honest opinion.
I suspect that you are the one standing ready to sling around the racist label when you don’t get your own way.
It is not racist to point out that maori are still reliving the past.
It is not racist to point out that maori’s chance at nationhood passed them by, their ancestors being too lazy to develop a modern society and nation. They were over taken by the onward march of human progress.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
It is not racist to point out that maori’s chance at nationhood passed them by, their ancestors being too lazy to develop a modern society and nation. They were over taken by the onward march of human progress.
Care to expand on this interesting statement?
What year did this chance of nationhood occur? What evidence is there that they didn’t grasp it bacause of laziness?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
MNIJ, most Maori try their hardest to move on and get with the times, but the previous governments and media kept trying to hold them back by labelling them as stoned rapist murderers who eat nothing but KFC and listen to hip hop. Not a good stigma to be placed on your head.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“Because Labour has no counter to that philosophy”
That’s because it is rubbish. I can’t believe that Labour wants to push people to welfare dependency to secure votes. Sure, they may tend to err towards welfare a bit much. But dependency decreased while they were in. And it’s increasing now under National.
And yes, I know it’s circumstances rather than deliberate for National.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
What year did this chance of nationhood occur?
Any time up to and including the arrival of a more advanced civilisation.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It is not racist to point out that maori are still reliving the past.
..well said sir….and they have to get over their IWI ( I want it ) attitude as well or further alienate themselves from mainstream NZ…
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
…labelling them as stoned rapist murderers who eat nothing but KFC and listen to hip hop.
From where I sit, that’s a lot of what I see. Add to that the general violence, the gang culture, the aping of American gangs by their youth and they’re on a long road to nowhere.
But that’s OK, give them the foreshore and seabed and everything will be all right.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I think in the long run we will thank the Maori party. Yes there is the odd few words not to alls liking, but this will improve in time. I think the only way forward is for a party to enhance real relationships with the Maori Party…
I mean has that clown pants Mallard matured with his years in parliment? I think not…
The MP’s in the Maori Party will come good in the end. I think it a great move to look forward with what the National Party is doing with the Maori Party…
I sincerely hope the synergies get stronger with the Nats and the MP…
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens.
Even there the relationship wavers between warm and frosty, depending on what Labour considers to be in their best interests.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
And Whafe, what about the future Samoan Party, Chinese Party, Indian Party? Synergies with them, too?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Clark was good at managing MMP. Key has learnt from that and taken it to a higher level. And Labour have gone backwards.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Putting aside how fucking stupid it is to have a race based political party in parliament. I don’t think the Maori Party has any loyalty to National or Labour. They are loyal to Maori only. They are only interested in furthering Maori interests, however stupid or racist they may be. If they ever get the chance to be ‘king maker’ in future elections, they’ll go with who gives them the best deal.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
MNIJ –
“And Whafe, what about the future Samoan Party, Chinese Party, Indian Party? Synergies with them, too?”
Grow up, that has no relevance with advancing our country, I am fairly subdued really, but that comment leads me to think you are a fuckin idiot, (sorry all to reduce to being personal)
You MNIJ really need to look forward….
(give me fucken strength)
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Has anyone noticed that Davids blog pages have slowly moved to the left since he’s been away in the land of dreams..
Vote:or it could be because National has moved to the left with Maori.. What ever it is the mood is changing..
July 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
And what happened to the referendum on MMP?
It is the least democratic form of representative democracy I have seen.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
RKBee – They call it ‘centrist’ apparently. Code word for “not-quite-as-left”.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
E Fire – I agree but am willing to give a chance to the Maori Party, but I will soon retract real quick if they are only in it for themselves and not in moving the country of NZ forward…..
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
RKBee – Redbaiter is not here today, that moves things away from the right a wee bit
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
It is the least democratic form of representative democracy I have seen.
Really? Tell that to someone who lived in Mangere, and whose vote was never going to count, ever.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
RKbee – that is because when you mix blue with red you get purple and thats where it seems the National Party sits these days….
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
George, it isn’t a choice between what you had or the current MMP. There are many ways to structure an electoral system that can provide fairer outcomes than FFP. MMP is not one of those.
Maybe you think it fair that those who voted (say) NZ First have no representatives, and yet NZ First tallied more votes than ACT who have 5 MPs. I don’t.
maybe you think its fair that at the election before last, Winston Peters was rejected by the voters of his electorate, but managed to get back in via the list. I don’t.
It is the least democratic form of representative democracy I have seen.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Methinks the lefties here like their pollies are mighlty pissed off that the MP have deserted them and are unlikely to return.
Get over it . Fact is the MP exist. Fact is Maori seats aint going to be abolished by the Nats or anyone who wants to occupy the Treasury benches
Fact is whoever get sthe support of the Mp gets to be the government.
The irony has to be that the Labour Party who professed great love of Maori and all things Maori drove them away and into the armes of Labours enemy.
IMHO the Nats and MP will find much more in common as time passes.
And Cerium look at the Labour policies since the early 1970s. Maori and PIs seduced onto welfare and promised the easy life . Every alternative positive policy smashed down by Labour who see financial freedom as the enemy of the State command and control of ‘their’ people
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
We may as well get use to the fact that under MMP we will get sold out to minor factions faster than shit goes through a goose.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Maybe you think it fair that those who voted (say) NZ First have no representatives, and yet NZ First tallied more votes than ACT who have 5 MPs. I don’t.
That’s because of the threshold, which the Royal Commission recommended be set at 4%, not the 5% we have now. They would be in Parliament if that was the case.
The fact is that NZ First had 95,000 votes in the last election, they didn’t want Labour or National, and you would deny these people the right to be represented.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
read it again, george.
YOU are the one stuck in the either/or worldview, not me.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“Every alternative positive policy smashed down by Labour who see financial freedom as the enemy of the State command and control of ‘their’ people”
I don’t believe this. It’s paranoic propaganda. Some of their policies (and National’s) have resulted in too much dependency by a certain section of the community, but I don’t accept that is deliberate.
You could as easily contend that National policies that contributed to a longterm core of unemployed have enabled the dependency habit to take hold.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
At lot of this seems to be predicated on the needing the MP to govern. The real prize for Labour, it would seem to me, is getting rid of ACT – specifically, getting rid of Rodney Hide in Epsom. The quite useless Worth has managed to commit spectacular suicide, and it seems to me almost any National Candidate will do better. If I were Labour, I would be making sure everything needed to launch an all-out attack on ACT in Epsom was in place for 2011. No ACT, and the MP becomes unnecessary to a Labour-Green-Progressive bloc.
Oh and here is something else – both ACT (3.65%) and the Maori Party (2.39%) polled considerably less than New Zealand First. If Winston does come back, and ACT is gone, then the Maori Party slides into total irrelevance.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
gd – “Fact is whoever get sthe support of the Mp gets to be the government.”
National didn’t need the Maori Party to form a government last election, what makes you think they’ll need them next election? If current polls are anything to go by they won’t. Key seems to like them though, so we probably will in any case. I only wish Key had stated that he would be willing to take them in regardless of whether he needed them or not before the election. I find it interesting that issues concerning the Maori Party are the ones he’s less clear on, and hardly ever gives a direct yes or no answer.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens. ”
And assuming Winston’s attempted crawl out of the crypt doesn’t work, of course!
(Shudder)
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
MyNameIsJack not me dear boy, my cousins son is married to the lass.
Now he is willing to to take the kids to their grandparents but the lass does not see why a bloke who told her you are no longer my daughter should see her kids.
Besides she was told Maori drop the tone of her parents street so it would be difficult would it not ?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Labour and the Maori party will always be naturally hostile, especially around elections when both compete for the Maori seats. In that sense, the Maori Party will always find it easier to deal with National, who don’t seriously try to win the Maori seats.
Problem is National will have to swallow some not only dead but pretty racist fish to keep the Maori party onside. The question is (as has been pointed out in the Winstonfirst thread) with everyone having pro-maori policies, will this create a niche for NZ first or a similarly targeted party, or will one of the other parties (act?) shift to try to pickup the anti-maori seats demograph.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
MyNameIsJack Are you in business, have you been in business ?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
MNIJ said: I think its a whole lot better to ignore tha racist party and let it fall in to irrelevance.
You mean NZ First MNIJ?
But I do agree with you on the electorate seat gerrymander that allows parties who win an electorate seat drag more MPs in on their yellow jacket tails.
The solution – reduce the threshold to 2% or 3% and abolish the electorate gerrymander. Much more democratic and representative. Winston (and 4 other NZF MPs) would still be there under that system, but even though he is a bigoted old prick, he does represent people (other bigoted pricks), and democracy demands that however much the rest of society despises them, those people deserve to have representation.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
AG said: And assuming Winston’s attempted crawl out of the crypt doesn’t work, of course! (Shudder)
Yep, as I have blogged, it is a scary thought.
But as I have just commented above, everyone deserves representation. The dilemma is whether people who espouse racist, fascist or otherwise offensive views should be denied representation. As in my comment in response to MNIJ I think not.
But parties like that should be kept out of Government by those who have majority support. That is a mistake both National (1996) and Labour (2005) made – to their detriment.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Toad, where is your list of insurance companies which have gone broke?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Act is history after the shambles of the Supercity. The Nat/Maori Party honeymoon will be over once Key realises he is shedding the Brash Orewa sopport. Trev is correct in antagonising the Maori party, because deep down, the Maori Party MPs know he is right. As the Nat lites return to Labour, Act disappears, then Labour’s chances look much better.
Vote:But we do need some policy Labour!
July 7th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The maori party is in danger of losing electoral support…..prior to the election up to around 70% of voters wanted the party to go with labour…while around 30% wanted national….
The comments about compensation from the maori party are to ease tensions with national and the white electorate….i am quite sure maori that are directly affected my not share keys and the maori party current position….
key stuffed up by allowing the report to contain such compensation recommendations…..auckland super city maori seats all over again for maori…
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Adolf Fiinkensein said” Toad, where is your list of insurance companies which have gone broke?
I don’t have a list. I never said I did – apart from AIG.
The points I’m making is that a number of them are struggling with their credit ratings and that I predict the Nats will consequentially not follow though on their election pledge to let private insurers into the workplace accident compensation market – at least in this term, which may be their only opportunity.
Key will, through his money market experience, have a far better handle on this than I do.
But my bet is that we hear nothing more from Government furthering this policy until after the next election. Especially given that he has put one of his looser Ministers (Nick Smith) in charge of the portfolio and I suspect Key’s confidence in Smith’s ability to politically manage such a controversial exercise is no grater than mine.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This opinion peice by Chris trotter was priescient:
A Hongi Too Far
That rumour has Mr Christopher Finlayson, the man tipped to be New Zealand’s next attorney-general, hard at work drafting legislation that will restore to our beaches the indeterminate legal status they enjoyed immediately after the Court of Appeal’s bombshell judgment of 2003 and before the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
It is certainly true that the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been repeatedly urged on the National Party by Mr Matthew Hooton, a right-wing pol- itical commentator whose “suggestions” have frequently anticipated the official policy announcements of Opposition spokespeople.
New Zealanders have every right to be alarmed by these straws in the political wind. The Court of Appeal’s 2003 decision had the very real potential to see huge swaths of the nation’s public beaches transferred into what, in effect, would have been private ownership.
Under our legal system, Maori tribal entities enjoy the same rights as any other form of collective body – be it an incorporated society, a trade union or a private or public company. As “legal persons”, they can acquire and dispose of property as they see fit.
As a gesture of goodwill, such legal persons may afford the general public ready access to their property. But if, for whatever reason, they decide to restrict the public’s access, there is nothing the latter can do about it.
The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law”, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title” came as such a bombshell.
The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law”, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title” came as such a bombshell.
Ad Feedback
Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.
The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.
Should Mr Key’s latest outreach to some of the most strident advocates of Maori nationalism, therefore, be read as a coded signal to their supporters that National is now ready to join them in privatising the foreshore and seabed?
If this is, indeed, National’s intention, Mr Key’s new-found allies from the Maori nationalist movement have pulled off an extraordinary political coup.
By convincing the National Party leader that the foreshore and seabed issue is nothing more than a dispute over property law, they have opened the way to a much more radical application of indigenous rights.
For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?
And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?
I suspect National Party voters see things a little differently.
In greeting Mr Iti so warmly at Waitangi, has Mr Key taken his campaign for the Maori Party’s support a hongi too far?
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/258693
July 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Toad, you are a liar and a charlatan. You make a very good Green.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
hj, Chris Trotter may be a “socialist”, as I am, but he is a very different “socialist” from me.
I am an environmental socialist who respect property rights. Trotter is being a racist prick on this issue. He can’t get his head around the unfairness of nationalising only Maori property without compensation. If he stood up and said he advocated nationalising all the foreshore and seabed that is already in (largely non-Maori) private ownership, I would have a lot more time for his opinion. At least, then, there would be some consistency about it – even though I still would not agree with it.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
toad, you are many things, but you are NOT a socialist.
A socialist will always put people first. Not plants. Not whales. People.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
The solution – reduce the threshold to 2% or 3% and abolish the electorate gerrymander.
This still does nothing to make elected members accountable to an electorate.
The great Australian Statesman, Paul Keating, once described Australia’s Senators as “unrepresentative swill”. I’d love to know what he’d call an NZ list MP.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“toad, you are many things, but you are NOT a socialist. A socialist will always put people first. Not plants. Not whales. People.”
Toad puts maori people first………….. ahead of the rest of us anyway
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
He can’t get his head around the unfairness of nationalising only Maori property without compensation.
from gblog
It is a simple matter of ownership. If the customary title of iwi or hapu to the foreshore and seabed in their rohe had never been extinguished (and whether it had is an issue of fact in each particular instance), then it was confiscated by the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Justice demands that either title be restored to those from whom it was confiscated, or that appropriate settlements be negotiated with those from whom title has been confiscated.
form the Maori law commision
“The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.
* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?
No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.
The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.
* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?
No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.
What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
so the greens consider this a just situation: The Foreshore and seabed is the property of people with indigeous ancestry for all eternity because those people preceded us?
What rohe are not affected and what tangible affects will be felt by future generations of “visitors” to tangata whenua beaches (to dabble in the wet part)?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Patrick Starr said: Toad puts maori people first………….. ahead of the rest of us anyway
Funny to see you aligning with MNIJ Patrick? Could you too vote NZF next time?
You are posting like a pair of racist plonkers. I don’t put “maori people first” Patrick. I put rights first and fair process first.
Iwi/hapu should own the foreshore and seabed where it can be demonstrated their customary title has not been extinguished. Because that would be the just solution – the Crown never acquired it by any legitimate Treaty-based means – they did it only becasue they has the numbers in Parliament to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act – a confiscation of private property rights.
But if it does revert to iwi/hapu ownership, we need to ensure that the customary title cannot be converted to fee simple title with the inevitable privatisation that would follow that as financial pressures are exerted on iwi/hapu, and if necessary compensate iwi/hapu for that restriction on their property rights.
And if there is a good reason that a particular parcel of foreshore or seabed should be in public ownership, then those from whom it is nationalised should also be entitled to compensation.
Patrick, I didn’t have much hope for MNIJ, but I thought at least you would have the commitment to principle to support property rights.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that in this country that commentators ,polititions and the genneral public have no problem answering the questions placed as to what Maori think?
Vote:But when Maori say what they believe, people get defensive, agressive and feel nervous.
Fact is so what!!!
You asked and they answered,THATS WHAT MAORI THINK.
You dont have to agree,but you cant deny thats what they think.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
And today we learn that Neville Key is almost certain to make NZ a signatory to the United Nations: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm
So in the space of four years Neville Key has taken the once proud National party from a “one rule for all” policy to one that says “I will do anything to stay in power”, including cuddling up to the Apartheid party.
Is there any chance we can have last November all over again please?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
” I don’t put “maori people first” Patrick. I put rights first and fair process first” ….. ok then – you put maori rights first.
“You are posting like a pair of racist plonkers” – but I’m not the one advocating for a privileged position for a particular race. I’m advocating that all races be treated equal – what does that make you Toad?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
MNIJ said: A socialist will always put people first. Not plants.
Guess that deserves a response. Because if we don’t put plants first, we all die, because we have no food supply.
A socialist, or a capitalist for that matter, who ignores environmental issues is just plain dumb.
I have to sat that there are others on this thread who are far form you economically (ie who are extreme right) but fall into the same pit as you MNIJ.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It’s quite ridiculous Big Bruv. The masochist in me says I’d rather have had the devil I know (Helen Clark) still running the country, than the devil I didn’t and still don’t know (John Key).
Bring back Don Brash…
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
…..and Toad – in my book the Treaty has about as much validity as my 1980 ‘life time’ drivers licence.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Patrick Starr said: but I’m not the one advocating for a privileged position for a particular race. I’m advocating that all races be treated equal – what does that make you Toad?
Hey, Patrick, the racism came from Labour/NZF in enacting the Foreshore and Seabed Act. They nationalise Maori property rights (or potential property rights, becasue it was done before they could be tested in court), but left non-Maori property rights to the foreshore an seabed intact. That’s where the racism (ie a different law forMaori to that for non-Maori) began.
I hate to admit it, because they are nowhere on environmental or social justice issues that I’m alos very passionate about, but Key and the Nats are starting to get it right on this one.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Patrick Starr said: …the Treaty has about as much validity as my 1980 ‘life time’ drivers licence.
This has nothing to do with the Treaty. It is peripheral to the argument. This is about property rights that existed before the Treaty, were not extinguished by the Treaty, and whether some other event or events have extinguished them in particular circumstances.
The Treaty, while it affirmed pre-existing property rights, is actually irrelevant to the debate.
Oops, Patrick, voting NZF next election perchance?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Toad – ;I am an environmental socialist who respect property rights
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Best laugh I have had all day.
So says Toad, who supports the right for Government to dictate to everybody else how they should run their lives and which party has a ban list that grows longer by the day.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Toad says:
“If he stood up and said he advocated nationalising all the foreshore and seabed that is already in (largely non-Maori) private ownership, I would have a lot more time for his opinion. At least, then, there would be some consistency about it – even though I still would not agree with it.”
That argument is a crock Toad most people are not aware of how much beach/ foreshore is privately owned a lot of that which is, is apparently due to due to waterline moving but the queens chain not being adjusted with it, coasts are constantly changing after all. The beaches people are concerned about are around cities and towns and the most habitable and desirable areas, what’s more since the greens endorse the Maori version of Ti tirriti you must endorse tipuna or Maori law version so when Margaret Mutu says her tribes rohe extends to Tahiti…. it’s a little more than “the beach”
Vote:[man the lifeboats!]
July 7th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“I hate to admit it, because they are nowhere on environmental or social justice issues that I’m alos very passionate about, but Key and the Nats are starting to get it right on this one.”
When a hard left commie like Toad makes that kind of statement it is all the proof you need that things have gone bad within the National party.
That little comment from our Green/Red troll should set warning bells off all over the nation.
It is time that we started firing up the BBQ at Crusher Collins’s place people, we simply must get rid of this fucking idiot we have as our PM, he is our very own version of B Hussein Messiah Obama, in other words he is a liar with a nice smile.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Clint, property rights means the right of people to own property, and to be adequately compensated if the national interest requires it must be surrendered. It means the right to do with your property things that don’t impinge on the rights of others.
It does not mean the right to do anything with your property, piss off you neighbours with excessive noise, pollute the waterway that runs through it into other people’s property, build a chemical plant with a huge chimney that pollutes everyone’s air for kilometres around etc.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“The Treaty, while it affirmed pre-existing property rights, is actually irrelevant to the debate.”
Maybe you should talk to Te Hau Tikanga – The Maori Law Commission – who holds a different view
Vote:(Article Two)
July 7th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
hj said: …most people are not aware of how much beach/ foreshore is privately owned a lot of that which is, is apparently due to due to waterline moving but the queens chain not being adjusted with it, coasts are constantly changing after all. The beaches people are concerned about are around cities and towns and the most habitable and desirable areas…
They are probably not.
But that doesn’t address the issue, which is why did the FSA nationalise without compensation all foreshore and seabed that was potentially under Maori customary title, but leave intact the fee simple title to that which was privately onwed (largely by non-Maori)?
The only answer I have is that the Labour/NZF government that passed the Act behaved in a racist manner.
So much for “one law for all”.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Patrick Starr said: Maybe you should talk to Te Hau Tikanga – The Maori Law Commission – who holds a different view
They say Te Tiriti affirmed pre-existing property rights. They don’t say it created any that did not pre-exist.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
under common law Toad the Crown can do as they choose. (life time drivers license?) The reliance will be on article 2
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Patrick Starr said: under common law Toad the Crown can do as they choose. (life time drivers license?) The reliance will be on article 2
Indeed Patrick. But the moral issue is should they?
Oh, an BTW, I refused to renew my drivers licence when they changed the rules. Still waiting for my day in Court to make the point, even though I know I would lose. But I’ve chosen to live somewhere very close to good public transport, and don’t mind forking out for the odd taxi fare when it doesn’t work for me.
So I drive very occasionally, but one day I’ll probably be caught.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“Indeed Patrick. But the moral issue is should they?”
absolutely the Crown should prevent it. Why should one particular race have a claim because they arrived on some part of the land first. These archaic practices get overtaken by civilisation and democracy.
Who owns the moon ? – is the U.Ns International Moon Treaty 1984 a fair recognition of customary title?
Vote:Fuck it would really hurt you greens to pay the USA a royalty for your moonlight – wouldn’t it?
July 7th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
One question I’d like answered is that given traditional “Maori property rights” are strongly related to maintaining a continued presence in an area, how much of the seabed can be claimed? How far offshore have Maori been maintaining a continued presence from 1840-just before the foreshore and sea bed legislation? Even in modern maritime strategy it is understood that the sea cannot be owned and occupied in the same sense as land, so what chance do Maori have of keeping a continued offshore presence?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“must get rid of this fucking idiot we have as our PM, he is our very own version of B Hussein Messiah Obama, in other words he is a liar with a nice smile.”
Did you fall for the lefty spin in 2008 that JK was the big bad hard right capitalist BB?
Vote:He is a centrist and never pretended to be anything but – you should have for Winnie if you wanted a racist, shit stirring one term wonder.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Patrick Starr said: Who owns the moon?
Okay, let’s swim to it shall we.
You signing up with Winston’s party then Patrick?
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Suspect MNIJ is already there Patrick. Is that the company you want?
[Qualification: comment location reference applies to both the the Earth's only natural satellite and to the NZF party.]
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
You should feel right at home Toad. The Greens are on another planet
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Patrick and MNIJ. Spare us. Find yourselves a room somewhere.
Vote:July 7th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
“Patrick and MNIJ. Spare us. Find yourselves a room somewhere.”
….. wot, and qualify for Green party membership – dont think so
Vote:July 8th, 2009 at 7:28 am
You’re such a limp commie, toad, you can’t even say the word racist and have to smugly imply it by asking if someone will vote NZF. Grow a spine you concieted eunich.
Vote:July 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Toad Says:
“why did the FSA nationalise without compensation all foreshore and seabed that was potentially under Maori customary title, but leave intact the fee simple title to that which was privately onwed (largely by non-Maori)? The only answer I have is that the Labour/NZF government that passed the Act behaved in a racist manner.”
I think Chris Trotter explains the reaction when he puts it this way
“For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?
And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?”
most people (including politicians and the public) would have believed that apart from ports there were a handful of beaches (3 or 4?) in private hands,. With that in mind, the Greens might have been expected to support groups such as Public Access NZ but instead you support a dissolution of the state of New Zealand and a power sharing based on tribal entities existing in 1840, by your hard line on the treaty. Your policy is derived from the flawed thinking behind the noble savage idea (Maori are kaitiaki of the environment …despite being responsible for the fastest mass extinction in human history according to archeologists writing in Nature) and an outsider activist mentality which sees the state as the enemy.
Vote:July 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Paradigm says:
“One question I’d like answered is that given traditional “Maori property rights” are strongly related to maintaining a continued presence in an area, how much of the seabed can be claimed? How far offshore have Maori been maintaining a continued presence from 1840-just before the foreshore and sea bed legislation? Even in modern maritime strategy it is understood that the sea cannot be owned and occupied in the same sense as land, so what chance do Maori have of keeping a continued offshore presence?”
One British expert concluded that it would be very hard to prove indigenous customary title and Professor Paul Moon (?) said that non Maori should be able to validate a customary usage of the beaches (wet and dry). Mixed in with rationality however is the thinking behind a closed (Maoridom) and open society.. My fear is that we will see signs on the beach: “Ngatahu but you are welcome to visit… blah, blah” justified by (“only wanting”) mana. Humans are territorial and this gives one race rank over another (whether it is abused or not). At present the beaches are areas of relative freedom the preserve of nature.
Vote:July 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Didn’t think Dunky has the brains to write anything intelligently?
Vote: