ACT cleaning house
November 30th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe ACT Board has spent the last few months quietly cleaning house, to prevent a recurrence of the infighting which damaged them earlier this year. They understand that open warfare puts people off voting for you.
We see the results of the house cleaning in the Herald today:
Peter Tashkoff is crying foul over his expulsion from the Act Party because party leader Rodney Hide attended the meeting at which his fate was decided and voted against him. …
The vote was not unanimous, but party president Chris Simmons said a majority of 75 per cent support – at least nine out of 12 votes – for removing Mr Tashkoff was “comfortably” met.
ACT can now focus on two key things:
- Retaining Epsom
- Gaining enough party vote to remain relevant
November 30th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Peter Dunne hasn’t done too badly with three-fifths of bugger-all of the vote.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:12 am
You would think 2. follows 1. If ACT look unlikely to get more than 1.25% of the party vote then there’s no motivation for Key to give Hide a free ride in Epsom.
[DPF: Yes]
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Get Don Brash onboard.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:21 am
3. Make Don Brash ACT’s Epsom candidate, there will be no need to kiss Neville Key’s backside, the people of Epsom will vote for Brash without the nod from Neville Key.
4. Tell Rodney to fuck off.
5. ACT gain at least 7-8% of the party vote.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Brash may make some of the party faithful happy but would he increase their voter appeal?
Could he win an electorate seat?
Is he interested?
Even under MMP a party has to have some broad appeal to get broad support. Like it or not most of the votes are closer to the middle than the edges.
The Tashkent exit should have a minor effect at most, it should be a positive in a year.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Pete I think that Don would absolutely appeal to more voters. Many of those who voted National are more aligned to the Brash brand than the Key one – and remember who it was who revitalised National’s brand in 2006.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Pete, I think Don Brash will certainly appeal to the potential ACT voters very much.
And with his profile he would easily take Epsom. Hell, if they voted for Rodney they will surely vote for Don.
And is he interested? Don’t you think he would love to be a minister in a Key led government? That would be quite ironic, wouldn’t it?
Would be quite a laugh, apart from being disastrous for the country, of course.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Roger Douglas is still there, until he moves on & a new more eloquent spokesperson is found ACT will flounder.
My take is they need to be a more pure economic play, but accept the reality of democracy, Social Welfare / Universal Health / State Education are all going to stay, so the trick is changing the incentives in a way that restricts govt growth to below gdp growth, but can be pushed, so work out a balance of GST & as few as possible tax brackets ( maybe 3 if you include < $X,000 is tax free ) that mean you can remove WFF & all other stupidity in a way that is income neutral for families. In other words work with what's there but make it better with an overall strategy & remember it's a democracy, you have to have policies that the majority would support even if they won't necessarily vote for you.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Remaining relevant enough to get enough party vote, you mean.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:37 am
How successful was 2006? By that stage Labour were revitalising National’s brand. Brash put off some (including me), attracted others, impossible to say how many each way.
Brash will be 71 next year, do you think he will revitalise Act like Douglas has? They are last century’s men.
Vote:Act needs fresh new talent, some dynamism.
November 30th, 2010 at 11:39 am
First, I doubt very much Don Brash wants to get back into the political arena, as far as offering himself as a candidate. He would have to give up the 2025 Taskforce, his position on the ANZ National Board and others, all to put himself out there to be the target of vicious MSM lies (a la 2005).
Second, if they could convince him to stand, a better strategy for ACT might be to keep Rodney in Epsom and get the Don to stand in one of the marginal seats (a blue one, obviously). ACT != Epsom. That way, ACT may end up with 2 electorate MPs plus a larger share of the party vote.
Of course, ACT and/or the Don will have to find some way to neutralise the MSM propaganda campaign against them.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:42 am
DPF: Gaining enough party vote to remain relevant
How hard can that be? National voters got:
1. ETS.
2. Anti-smacking law still in place.
3. Electoral finance law: incumbency protections still in place.
4. Borrowing $250 million a week from our kids.
5. More people than ever leaving the country.
6. Catching up with Australia: John Key and Bill English gave up on that as fast as Helen did once in power.
7. John Key has had only idea since getting in office: NZ should become a financial industry power house like Ireland. After the billions we’re now pouring into our failed financial institutions and an Ireland on the brink of default, that idea was beyond ridiculous.
8. Ah, almost forgot his other brilliant idea: the cycle lane. How’s that working out?
9. Welfare: more people on welfare than ever.
10. Government: bigger and spending more than ever.
11. NZ credit rating? On negative watch.
I say, it’s time to ACT Now.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:44 am
More people than ever are leaving the country? That can’t be right. That’s what was happening under Labour, not National.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:49 am
” ACT gain at least 7-8% of the party vote.” and
“DPF: Gaining enough party vote to remain relevant
How hard can that be?”
Come on. As long as ACT remain hard right there is no way 7-8% of New Zealand would give them their party vote. They’d need to become National Lite to attempt that, then where would their core ~2% go?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:57 am
If ACT stopped being Garth McVicker’s lap dogs they’d get a shitload more votes. What we want is a party that focuses on economics – all the rest will fall into place. Don would be an ideal candidate, and I see no problem in having a 70+ year old PM as long as he’s fit and healthy. In the eyes of voters Roger Douglas is unpalatable, and Rodney Hide is damaged goods. I wouldn’t mind seeing Steven Franks back – he’d make an excellent deputy to Dr Don.
Vote:Please don’t try getting into any racing cars this time!
November 30th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
There is nothing hard right about ACT. They are populist left now. They are opposed to privatising mineral resources, in favour of gang patch bans, want to deprive brown people of their property rights… they’ve morphed into NZ First. They are a waste of time. I’m surprised anybody would want to be a member, or be upset if they were kicked out of that echo chamber.
I just want to see them disappear as they are a joke and an embarrassment.
To the matter of Tashkoff himself, while I agree with the substance of what he has been saying, it’s the loud manner in which he has said it which has undone him. I don’t think anybody in his position could do what he has done and expect not to be booted for his behaviour. In a small party especially, you can’t criticise the Leader in such a public way and pretend you are not damaging the Party as well. It’s a nonsense.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
BlairM that’s just an outrageous lie. What ACT opposes is the ability of anybody (brown, white, yellow, spotted) to enter into secret negotiations with a Minister of the Crown, when they don’t like the answer they get from the Courts.
Especially when that Minister has made his career securing sweetheart deals for the one group most likely to benefit from the secret negotiations provisions.
You’ve obviously bought the MSM smear campaign hook, line and sinker. Try reading their *actual* position on an issue rather than accepting the lies spoon-fed to you by the MSM.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Bryce Edwards was saying yesterday that that was by strengthening the socially conservative policies and weakening the ‘neo liberal’ economic stuff. Yes there was a revitalisation but not sure many people are too keen on slashing taxes etc.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
stephen – petter dunne has done ok for himself, salary wise. thats about it.
pete george – i suspect it wouldnt take much to put you off a party that was slightly right of centre.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Offshore_kiwi “BlairM that’s just an outrageous lie.”
Not at all, this is exactly what their amendment for iwi to guarantee free access to the beaches via iwi coastal-adjacent land does, and spits in the face of ACT’s ideology base of protecting property rights.
This is a populist stunt and part of the reason why ACT are increasingly becoming ideologically and morally bankrupt.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
dime – I don’t judge parties on where some people say they may sit on some artificial political spectrum, nor on what their on-paper policies are (they’re just election advertising). All parties have a mix of ideas – good parties get the balance correct for most people. Is there any political party in the world that has totally right wing policies and practices?
I judge them more on the quality of people, and whether they’re prepared to look at each issue on it’s merits. Sometimes social concerns are a priority, sometimes economics. Balance, not extreme.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I believe ACT has now become a fringe party. Yes, it might have a chance of retaining Epsom, but its credibility is shot.
Hide’s antics, and his love for the once despised “baubles of power”, have damaged ACT beyond repair, although Hide himself appears not to notice it.
The outlook for the centre-right of NZ politics is bleak indeed. The country continues to slide to mediocrity pushed by the hand of Key’s inept and timid Labour-lite government.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
You ACT types do not get it do you, your policy of picking a bloke who stole a dead child’s identity revolted the vast majority of kiwis, it seems that a lot of ACT types have different values.
LOL, you are going to have two old men in their mid seventies as the new face of ACT ? what will Brash go on about family values ?
And you have Hide there reminding people by his presence that his ideals are for the peasants, not for important MPs.
Key will have Brash and Douglas in cabinet, dreams are free, will not happen.
Want a right wing country, NZ will not be among them, might I suggest Ireland, they are doing real well with the low tax ideas.
Vote:What do they owe again ?
November 30th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
“ou are going to have two old men in their mid seventies as the new face of ACT ?”
Considering the life expectancy of his ethnic group and whanau, I reckon grumpyoldhori must consider himself ancient by having reached the ripe old age of 48.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Shazza, you might well be right, had those property rights been conferred in an appropriate way. What National’s bill does is enable iwi, if they’re unhappy with the Court’s decision, to negotiate in secret with a Minister of the Crown. In the case of the current A-G, a Minister whose career was made by negotiating sweetheart deals for iwi. It stinks of corruption, even if the smell is only perceived.
Further, don’t think for a second that every square millimetre of beach that is given to iwi won’t immediately be declared wahi tapu. They *will* prevent New Zealanders from enjoying their heritage.
And don’t make the mistake of thinking that because ACT proposes an amendment to a very, very bad law, that ACT supports that law in any way.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Manolo, the best advice I can give you is don’t feed the trolls. hori/zhumao are clearly caricatures of some leftie fantasy.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
grumpy, many of us didn’t like Garret before he was exposed as an identity thief. I’ve already said that there are many in ACT that are uncomfortable with their association with the “Sensible” lock ‘em up for life Sentancing Trust.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
The X factor missing from this thread is Winston Peters. At 3.2% he is in with a look. Winston will cancel out any return Don Brash may be considering as well as change the current coalition agreements, if he gets up.
Vote:Winston will be ACT’s greatest challenge to survival and relevance. Don Brash would go further with Winston than he would with Rodney.
November 30th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
While Minister of Revenue isn’t exactly a plumb posting, he has had the opportunity to push through a lot of tinkering. Somehow i don’t think Hide would like this as much, coming from a party that had consistently had 9 seats up until the 2005 election.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Shazzadude
“….what their amendment for iwi to guarantee free access to the beaches via iwi coastal-adjacent land does”
WRONG thats not what ACT’s amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill (MACATMB) will acheive. The MACATMB does not apply to land but to the marine area. Iwi coastal adjacent land is not a marine area.
In essence under the Bill any grant of customary marine title (which is actually a statutory grant of title) is subject to the right of public access. ACT’s amendment inserts the requirement that this access is “free.” This is done for both principle reasons and issues of statutory interpretation. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 includes a section providing for free public access. To remove the “free” in any repealing legislation like the MACATMB might be given significance by the Courts.
That said ACT still does not support the MACATMB.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Deprive brown people of their property rights, hmm, harsh statement, but looking at the facts one would have to agree.
To their credit in the past ACT did say that it should go before the high court etc to establish who owned the Foreshore etc.
To Labour’s shame they stopped Maoridom from even asking the question of the high court.
Now we have ACT going down the Kiwi/iwi path as a vote getting exercise ranting that the coastal coalition is right.
But what you damn fools forget is that it is grist to the mill for evil bastards who can state with some fact that ACT want two sets of rules for land ownership in NZ.
Want one rule, no problem, I do not care who loses out if all the Foreshore is put in crown hands.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Pete – thats what all lefties say
Anyone who has voted Labour in the last 10 years is a dead set moron. No offence.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
While I know we love chucking off at our MPs, I think we have to give Rodney credit for being an excellent MP who has achieved more than most. He is always worth listening to.
Don Brash, on the other hand, I think is disreputable and unfit to be in any position of national leadership. He cheated on two wives and dumped his families. He is truly a hollow man and a nerd who seeks out the limelight – and the blandishments of the latest flatterer. I know he is a clever man but he is also a foolish and immoral one and more suited to backroom jobs. But his giant ego cannot resist the media attention.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I’d like to see ACT live up to it’s tag as “The Liberal Party” and ditch the authoritatian groups (sensible sentencing etc) which seem to have become attached. Although they have some history of championing personal freedoms, they should make more of an effort to promote that. I realise that the economic side is much more important from the point of view of government, but I think an all-around liberal package would sell much better than a right-wing one. Might even win over some of the MSM….
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
dime – how would you describe yourself politically? Some of what you’ve said doesn’t fit with right wing conservative ideology.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
BlairM: want to deprive brown people of their property rights…
A statement you cannot defend Blair. What National is giving the iwi is property rights they did not have, and above and beyond anyone else. ACT is actually defending property rights, and does not want to conjure them up out of thin air.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Pete – economically to the right. smaller govt and all that. im not as harsh on welfare as some here though. im pretty liberal on social issues. couldnt care less who’s sleeping with who.. who wants to marry who etc etc obviously legal hookers were a god send.. dead against a lot of the nanny state shit the greens and labour love so much. example – it makes me laugh to see a fat kid eating a pie on his way to school. good for him haha
ive always voted to the right. ACT! twice and National twice.
I view Labour as FAR left as well. Not some centrist party “with a heart”
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Matt, I really don’t understand why you think Liberal = let criminals roam freely.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
BlairM, an invitation just for you as you have no clue what ACT proposes and why.
John Boscawen:
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Ah,number 12, forgot that one, just in from John Keyless: Asked “what are your policies that you will be putting in place for student loan repayments?”, Key said zero percent loans will remain.
Yep, we’ll continue to borrow $250 million a week.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Grumpyoldhori:
“Deprive brown people of their property rights, hmm, harsh statement, but looking at the facts one would have to agree.”
That isn’t ACT’s position on the seabed and foreshore issue. The position as I understand it is very simple:
1. Repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and reinstate New Zealand law as is it was the day before it came into effect.
2. The repealing legislation should provide for free public access to the seabed and foreshore area, for that is how the common law rights held by Maori have evolved here (i.e. whatever common law rights Maori hold they are now subject to this custom or practice). Various Iwi leaders have publicly and generiously stated that they support the common recreational rights of all New Zealanders.
3. The matter (which is a property rights issue) should then be left the Courts to determine. This is one of the key functions of the Court: to resolve property disputes.
Instead National are proposing to create a statutory title in the seabed and foreshore (marine areas), they are defining the statutory tests for this (therefore litigation will occur within the statutory framework of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and not the common law on abariginal customary title. And finally they have set up a system were a grant of statutory title in the seabed and foreshore can be politically negotiated with a politician who of course can be levered in Parliament. This is truely a first for New Zealand even though National make light of it: they claim its nothing special that a politician can define, create and grant a statutory title. Wrongly they liken this to Treaty settlements or the Public Works Act.
Neither National (nor Labour before them) trust the Courts and nor does it appear, the leadership voices of Iwi. All-in-all probably a good reason to leave it to the judges – it’s their job.
Foolishly National sees their Bill as an end of the process. Maori see it as a start of the process over both the framework and the statutory grants made under it.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Matt “I’d like to see ACT live up to it’s tag as “The Liberal Party” and ditch the authoritatian groups”
That has to be the only way forward for us. The right wing tag does us no credit at all. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the term. Rather it is the perception of the term by the general population that concerns me.
Vote:We ARE a liberal party and we should be positining ourselves as the third party, with the sort of platform that brings sanity in coalition with iether large party.
November 30th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Matt, are you an ACT member and if so what do you do for ACT?
ACT like any political party depends on volunteers. I volunteer my time for ACT as I am happy with the policies ACT has and the priority given to them.
ACT still has a policy of flat tax. Some think ACT should give such policies top priority. If ACT demanded National adopted ACT’s tax policy as a coalition agreement National would laugh. The is no way a minor party like ACT should dictate tax policy anymore than the Greens should dictate tax policy to Labour.
As an ACT Party member, I happy for ACT give the foreshore and seabed legislation a high priority. I cannot speak for other ACT members but I am sure that plenty of ACT members who would agree with me.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I’d rather they do something about the deficit first.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
You have to be very right of right to keep Rodders happy.
If Brash could get the moderates behind him he’d get a look at the thresh hold.
Unfortunately, National understands the public attraction to the moderates. So do the US neo cons. They will use the
moderates to get back the reins. Then pursue perpetual war for profit with a public moderate puppet.
I’m convinced if John Boscawen left the sinking ship to reinforce Brash, he would take a few Act -ups with him.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Matt I agree and would support ACT if it weren’t for the loony fringe of creepy blokes.
Vote:Hide and Douglas I have a lot of time for.
November 30th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Chris Diack interesting, but there is one small problem, Maori have to prove they owned the Foreshore some of which was sold to settlers and put in fee simple title.
Now once the land is in fee simple title the owners can leave NZ for some time knowing as long as rates are paid that they will own that land/Foreshore .
Yet, 150 years later the iwi that sold the Foreshore have to prove that they have continuous occupation of the Foreshore.
A nasty cynic might state that there is two rules in NZ.
I would prefer the Foreshore to be in crown hands, ALL of it with no exceptions.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Does that include all that is currently privately owned?
People who think in terms of voting right or voting left should understand that not everyone shares a black or white mindset.
For electorate I’ll vote for who I think will be best for the electorate, party is low priority.
Vote:For party I’ll vote to try and get the best balance of power. If I voted for Labour or Act last time (can’t remember) it would have been on the basis that I knew Labour would be out of government but didn’t want National to get an outright majority. If I voted for National or Greens it would have been to ensure Labour lost.
November 30th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
If maoris have a claim to title of the seabed or foreshore then why not allow them to test their claim in court? Because they are afraid they might lose?
[DPF: The new legislation allows them to do exactly that. The current Act took away their right to go to court because they had in fact won in court]
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
ACT seemed to lose its way when Richard Prebble left. He managed to combine a consistent liberal philosophy with political theatre. Rodney has tried to do this, but instead has just turned into a conservative blowhard.
I have no idea what percentage of the population I am part of, but there is certainly a gap in the political market for people like me: liberals who want property rights protected, liberty preserved and government restricted to the things that only government can do. ACT is a joke unworthy of consideration and I suspect incapable of rescue and National are the Labour Party.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
berend: I don’t. I see them as symptomatic of ACT’s problems, not so much a problem in themselves. They are not the best face for a party that brands itself as “Liberal”
Chuck: The only thing I’ve ever done for ACT is to vote for them a couple of times. And I’m not arguing about what they’re doing in Parliament, but rather how they sell themselves to the public. All the public ever hears is “cut taxes, lock people up, cut spending” etc. What the public should be hearing is “we support personal choice”, “what people want to do with their own body is their business”, “nobody benefits from drug prohibition except criminals” etc. There is a bigger group who would listen to these messages, and those who want the tax cut messages will understand the need for them.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The Foreshore issue seems to be the new abortion to get the right frothing. Am I the only one who doesn’t give a toss who owns it? And if anyone has to, then it’s surely much better the local iwi than rich foreigners.
Vote:We do get hung up on some strange issues.
Perhaps it’s because it’s just too hard thinking about important things like our dire economy.
November 30th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Then why does it need give the minister the ability to do backroom deals?
[DPF: Because lawyers make less money if agreements are reached out of court]
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Pete George:
“2. The repealing legislation should provide for free public access to the seabed and foreshore area,
Does that include all that is currently privately owned?”
If you mean the 12.5k largely freehold fee simple titles in the seabed and foreshore which are mostly a result of erosion or encroachment of the sea then the answer is no.
These type of titles are the at the apex of our system of landownership. The rights associated with them are already defined and settled at law. There is no property dispute here. Therefore any repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 would not chance the incidences of ownership of these titles.
These titles have a different quality or incidences of ownship than a customary title granted as a result of customary use under the common law.
The key concept to grasp is that all “property rights” are not equal, they have different qualities or incidences.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
BeaB: Personally I’d have prefered it Aunty Helen had left well enough alone and let them try their luck in court. But no, she had to deprive Maori (not to mention any other New Zealanders who might have had a claim) of their common law rights.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“DPF: The new legislation allows them to do exactly that. The current Act took away their right to go to court because they had in fact won in court]”
Yes. But Iwi can only go the Court under the framework of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill (MACATMB), not under the common law jurisdiction of the Court. The MACATMB (like Labour’s law) essentially ousts the common law jurisdiction of the Courts. Thus Maori are getting a partial restoration of their right to recourse to the Courts but whatever common law rights they had in the seabed and foreshore are gone for good. The ability of the New Zealand Courts to development this part of the law (like in Australia) is gone.
That’s why Maori are so keen on being able to muscle the pols to get these grants by negotiation. This may or may not work for them depending on the politics of the day. That is a terrible development for New Zealand – it politicalises what is a property dispute.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Clark and Cullen (and Goff, King etc) created the Maori Party by their appallingly high-handed contempt for human and legal rights. They are really the most awful people who did serious damage to our society and economy. If I were a hater like some of these guys, I know where I would be directing my venom.
Key’s govt now has to try to clean up the mess in much harder circumstances with so many interest groups and extremists making such a meal of it. He is trying to steer a moderate path but will never please everyone and shouldn’t even try.
Much of it thinly disguised racism and hatred, god knows why, for Maori.
I suspect, whatever happens, in 50 years time my grandchildren and their kids will be enjoying the beaches just as my generation has. And, if climate change really does happen, there might be even more of it for them to enjoy. And better weather!
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Matt: They are not the best face for a party that brands itself as “Liberal”
That most stupid slogan “The liberal party” is gone. And for good reasons. No one has any idea what liberal means, and your comments prove the point. This is about classical liberalism. Huh? Says 99.999% of the population.
For my part, government locking up criminals is the sole reason for their existence. Good on ACT to focus on that.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Pete – youre friggen insane. If national had governed alone, we might be in a better position than we are now.
to me, economic issues outweigh any social issues. hence i vote national or ACT! would certainly look at voting for a new right wing party.
i could never vote labour, they are spiteful fucks who hate my kind – high earning, straight, white males.
the greens are communist which goes against everything i believe in.
whos left? the maoris? no thanks
peter “my salary never changes” dunne? no thanks
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Sir Roger Douglas is publishing a series of short vids on his Facebook page at the moment. Titled “Who Really Cares” it looks at New Zealand’s social ills and ACTs policies for dealing with them. The first was an introduction. The second looked at the youth minimum wage and the third New Zealand’s drinking culture.
Hardly the baby-eating stuff the MSM like to associate with “far right” ACT. What a shame they’ll only ever be seen by those who follow Sir Roger on FB.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
berend: But why take votes off the authoritarian fringe of the National party when they could be taking votes off the Greens? In the first case, the party is irrelevant and the Nats will treat it as such. In the second case, the party could make the difference to the Nats governing or not. Even a couple of percent taken off the Greens would be worth more than 10% taken off the Nats.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Thanks for the tip Manolo – I didn’t know he was on FB.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
matt: authoritarian fringe
Locking up criminals for longer is authoritarian Matt.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
huh, did I spell it wrong?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“Chuck: The only thing I’ve ever done for ACT is to vote for them a couple of times. And I’m not arguing about what they’re doing in Parliament, but rather how they sell themselves to the public. All the public ever hears is “cut taxes, lock people up, cut spending” etc. What the public should be hearing is “we support personal choice”, “what people want to do with their own body is their business”, “nobody benefits from drug prohibition except criminals” etc. There is a bigger group who would listen to these messages, and those who want the tax cut messages will understand the need for them.”
Matt, thanks for your vote but ACT cannot be all thing to all people. It sounds like the party most to your liking the Librarians. However, they will never achieve half a percent of the vote. If ACT adopted their policies they would be in a similar position. If legalizing drugs is your main issue then you could be interested in the Legalize Marijuana Party but there again you would be wasting your vote.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“DPF: Because lawyers make less money if agreements are reached out of court”
Yes I can see negotations with the Attorney General will not involve expensive lawyers – just as likely as snow in Tonga.
Litigation can be expensive for the parties but down the line it can save money as precedents are established. Thus the law provides certainty evolves to meeting contemporary circumstances and saves future potential litigation costs.
Once the Courts declare the law then the negotiations start.
The key thing is that Courts are immune from political pressure. Politicians are not: and that will be expensive and result in uncertainity.
National made a critical mistake by lumping the seabed and foreshore issue into the 2014 treaty settlements timetable. This isn’t a treaty settlement issue.
There was an outside risk that the Courts might go “way out” on this issue if it came before them under their common law jurisdiction. But I would rather complex property disputes are settled by judges than opinion poll reading pols.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Chuck: heh, I couldn’t care less about drugs. However I do care about gangs getting rich from selling them. The reason no-one votes for the Libertarians is that everyone knows it’s a wasted vote. If they had some decent candidates and perhaps a safe electorate seat then who knows.
ACT (or whatever party replaces them) should choose at least some candidates to appeal to the youngish liberal set who up until now have mostly voted for the Greens. It’s not impossible – much of the classical liberal philosophy would be a match, especially with those upset about the communist takeover of the Greens in the last few years.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Matt – maybe Nandor would be a good start. He was always one of the less rabid members of the greens, and came up with some awesome ideas especially around opensource software. Shame he was in the same party as Bradford et al.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
gazzmaniac: Yeah I agree. The trouble would be to convince *him*
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
There are ACT supporters who want it to be a the political wing of the ghouls at the SST?! Till now I’d assumed Garrett was a pill bitterly swallowed in return for access to the SST’s mailing list and funding from it’s shadowy financial backers (whom it consistently refuses to name, making NZF look like paragons of openness by comparison).
ACT’s economic policies are based on years of careful thinking and research by Roger Douglas, refined by input from any number of sane, intelligent party members. In stark contrast its “law and order” policies are based on unresearched emotive rhetoric, delivered over the sobs of manipulated victims by a man who stole the identity of a dead baby, manipulated by McVicar and his ceaseless craving for revenge.
Admittedly the latter is more immediately saleable to an electorate which has been fed lies and distortions about the “uncontrollable tide of crime sweeping all before it”. But not only would one hope that those in charge of the party had more integrity than to continue to peddle snake oil, but that they’d realise that small parties can promote only one foundation concept (which can be a series of related policies) and that by allowing the party’s agenda to be set by McVicar and Garrett they’ve subsumed it’s branding on economic reform and protection of property rights.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Sorry Matt, should have been:
matt: authoritarian fringe
Locking up criminals for longer is NOT authoritarian Matt.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Rex you’re far more eloquent than I
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
berend: yes it is, ask political compass
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
berend – killing them is certainly authoritarian, and it’s what many of the SST people want. It’s also what classic liberals do not want.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Yes, Rex, a single issue party is a real vote drawer.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
so gazzmaniac, three strikes you’re out is authoritarian?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“that by allowing the party’s agenda to be set by McVicar and Garrett they’ve subsumed it’s branding on economic reform and protection of property rights.”
This is a complete fiction. ACT ran on Zero Tolerance for Crime and truth in sentencing under Richard Prebble as Leader prior to the formation of the SST.
The SST was and still might be a charitable trust – it’s never given any money to ACT. This is a canard often parroted by the Left.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Don’t get upset Chris. These anti ACT commentators are National party voters who have no policy win to talk about, so they start whining about ACT.
Had a look at my 12 point list guys?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
ACTs problem is that its never been able to streamline and sell its full liberal message (and yes it is a liberal one….free markets and free people are not the ideals of any other political philosopy) ..not because people don’t want it,indeed many do and agree with ACT on various issues…but that it hasn’t been able to get that message fully consistent with the economic and social sides presented on an equal footing and then be consistent on expousing them both as equally,instep siblings underpining a free society.
ACT cannot NOT fight for drug legalization if its truly to be a party of CONSISTENT freedom and human rights…theres no choice in that regard…if it trys to pick and choose betweeen upholding certain rights and freedoms while staying quiet on others it ends up where it is today…a party little understood by most thats fighting against itself…. a toxic conservative strain at odds with its liberal heart.
Three strikes and a firmer law and order policy stance is NOT in conflict with ACTs liberal/freedom side…indeed the latter is again insepperable from the former…they must go hand in hand if individual liberty is to be protected.To protect private property rights strong and hard law and order must be enforced.The only real issue I have with three strikes is the inclusion of Incest as a strike offence…?Why?For what purpose? If its between consenting adults it is not by definition a crime and certainly not a violent one on a par with murder,assault,rape etc,The issue of child sex abuse is already properly covered elsewhere so its not needed.
Liberty is not license…social liberty doesn’t mean a relaxed position on real crime and violence…quite the reverse…those who violate the rights of others must be held to account and dealt with with the full weight of the states monopoly of retalitiory force.Up to the point before your fist touchs the next persons nose you have the right to swing as often and as hard as you like…the moment you cross that line you are fully responsible for any damage done.A civilised,just and moral society draws that clear objective line and holds to it….sadly we don’t live in that society…yet.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
berend, three strikes is not why I voted for ACT. I voted for their economic policy, well aware that their zero tolerance policy would be promoted on the back of that. I feel the economic policy is of far greater importance, however I’m still not all that comfortable with their law and order policy.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
With one exception I’ve voted ACT since ACT has been an option.
That would probably change if Brash joined the party as a candidate (and certainly would should he be given the leadership).
I vote ACT because of their policy of targeting intelligent people rather than party hacks as their top candidates as well as their right wing financial bias.
Rex, Hori,I’d happily vote for Garrett ahead of any Winston First dickhead or quasi-communist union scum Labour puts up.
Garrett has far more integrity!
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Good old Rex, it is nice to read his soft on crime posts, refreshing to see how he thinks it is better for us Kiwis to have thugs, robbers, the corrupt, and general low life living among us.
All very nice….of course Rex says all this from the comfort of Australia, you see Rex does not actually want to live in that society himself, it’s far to dangerous.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
bb – that’s all very well until you’re the one put in jail for a crime you didn’t commit.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I don’t understand anyone who supports the Act party. I can only assume that Act supporters are young people who never lived thru the 80s.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I don’t understand anyone who votes for the Labour party. I can only assume that Labour supporters are undead zombies who never lived thru the 2000s.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
The 80s?
The early 80s when the commynists were so bloody useless Muldoon had no opposition and went power mad?
The mid 80s when the Great and Good Sir Roger saved NZ?
The late 80s when first the demented Lange then the cowboy music loving Palmer set about buggering up all the good the Great and Good Sir Roger had done?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
As a former many-time ACT voter, it amazes me that here at the end of 2010 anybody would regard ACT as anything but a bunch of failed poseurs and grasping halfwits, judging by their pathetic non-performance under Neville Key and his gang of socialist racist totalitarians.
ACT doesn’t need to clean house, it needs to burn the fucking house down and stop pretending. Above all, stop clinging on to this vain Epsom farce.
A NEW PARTY MUST BE BORN TO REPRESENT THE WORKERS* PRODUCERS AND BUSINESSES OF THIS COUNTRY BEFORE ALL OF THEM BUGGER OFF TO AUSTRALIA.
Geddit? Does anybody geddit at all?
*Worker=Small business owner and the self-employed. Also just about everybody who holds down a JOB (remember them?).
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Dave Mann – YES! Make it appeal to youth. And get rid of that god damn sensible sentancing trust while they’re at it. I’m sure someone with a marketing background can come up with a good plan – if the left can do it I am sure the right can.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
gazz
Nobody who has ever been in jail is guilty, just ask them.
Come to think of it…just ask D4J.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Oh look the slime pus ball yellow back cowardly big bruv putting the knife in again. You need a big lesson creep.
Face to face you scumbag mongrel piece of shit. Go on email Farrar you gutless nark.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Why don’t you both play nicely or fuck off? Your incessant fighting is pissing everyone else off. And D4J have you installed your email filter yet?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
FFS how hard could it be????
Anybody with more than half a brain could write a killer manifesto on the back of a fucling TABLE NAPKIN!!!
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Why don’t you then?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Chris Diack is right when he says: “These titles have a different quality or incidences of ownship than a customary title granted as a result of customary use under the common law.”
As the Privy council has found in numerous rulings, and as upheld by the court of appeal in the Ngati Apa case, freehold title is constrained by native title, (not the other way around as is argued by ACT [and Chris]in defense of their position.)
Here is just one quote, there are plenty of others. This is cited case law.
Lord Denning affirmed the same rule in Oyekan v. Adele, [1957] 2 All E.R. 785, at p. 788:
In inquiring . . . what rights are recognized, there is one guiding principle. It is this: The courts will assume that the British Crown intends that the rights of property of the inhabitants are to be fully respected. Whilst, therefore, the British Crown, as Sovereign, can make laws enabling it compulsorily to acquire land for public purposes, it will see that proper compensation is awarded to every one of the inhabitants who has by native law an interest in it; and the courts will declare the inhabitants entitled to compensation according to their interests, even though those interests are of a kind unknown to English law. .
There are a bunch of other privy council rulings in the same vein at this address.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154597901251210
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
gazz
I voted for ACT because of their well proven economic policy and their law and order policy, I bloody well support getting tough on criminal scum.
Half the problem with ACT is that they have attracted the libertarian element, the same element who never get close to gaining a seat in the house when they stand their own candidates, for some reason these losers have attached themselves to ACT and ACT have been dumb enough to let them.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
OK Gazz…. here’s a rough first draft. This took 25 minutes. Obviously its not perfect…. but it is a start and, OK, I used a rather large napkin and smallish writing…. but anyway…
- NZ is a land of immigrants from diverse parts of the globe. There is no justification for any race-based legislation which favours one race over another. The Treaty of Waitangi, interesting historically as it is, will have no place in modern NZ lawmaking. New Zealanders will be equal under the law.
- A healthy working environment will allow and encourage trade unions to not only exist but actively campaign for their members, although our government will not take any part in legislating, arbitrating or otherwise interfering with the process of negotiations between unions and their employers.
- NZ will live or die economically on its exports of real tangible products and services. Our government’s policies will actively encourage exporting.
- Our government will act and legislate to reward productive work wherever it is done, from the individual employee to the largest business corporation, and our taxation policies will focus on actively encouraging productive work.
- All welfare benefits will be phased down to 25% of their current levels in the first term of our government. There is no place for any able-bodied citizen to live work-free off the worker and taxpayer except in the most dire of short term crises. As an aid to this, minimum wage legislation will be immediately discontinued so that businesses can employ people who wish to become productive members of society. Properly functioning, unions will act as a counterbalance to the power of the employer so that work is paid for at its true value.
- We will immediately lower our taxation schedules by 25% and, although we will do undertake to ‘cut taxes to the bone’, we will focus our spending on the core areas of Public Health, Education, Policing and Law, Defence and vital infrastucture. All unnecessary and wasteful government spending such as social conditioning, obstructive anti-productive regulations and ‘conservation’ issues will immediately be reviewed with a view to phasing them out in our first term.
- Our government sees no value in pandering to the fiction that the planet’s climate is being adversely affected by mankind and we will not subscribe to any protocols which have ‘climate change’ as a component of their philosophy. Our focus will be on expansion of mankind’s global reach and footpring rather than ‘sustainability’, which is a negative and unproductive concept. All members of the Green Party and Greenpeace will be immediately arrested and made to work in forced labour camps preferably West Coast underground coal mines. (OK… just joking about that one!)
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
David Garrett stood up in the House and complained about Maori having the right to charge access to beaches. It was in a parliamentary question, which gets signed off by caucus, so what other conclusion can I come to than that ACT does not believe in property rights for brown people?
Or was he kidding?
ACT are done, they have screwed the pooch, jumped the shark, they no longer represent genuine laissez faire policies, and they are run by a grandstanding fool.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Peter Tashkoff:
You are welcome to point to the passage in Ngati Apa that states that the New Zealand freehold estate of fee simple is subject claims under customary title. Even if you could (which you can’t) its obiter – the matter wasn’t substantively heard.
The reason for this is simple. The freehold estate of fee simple in New Zealand is derived from Crown grant. In order to make that grant, the Crown must first gain title i.e. fully extinguishing customary title derived from the exercise of customary rights. It did this through purchasing. Thats what the preemption clause of the Treaty was all about.
Remember most of the 12.5k titles are fee simple and arose by erosion or encroachment i.e. pre existing title to land that was sold by Maori. Its possible that in some rare cases, Maori freehold (the land was never sold) has been granted because its been recognised as such by the Maori Land Court. However most of the titles are for the freehold estate of fee simple.
Therefore the freehold estate of fee simple in the seabed and foreshore means the land itself isn’t subject to any claims based on customary title. At best Maori might have a monetary claim under the Land Transfer Act against the Crown. But not against the land itself. If there some some skullduggery regarding the original purchase from Maori then that would be subject to a treaty claim. But that is against the Crown not the holder of the title.
As an interesting aside some seabed and foreshore was “sold” by Maori in the South Island deeds of Sale for example with these transactions alreadyhaving been subject to a full and final Treaty settlement process. That’s why Ngai Tahu want direct negotiations with a Pol and not litigation in the Courts – they do not fancy their chances with the judges.
The case law extract provided does not support the claim regarding the freehold estate of fee simple in New Zealand.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
BlairM:
Yes you have tried to make that point elsewhere. Why don’t you read the supplementary question – it isn’t that hard. And then come back and play.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Dave Mann, you’ve got my vote.
But only if you’re serious with:
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Half the problem with ACT is that they have attracted the libertarian element, the same element who never get close to gaining a seat in the house when they stand their own candidates, for some reason these losers have attached themselves to ACT and ACT have been dumb enough to let them.
Got some news for you…ACT was founded as a Libertarian party….its principles are Libertarian…they were written down by the man who left in disgust to found Libertarianz…Ian Fraser.Without those principles front and centre ACT has slowly self destructed.
ACT has floundered in direct propotion to its abandonment of its reason for being…it allowed a nasty conservative cliche to wield power and distort its simple and good message…individual freedom within a free market.
Having said that we have plenty of government knows best socialist parties in NZ…ACT is the only one (at least in Parliment) that offers an alternative.If not ACT then who…?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“by the man who left in disgust to found Libertarianz”….who promptly fell flat on their face.
As for the claim that ACT was founded by Ian Fraser, well I am calling bullshit on that one. Douglas and Quigley founded ACT back in 93, the libertarian loser element came later on (Roy and co)
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
James:
Try reading the National Party constitution: free enterprise and limited government. Dr Brash quoted from it in his recent speech.
You are wrong when you state: “ACT was founded as a Libertarian party” That incorrect. I was present at the founding of ACT – it was not a libertarian party as I would understand the term. ACT’s initial programme authored by Roger Douglas from his book “Unfinished Business” earned ACT the moniker of association of Compulsion Touters from the libertarian types.
New Zealand has a Libertarian Party, may God (Ayn Rand) bless em.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
ACT IMO needs to reposition itself so it captures the urban liberals who currently give their party vote most often to Labour sometimes Green and sometimes like last time, National, but never to ACT.
These are the people I think that young David Caygills, Mike Moores, Michael Bassetts and Roger Douglases appealed to in their days. ACT needs to find a similar crop and they’re out there.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Chris
I agree with you that Maori cannot lay claim to fee simple freehold land, but that is not what the discussion is about.
It is about the rationale ACT has for stating that it is OK to dilute private property rights for Maori alone (without compensation) and not to apply that same dilution to fee simple land. ACT defends itself against claims of playing the race card by claiming that it is because fee simple is some kind of a superior title, which is what I am arguing against.
With respect to your comments regarding fee simple and crown title.
If Crown title is subject to constraint by native title
- which is exactly what was found in Ngati Apa, and in the numerous privy council cases on the record,
- then it follows that since fee simple title can only derive from Crown title,
- then both are constrained by native title.
That is simple mathematics. Once it is alienated of course it is alienated, and there is no claim.
Your assertion of how the 12,500 pieces of freehold title came about is just that, assertion. The ones that I have come across, on Islands in the gulf and further up the coast from Auckland are just ordinary beaches, just like any other, and they tend to be owned by very wealthy people who like it just the way it is.
On your other point – I am totally in agreement that there should be no negotiation. In fact the existing act should simply be repealed, and if the nation wants access to private property which happens to be on a beach, then that should be enacted without any distinction as to the nature of title, and with due compensation. I have suggested that a rates remission on the land would be a good starting point.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
berend says:
I’m assuming this is said sarcastically. I’m not advocating a single issue I’m advocating a single focus – a vastly different concept. For instance NZF, when I was driving things, focused on issues of sovereignty; so that covered immigration, a range of economic policies, foreign investment regulation and so on. But a common thread could be seen running through all of it, and it captured the support of 30% of the electorate.
Considering Act has never approached that (or even double figures IIRC) then it doesn’t seem such a bad idea to follow. In Act’s case the obvious focus is a responsible and sustainable approach to economic policy.
big bruv suggests:
Goodness, big bruv’s been inside my head again! Oh wait, no he hasn’t… My reasons for remaining in Ausralia are purely economic BB. If you or anyone else care to offer me a package for doing what I enjoy doing that equates anywhere close to what I can make in Australia then I promise you I’ll be home in an instant.
And you seriously think Australia… especially Western Australia… is less dangerous than NZ – despite, I might add, it’s backward, hard-line approach to every aspect of law from shopping hours to crime?! Do you have any idea of conditions over here, or is that just a glib assumption you think sounds good to those who won’t bother to check?
I’ve walked the streets of most of NZ’s large cities at night, including the “red light” districts of Auckland and Wellington, regularly. I was never mugged or hassled and nor did I even feel uneasy. Here the train stations and trains are teeming with special “rail cops”, the streets are full of CCTV cameras, cops carry guns and yet still I find myself on edge till I close the door of my home behind me.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Chris Diack claims:
Thanks for that clarification. Can you also enlighten us as to whether Act and the SST share any of the same donors and, if so, whether their support for Act is contingent upon Act’s support for the SST’s hardline policies? And what percentage of Act’s income is derived from organisations and individuals who are also SST donors?
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
“In Act’s case the obvious focus is a responsible and sustainable approach to economic policy.”
This is already ACT’s focus Rex and I’m not sure what further traction it can generate in this arena. The fundamental problem is the reef-fish don’t bother to educate themselves in economics, they’d rather watch Desperate Housewives.
ACT has to expand in territories other than the margin between it and core-National. It has to leap-frog those and cross to the other side of National wherein lies ACT’s floating reef-fish, the urban educated male with a house 24-39 whose wife votes Green-Labour-National. Key has captured the female of the species, but ACT could capture the male, if it wished to.
If it starts doing that in enough numbers to change the polls, it will also find its margin rising on its other border as well.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Peter
“that it is OK to dilute private property rights for Maori alone”
First the vast vast vast bulk of the beaches and foreshore are not under any freehold estate.
Only Maori can argue for customary title based on customary rights over the rest. If non Maori could hold such rights they too might have those rights subject to a statutory right of free public access or indeed a common law one.
That said nature and extent of any property rights held by Maori in the seabed and foreshore hasn’t been established under the common law.
You are jumping to conclusions about who has done the diluting (if by that you mean what we should make of the free public access that is exercised already). Customary title which is the nearest common law equal to the nature of the customary rights does bend to contemporary circumstances and contexts. It’s possible that free public access to the seabed and foreshore (not in fee simple or some other estate) is a development of the common law here (much like the right to ramble is in the UK for example). Iwi have publicly claimed they are not (except for some specific situations) interested in restricting free public access. And New Zealanders have been accessing this where its physically possible to do so.
A simlar updating process might occure on the iron sands issue for example (or other non nationalised minerals).
In the circumstances it is reasonable to take Iwi at their stated generous word on this. I don’t really want to get into it but there are circumstances under common law where the incidences of property ownership change over time because of actual use.
Also you are assuming that a statutory free public access right to the seabed and foreshore harms Maori chances of getting customary title at common law. Arguably it does the opposite. In some older parts of the common law regarding use and occupancy tests, such access by others results in the loss of the title. Statutorily providing for the New Zealand practice removes this thorny issue for the judges. Thus use and occupancy are consistent with public access i.e. public access is no longer counter-indicative of continueous use and occupancy by Maori. Given that public access isn’t at issue either way its propably more likely that the judges find in favour of Maori.
I would make the point that it would be bordering on negligent for the Parliament who is restoring the common law (and that could only be done by Parliament) not to provide some certainty on the issue of the practice that has emerged in New Zealand of free public access.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Rex:
I would not know who donates to the SST they are not required to disclose that information. Nor would I know what ACT donors might also support with their money whether that be the SST or the tiddlywinks club.
You are getting very Winston First on us Rex.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Chris
You have come back again to this differentiation between native title and freehold title.
I could equally argue that the common law on this matter was suspended in 1877 with the flawed decision in Parata V Bish. Wlgtn., so any ‘development’ since then is arguably not relevant. It is as Professor Jim Evans states, you cannot hold a group responsible for not enforcing a right which was removed from them by government action.
All of what you say would make a good argument in court (I don’t say a sound one) but that is the point; that is what the courts are for. It was lawerley opinionating that led to the FSA to begin with. The reason by the way that the common law can only be restored by parliament is because it was parliament that trod on it to begin with, and because we have no constitution to which they can be held judicially accountable.
I’ll also point out to you that there is no right of ramble in NZ, which is of itself a customary right, which is why Helen Clark had to back away from enforcing access onto farmland.
I make no assumption, as you state, that statutory free access harms Maori chances of gaining customary title. What I am saying is that it dilutes the title, with no compensation, and does so for Maori alone and the ACT party is standing on its head to portray that as a principled position, in line with its principles on private property ownership, which doesn’t really wash.
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 7:37 am
The Attorney-General/Minister of Treaty Negotiations can negotiate treaty settlements, including the return of Crown land, but these must still be enacted through legislation, why the difference here?
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 8:03 am
The Great and Good Sir Roger saved NZ??? This is rather baffling..I know we all need heroes but I don’t get Sir Roger’s hero status…to me and thousands of NZers he was never a hero..a traitor , a dishonest manipulator , a common thief…yes but no hero…He started a period of upward distrubution of wealth which has continued to this day..the poverty and crime of today leads back to him and his dishonesty..The labour voters who voted in that Labour administration never ever voted for the policies he and the likes of Prebble pushed thru..they were highjackers amongst other things.
Vote:Rather than solving or dealing with crime , far right policies create crime as research in the UK proved..
Looking at NZ today it is easy to see that no one ,least of all Douglas , has ever saved this country…Instead , he marshalled in a period of great mistrust where many ordinary people saw thieves posing as businessmen as thieves posing as businessmen..the fact that more of this ilk have ripped people off for millions of dollars has done nothing to enhance or retrieve thier reputation. David Henderson , Act supporter , 142 million dollar debt with few consequences and even less remorse as NZ”S biggest bankruptcy is just more of the same.
The issue or problem for Act like supporters or hopefuls is that a huge percentage of the population will NEVER trust you.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:46 am
ACT cleaning house? That won’t take long- its only a small two bedroom flat. Jim Anderton’s progressives takes even less time- its only his kitchen.
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 9:49 am
Dunne’s is the dunny?
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 11:29 am
With ACT support now holding at a level that cannot compete with the margin of error is the party relevent any more? Hide lost all credibility with the travel perks affair and has not recovered since, the stolen identity saga, the very messy deputy leadership wrangle has left a massive credibility issue for the party to try and recover from and frankly it would be kinder to flick the life support switch off.
The idea of a having Brash come in and try to resurect some of its voter support is flawed on 2 fronts. Firstly he has little voter appeal as national discovered. The other problem for ACT is why would Brash bother. It is hard to imagine that Key is going to rush the very man he rolled from the national party leadership into a cabinet post so the prospect of wallowing around on the back benches is hardly going to be an attractive proposition for him.
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 11:35 am
Act who?
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Exactly Whoops
Vote:Mark…quite a few people posting on here WANT Act to be relevant…they hold the theories so dear…unfortunately for them , all you say is true.
December 1st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Joana, I thought you said you lived through the 80′s and yet all you have done is write some sort of revisionist nonsense about how Sir Roger ruined NZ. I challenge you to read Unfinished Business and Completing the Circle and No Second Class Citizens and come back and tell me that he does not care about NZers who are not well off.
Another problem are the Nats here who are all suddenly experts in all things ACT. I tend to think that a little housekeeping is a good thing, especially when disruptive forces within are giving the party a bad name. Yes we had a rough patch with the Heather, Garrett issues – but every minor party goes nuts when getting into Govt for the first time and having to learn to compromise a little… shit, I don’t ever remember having to compromise before this so it is a learning curve for us all.
The people who are still ACT members all know it will be a tough 2011 for us if we don’t pull our socks up and get back on track. We are still the only party who opposes the ETS, supports low flat taxes, ending WFF and who are against all the reckless borrowing that Key has embarked on. With Key STILL opposing full privatisation for his second term we are once again the only right wing party who has the guts to do the right thing. Surely you Nats must be sick of swallowing these dead rats and join a party that will at least attempt to go in the right direction. No?
Mark, er I think you’ll find that Brash ALMOST won the election for the Nats before he lost his job and most Nats have him to thank for their careers. How can you say he wasn’t good for the National Party and that the public didn’t like him?
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Because the Nats didn’t win in 2005. That’s quite a failure for a party that was historically about due for a win, all they needed to do was to get things right. Brash couldn’t pull it off, he must be responsible to a certain degree. Unless you’re in to PC stuff ALMOST doesn’t cut it.
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Clint
Do you get the feeling that joana is a frustrated Alliance party member?
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Way off Big Bruv ..not a frustrated anything…Act views just not my thing..I don’t like the results they create ..also have not liked any of the men involved..their behaviour..etc As I said somewhere else , I wouldn’t trust any of them. Douglas made his big mark in parliament by betraying an old friend..to me if a man lacks integrity , there is not much he can do to then to redeem himself…I really value loyalty.
Vote:December 1st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Dave Mann – where do I sign up?
Vote:December 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 am
Douglas made his big mark in parliament by betraying an old friend..to me if a man lacks integrity , there is not much he can do to then to redeem himself…I really value loyalty.
I am perplexed as to what you are referring to. If you are talking about the December Package of 1987, then you are sorely mistaken. It was Lange who betrayed Douglas by pulling the plug on it unilaterally without consulting cabinet.
Vote:December 2nd, 2010 at 6:18 am
Blair..to me he is a crook , was a crook and always will be a crook..all his cohorts were crooks…Most now live in Sydney , The south of France or London or on a some private island somewhere..Like the Hanover crook who is currently selling up in AK , they ripped off NZ and NZ owned assets…and slammed the door on the way out..None of them live with the consequences of what they did ..They all reeked of greed…and still do..Brash with his millions and his sleazy,foolish , immoral ways thinks he has the answers for people he has nothing in common with..Many of whom at least have integrity.
Vote:These men made money EVERYTHING in NZ..prior to them , people mattered.
The people of NZ voted David Lange in and then Douglas usurped his authority and acted like he was the prime minister. I was never a Lange fan so did not vote for this govt but at least with his Christian background he cared more about people..least this is how I remember it.
Dr Death or Dr Deane is another one of these” money is everything men.”…a man I knew who used to have to attend meetings with him said..you can see the dollar signs rolling around in his eyes..In person ,he was colder than a dead fish..
A lot of older people at the time felt as I still feel. Give me a man of integrity any day.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
“Give me a man of integrity any day.”
Then Lange is not/was not the man you are looking for.
If it is integrity you are so keen on then you can not go past Sir Roger, I could not care less if you do not like him, nor could I care that you have been brainwashed by the left who despise the man, the facts are that Sir Roger saved this nation.
If you really want to blame somebody for the current state of our economy then the work of that gutless prick Bolger (post Richardson) and the nine years of Klark is where you should be aiming your displeasure.
Vote:December 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
BB I have not been brain washed by anyone..I have my views..you have your views…I was never a Lange fan. It is your opinion that Douglas saved this nation..it is not a fact.
Vote: