Finlayson answers Coastal Coalition Q+A

December 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 am by David Farrar

This is a useful feature. The has a Q+A  on the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, and has responded to it with answers of his own.

For those who want to learn more about the issue, worth a read.

Tags: , ,

60 Responses to “Finlayson answers Coastal Coalition Q+A”

  1. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Does Finlayson regard Dr Muriel Newman as a clown?

    Does he regard many well qualified guest contributors as clowns?

    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest221.htm

    Does he regard ACT MPs as clowns because they disagree with him having the power to make backroom deals?

    Leighton Smith will be discussing comments by Finlayson this morning after some discussion of Pike River.

    I suggested those opposed this legislation that will set race relations back 40 years ring in when he raises the topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (14,070 comments) says:

    Finlayson doesn’t come out the winner after that exchange of opinions.

    His previous role as Ngai Tahu negotiator should disqualify him of any involvement with this matter. Key, however, appears oblivious to this and is happy for Finlayson to lead the selling of New Zealand to the racists.

    Small price to pay to keep Labour-lite in power, according to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    I wonder if the stupid Labour party have realised that Finlayson has handed them the next election on a plate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Does Finlayson regard Dr Muriel Newman as a clown?

    She wrote on her website: “Claims have been made that New Zealand was discovered from as early as 600BC by Phoenician, Indian, Greek and Arab explorers. In fact, claims of these visits help to explain the existence in the South Island of the fossilised remains of rats that have been carbon dated at 160BC – more than 1000 years before Maori.”

    Clown may not be the best description (Finlayson certainly doesn’t have the ordinary person touch that Key has) but this “who was here first” stuff does seem to be irrelevant to Maori claims for the foreshore and seabed.

    Dipstick claims don’t help a case, neither do arrogant responses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    Clearly, we don’t have to look for clear answers from Finlayson. His obfuscating answers tell the story almost more clear then this Q&A.

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

    Muriel Newman is a clown. This sort of nonsense from her is up there with the flat earthers, creationists, and similar space cadets:

    Gavin Menzies and his 1421 Team presented new evidence of early Chinese exploration by Zheng He, strengthening their belief that Chinese colonies existed in New Zealand for hundreds of years before the arrival of Maori.

    While our government appears to hold tightly onto the view that Maori are tangata whenua (with even the stories of the early Moriori occupation that our generation was taught in school having almost disappeared), local and international research is now painting a different picture of the early history of New Zealand.

    Claims have been made that New Zealand was discovered from as early as 600BC by Phoenician, Indian, Greek and Arab explorers. In fact, claims of these visits help to explain the existence in the South Island of the fossilised remains of rats that have been carbon dated at 160 BC – more than 1,000 years before Maori!

    Menzies’ 1421 : The Year China Discovered the World is as big a fraud as Piltdown Man, and citing it as a reputable source leaves Newman with no credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    “Muriel Newman is a clown.”

    Ha ha…this from a Green party member, the same Green party who have Delahunty and Locke as MP’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Offshore

    The Labour party do not need a new leader or a clean out, this issue is big enough for even Goff to coast to victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Offshore – it may seem irrelevant to you but the treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between England and the various Maori tribes who occupied NZ at the time. Whether some random boats came by here at some time earlier doesn’t come into it. You are an example of the clowns Finlayson is referring to.

    The Queen isn’t exactly indigenous to England, but that’s also irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Toad, do you know how Polynesians came to existence? How long have they been in the pacific region? Here is a rough guess for you. Definitely more than a millennium and archaeological evidence strongly supported that. If the Lapita people explored the pacific islands in a few millenniums BC, then it is quite possible that Muriel Newman is correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jackp (668 comments) says:

    “But wasn’t Chris Finlayson Ngai Tahu’s lawyer?
    Yes. And now he’s both the Minister for Treaty Settlements and the Attorney-General who approves those settlements!”

    “Why is the Maori Affairs Select Committee hearing submissions on this Bill when in 2004, Helen Clark thought the issue was of such importance to all New Zealanders that she established a special independent Select Committee of Parliament to deal with it?
    Good question!”

    I might add, Hone Harawera was the sub leader on that select committee until the last two weeks of submissions deadline. I wonder how many submissions against this bill were thrown in the circular file.

    13. Why is he (John Key)so keen for iwi to get it?
    To appease his Maori Party allies and their clients the tribal aristocrats – who, as always, will pocket most of the money.

    Bingo, this is it. You can strip away the rhetoric and you’ll find money behind the issue. I heard Finlayson Monday night and he made an important point. He answered a question about building on the beaches, he said they will have to get resource management consent if Maori get customary title. He didn’t mention that Maori will have veto power over all recourse management in their area. So, yes they will get resource management because they will write the rules. This bill is a huge deception!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Dipstick claims don’t help a case, neither do arrogant responses.

    Muriel may well have a view that there were earlier immigrants. I do not know the evidence. It appears you do. However, unless the claim that there may have been earlier migration is part of the argument against this legislation I think basically calling Muriel a clown is pretty poor.

    If you continued your quote

    His reference to pre-Maori arrivals is not Coastal Coalition policy, but a member, former Act MP Muriel Newman, has suggested there is truth to the claims

    we would see that Finlayson does not want to debate the issues. I am sure I could quote Finlayson on unrelated issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Chuck, I think there are important things to debate regarding this bill, but I don’t really know what the legitimate arguments are any more, it has become too clouded by the fogs of fanaticals.

    Eg “Speak now or forever lose your beach! by Dr Muriel Newman ” – on the Coastal Coalition website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Pete George & Toad, do you guys understand what does Dr in Muriel Newman’s name imply? Yep, she has a doctorate in mathematics. It is one of the difficult subject to do and gain a doctorate in. Mathematics in certain topics is in par in difficulties with subjects as Physics & any discipline in Engineering (Electrical & Electronic, Engineering Science, Civil , Chemical) because of heavy use of maths. Maths is even harder than physics. She is not some PhD history, anthropology, sociology, education or anything like that, where one can just turn up at exam times without even enrolling and still pass. Show some respect to people who’s got brain because it is the 2 of you are the real clowns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    FF – having a good mathematical brain does not exclude the possibility that one may resort to sensationalism.

    It may stir up some reactionaries but it can also turn other people off the argument. I don’t have any beaches of my own but I don’t fear for my access to the many public beaches around here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Toad-Muriel Newman is a clown. This sort of nonsense from her is up there with the flat earthers, creationists, and similar space cadets:

    Toad, evolution still has not been proven, even though scientists are trying hard to prove it. They make it a fact when infact it is still a hypothesis. Hence, your argument is false. Your idea of fact is say a lie over and over and pretty soon it will be true. This is what Finlayson is doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Jack, evolution has far far more supporting scientific evidence than Newman has evidence that we are all at risk of losing access to all our beaches.

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

    @Falafulu Fisi 9:47 am

    So how does a doctorate in mathematics qualify her in any way in archaeology or oceanography?

    This is like the wingnuts with PhDs in something or other who lend their supposed academic authority to crank positions in the climate change debate without having the first scrap of understanding of climate science.

    Come to think of it, Newman is in that camp too.

    … and @9:30 am


    …then it is quite possible that Muriel Newman is correct.

    Anything is possible. Science is about what is probable, and to determine probability you need evidence. The reality is that there is no evidence to affirm Newman’s and Menzies’ assertion, and reputable experts have on that basis dismissed it as a complete work of fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Jack, evolution has far far more supporting scientific evidence than Newman has evidence that we are all at risk of losing access to all our beaches.”

    Pete, show us where Muriel claimed that. Show us also where she claimed that that her view the it is possible that someone may have migrated to NZ before Maori was an argument she used against legislation that will allow backroom deals for issues that should be decided in court to keep a government in power.

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

    @jackp 10:03 am

    Toad, evolution still has not been proven, even though scientists are trying hard to prove it. They make it a fact when infact it is still a hypothesis. Hence, your argument is false. Your idea of fact is say a lie over and over and pretty soon it will be true. This is what Finlayson is doing.

    FFS, not sure it is even worth debating that, but here goes. You are demanding “proof” in a mathematical sense. You will never get it. The reality is that the evidence lends support to evolution being many times more probable than any other theory of how life has become what it is.

    As for Finalyson on the foreshore and seabed, I’m not trying to defend him. I think he has set the bar too high as to what will be required to establish customary ownership – for example, it will not be able to be established if an intervening Treaty breach by the Crown has precluded the exclusive use of the foreshore and seaben by Maori. I also don’t support his Bill because it is discriminatory – like the Foreshore and Seabed Act it will still impact only foreshore and seabed that is not already in freehold title and the title it will provide to Maori will be of an inferior nature to freehold title.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Shonkey and his fallow travelers have got themselves in a minefield. There is real public concern and Finlayson isn’t covering himself with glory. Here in Taranaki there are now several issues involving the Seabed and foreshore and Maori. These issues haven’t being helped by a government that talks sweetheart deals behind closed doors. Already those with about 1/100 Maori bloody are claiming custody of some areas of the foreshore and there are others only to willing to jump on the wagon, it’s all going to end in tears if National are not careful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    Bloody hell, some hysteria from the Coastal Coalition. I would have thought there was room for debate but reading their answers suggests to me they’re desperate for a beat up and any lie or half truth will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    “Pete, show us where Muriel claimed that.”

    First “Article of Interest” on http://www.nzcpr.com/CoastalCoalition.htm which links to:
    The Foreshore Swindle: Speak now or forever lose your beach!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Toad

    “As for Finalyson on the foreshore and seabed, I’m not trying to defend him. I think he has set the bar too high as to what will be required to establish customary ownership – for example,”

    So you (the Greens) would just hand over the seabed and foreshore (and all future benefits) to Maori against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis?

    This is the real reason you seek to belittle Dr Newman, in true Green party fashion you are seeking to shut down debate about the seabed and foreshore.

    Please make this a centre piece of your 2011 election campaign, the people of NZ really deserve to know just how dangerous you bastards are.

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

    @big bruv 10:35 am

    The thing I don’t figure bruv, is that you ACToid types are all gung ho about private property rights most of the time. But when those rights may be found to be held by Maori, you don’t seem so keen.

    Any explanation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Hypocrisy of convenience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Pete, thanks for the link but where does she claim, “we are all at risk of losing access to all our beaches.” It sound like you are embellishing what she said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Chuck, I didn’t read the detail, is she only addressing those who already own beaches? Except Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “But when those rights may be found to be held by Maori, you don’t seem so keen.”

    Never mind about ACT types. Look at ACT policy. ACT opposed the Labour legislation because it denied Maori its day in court to rule on property rights. ACT still supports this but is strongly opposed to backroom deals that Finlayson wants for himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Toad-for example, it will not be able to be established if an intervening Treaty breach by the Crown has precluded the exclusive use of the foreshore and seaben by Maori.

    Perhaps your example should have been climate change instead of evolution. That might better clarify the foreshore and seabed. What you are saying above is over my head and this is something I will have to research myself. What I see as far as the people behind this bill, there is an incredible amount of conflict of interest. This is an indication to me that this bill is contrived to suit those that benefit from it. Finlayson, John Key, Moari Elite, Maori Party, National. FInlayson is a list mp and has no electorate to answer to. The fact that finlayson wants to keep it out of court is remarkable because no one, not even Maori will be able to appeal the decision. It should remain in the high courts to keep it out of the hands of politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Never mind about ACT types. Look at ACT policy. ACT opposed the Labour legislation because it denied Maori its day in court to rule on property rights. ACT still supports this but is strongly opposed to backroom deals that Finlayson wants for himself.

    That illustrates the problem Chuck, Act policies (legitimate questions) have been shouted out by exaggeration and nonsense.

    It should remain in the high courts to keep it out of the hands of politicians.

    Justice should always be able to be seen to be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Toad

    The thing that I don’t get is the way you Green types continue to lie to the people of NZ, you never tell the truth, you never reveal your true intentions and you desperately seek to drive this country into a civil war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RightNow (7,012 comments) says:

    I’m in favour of giving them fee simple property rights to a fair portion of the coast (fair as in what can be reasonably proven to be theirs) without all the other rights that existing private owners don’t have with their fee simple title.

    I’m also in favour of distributing the fee simple title among all coastal Maori in the relevant geographic area, rather than handing it over to the iwi aristocracy. I think it’s just perpetuating the plight of poor Maori to keep giving the aristocracy the treaty bounty while they leave the social problems to be paid for by the taxpayer. With all the hoohaa about what the “Spirit Level” supposedly proves regarding disparity, if you look at Maoridom in isolation from ‘other’ NZ then they have some serious housecleaning to attend to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Pete, I have explained ACT’s position to Toad. I cannot speak for Muriel but it appears you are embellishing what Muriel has said. She has never to the best of my knowledge said what you claimed “we are all at risk of losing access to all our beaches.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The Human Rights Commission has opined that the proposed bill is discriminatory.

    Of course it is.

    None other than Sir Douglas Graham this year suggested that when the treaty settlements claims are fully processed (a concept that illustrates our infinite capacity for self-delusion, but never mind) that the process should be available to all, including Europeans, to counterclaim. I take this idea a little further and suggest that instead of placing the onus of proof continually on Maori to prove a claim, it should be on non-Maori to disprove said claim.

    After all, if we believe that our system of justice is so great that we can trust it to deliver justice to Maori, why can’t we just reverse the situation and trust it to deliver justice to us?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    Muriel Newman does herself a disservice associating with an organisation that propagates conspiracy theories, especially theories that have no archeaolgical or anthropological evidence to support their arguments.
    The Coastal Coalition also is an organisation that propagates half truths and wild accusations. No New Zealander would seriously believe that their access to beaches will be restricted by Maori as a result of the new law.The scaremongering perpetuated by the Coalition is intellectually dishonest and misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (7,012 comments) says:

    KevinH “No New Zealander would seriously believe that their access to beaches will be restricted by Maori as a result of the new law”

    Well if you believe some of the comments I’ve seen around the traps, many Maori are certainly keen on the idea of restricting access.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    She has never to the best of my knowledge said what you claimed “we are all at risk of losing access to all our beaches.”

    She headlines with “Speak now or forever lose your beach!” I’m interpreting it as you have quoted my – what meaning do you take from it.

    She closes her post with:

    This week’s poll asks: Do you consider the foreshore and seabed issue important enough for you to consider voting for a party that planned to repeal it?

    This suggests to me she is trying to score political points more than addressing the real points of concern in a non-sensational way. I guess to some people a party’s survival is most important to them. I’d rather try to look at each issue rationally on it’s own merits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. EverlastingFire (286 comments) says:

    The Taipa occupation by Maori thugs is only the beginning of this issue. This issue will not end just because one bill goes though. Maoris will never be happy until they have own all of NZ and be payed out in billions of “compensation”, and of course to have complete sovereignty – a clear Maori Party objective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    KevinH

    I assume you are the same Kevin H who is the Green party MP?

    If so why are you not prepared to admit as much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. jackp (668 comments) says:

    KevinH, you can also say that about John Key’s foreshore and seabed. The present law states that Maori cannot charge the public for use of the foreshore and seabed if they get rights over it. That has been omitted by Finlayson. Why?… should we believe him when he says it is implied in the law? Should we believe John Key when he said he wasn’t going to raise gst?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Two extracts from Finlayson’s maiden speech to Parliament which may be relevant:

    … It seems clear that Parliament will be revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act, another masterpiece of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think we need to review this legislation. My personal view is that if one respects the rule of law, due process and property rights, this legislation is unfair and discriminatory…

    AND:

    … For many years I was involved in Treaty litigation. In particular I acted for Ngai Tahu in its claim against the Crown. The proudest moment of my professional career was being at Kaikoura on 21 November 1997 when the former Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, and Sir Tipene O’Regan for Ngai Tahu signed the Deed of Settlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. jackp (668 comments) says:

    This is my one concernt, is Finlayson looking for a sure win for Maori down the line, similiar to Helen Clark making a road to the UN for herself while the taxpayers are suffering?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    Who the hell does Finlayson think he is to give away our birthright?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Mike S (229 comments) says:

    Part of the trouble is that the Maori Party, and their followers, have a strong but unstated belief that NZ is theirs by divine right, and that they are literally doing God’s work. In their ideal world they wouldn’t kick us all out, but Maori would be in charge of everything – they have let slip their dislike for democracy a number of times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fletch (6,496 comments) says:

    It should have all been left under Crown control; no squabbling about rights as it is free for all NZers to use. Key was an idiot to give in to Maori demands on this. They just want more given to them on a silver platter.

    Present Maori claims are like a guy selling a car cheaply; the new owner does it all up making it worth a lot more, then the original seller sees it and wants compensation because he thinks he sold it too cheap; however, it wasn’t the 1st owner to made it worth more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “I guess to some people a party’s survival is most important to them. I’d rather try to look at each issue rationally on it’s own merits.”

    That can only apply to John Key and not Muriel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. southtop (266 comments) says:

    I find it interesting that the focus is on a few areas where Maori can or will want to claim customary title and therefore there is a risk that other people will not be allowed access to a beach.
    The focus is therefore of the foreshore however of real concern to me is the seabed. We hear of massive mineral wealth below the waves, who will control this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Mark (1,493 comments) says:

    The National Party’s capitulation on the issues regarding the Foreshore and Seabed bill are a direct result of MMP. Minority parties with no particular mandate gain significant leverage. Both the Maori Party and Act have been effective in this area. In many ways it is ironic that the Act Party is making such noise about this capitulation by National yet used the same tactics to further their own causes.

    This bill is frought with danger. The public are focused on access to the beaches but it is the ports, mineral rights and aquaculture that the Maori Party firmly has in its sights. It was a foolish move by the Government to give up title. There are better ways of accommodating Maori customary rights than to cede sovereignty over the foreshore and seabed.

    One very concerning feature is the right of the minister to do non contestable deals in private rather than through the courts. What is this party prepared to give away. Even the Clark government saw the danger here and hence the Foreshore and Seabed bill. Whilst it was a kneejerk reaction it is now becoming evident why they reacted as they did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rodney Hide (62 comments) says:

    I wonder if Chris thinks Stephen Franks too is a clown. Here’s what he had to say about National’s Foreshore and Seabed bill:

    It is unprincipled, dishonest and damaging. It is the translation to law of misleading political slogans. It flouts values that are critical to maintaining respect for the rule of law, and property rights. It is bad for Maori, and worse for the rest of us.

    Read his submission here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    He was probably either diverted by or diverting to all the other misleading political slogans clouding and crowding the debate. I know you can’t control that, but it’s a shame it’s taken over a lot of the space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Manolo (14,070 comments) says:

    “He was probably either diverted by or diverting to all the other misleading political slogans clouding and crowding the debate. I know you can’t control that, but it’s a shame it’s taken over a lot of the space.”

    Sorry, P.G, but what are you trying to say?
    Could you please write in plain English for my underdeveloped brain? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Finlayson was sucked into or was using the nonsense that has grown around the issue. That often diverts attention from the real issues. It happens a lot in politics, too many Mexican waves in the crowd rather than concentrating on the game in the middle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    I agree MMP provides minority parties with a platform disproportionate to their status, but you can’t correlate the crumbs given to ACT with the feast given to the racist separatists in the apartheid party.

    Unfortunately, ACT has the same problem with National that the Greens did with Labour. National knows that ACT is not going to go with Labour.

    The only solution for ACT is to get the message out to all the voters but particularly traditional National voters that if they think things are bad now imagine how bad they would be if the Maori Party held the balance of power and really held National to ransom.

    A vote for ACT will help keep National in power and enough votes for ACT will increase the likelihood of one law for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    toad (2,568) Says:
    December 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Muriel Newman is a clown. This sort of nonsense from her is up there with the flat earthers, creationists, and similar space cadets:
    ………….
    Catherine Delahunty:
    “I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beach” generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day. Yet she had been refused a chance to speak. I also waved a copy of Te Tiriti around in a flamboyant manner.
    Betty talked very clearly about her people and their relationship to their foreshore and how Te Tiriti reaffirms their customary rights, therefore the Bill cannot pass. She is 71 years old and has given her whole life to kaitiakitanga. It was a privilege to be beside her. It was also great to have Tariana and Metiria at the table emanating their respect and love for her korero. From the window we could see across to Hauraki and Te Moehau the mountain shining on the horizon as she rises up from Tikapa Moana.
    Then Gordon Jackman, wearing his “qualified archaeologist” hat took the Committee on a journey from a beach of sand and shells through to the 1868 Deed of Cession on the East Coast, wherein the foreshore and seabed were never ceded. He explained how from the archaeological layers they uncovered at the Port of Gisborne, you can see people arriving, establishing manawhenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework, and then the violent imposition of Pakeha power in that place. Gordon challenged the committee to re assess their limited understanding of the term “ownership” and to recognise that the Bill was a continuation of Crown violence based on a crude and absurd underestanding of the word”ownership” He described the process as part of “democratheid” a word he has coined which describes the majority imposition of racist policy in a democrarcy. He also described the consequences as not civil war in the conventional sense but a long term proliferation of misery, poverty, misunderstanding and injustice.

    “The other MPs except for Tariana and Metiria, trotted out all the favourite myths about “they killed the moa” etc”
    http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/diary-debacle-archive-6th-september-15th-september

    One of the powerful currents this year was the korero on constitutional change. Some of it happened off site at the Haruru falls but some of it happened in a large open tent where tangata whenua people without invitation to be “leaders” talked about their issues. Some of the most influential thinkers in this country’s constitutional development spoke in the political forums over several days. Moana Jackson, Annette Sykes, Mereana Pitman, Margaret Mutu to name but a few.
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/02/08/waitangi-day-2010/#comments

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