Bob’s testicles are back

March 21st, 2011 at 11:29 am by David Farrar

The BoP Times reports:

A war of words has erupted between former and current local National Party MPs over a controversial potential new law.

Former MP has accused current MP of toeing the party line over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, while Mr Bridges has said Mr Clarkson “doesn’t much like dealing with complicated issues like this”.

Mr Clarkson also said he tried regaining National’s Tauranga candidacy this year partly to stop the controversial foreshore legislation reaching law.

Bob is only one year older than Jim Anderton, so must be inspired by him.

I’m pretty confident that Simon’s majority will remain in the five figure range. He is extremely popular in Tauranga.

The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill is generating a significant level of angst – especially in provincial cities and towns.

The fact that Hone and others are campaigning against it, because they thinks the test for customary title are far too tough, indicates to me that the balance is about right.

As the NZ Herald reported, the actual difference in positions between National, ACT and Labour are not in fact great – they agree on a lot more than they disagree.

One major point of difference is that ACT believe the courts should set the test for customary title. This is an entirely legitimate view. What isn’t mentioned is that it is quite possible the courts (and it would probable y eventually be a decision of the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Elias) would set an easier test for customary title.

Tags: , , ,

22 Responses to “Bob’s testicles are back”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Looking at Audrey’s table again, one thing strikes me (which someone else may well have pointed out):

    There isn’t a parliamentary majority in favour of the new test for customary title.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. berend (1,602 comments) says:

    DPF: One major point of difference is that ACT believe the courts should set the test for customary title.

    And National believes that it should be giving away title in secret deals with the Maori party. Finlayson: ‘Maori can talk to me instead of going to court’:

    “Having said that, I’d be much happier to negotiate with people because I am a lawyer – I know what litigation costs, I know the time that’s involved and the effort that’s involved – and if things are able to be sorted out through negotiation I think that’s great.”
    Mr Finlayson said it was only a suggestion but “it’s a much better way to negotiate than to instruct lawyers”.

    And that’s what he got.

    And has John Key already stopped borrowing $300 million a week or is he just like Obama? To wimpy to make the hard decisions?

    [DPF: A "secret" deal that gets published and has to be ratified by Parliament in open session. The exact same standard as all other treaty settlements. Are you advocating that the Government refuse to negotiate any treaty settlements at all, and instead have each and every one go to court?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Bob R (1,253 comments) says:

    ***The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill is generating a significant level of angst – especially in provincial cities and towns.***

    If they are by the coast & have significant Maori populations they’re more likely to face problems with this bill. There was a letter in the DomPost from someone claiming her son was going fishing in Tauranga Harbour & was confronted by some Maori guys suggesting he should enjoy his access while it lasts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bobbie black (507 comments) says:

    Is that the guy who always dominates and takes the piss out of Jacinda glacier teeth?

    Seems a stand-up intelligent guy.

    Simon I mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mawm (211 comments) says:

    The National MP’s should hide their heads in shame. They should be fighting against being bullied into voting for the racist MaCAB.

    Well done Bob!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    I haven’t much faith in either the Government or the Supreme Court to do anything other than what makes them feel good as is the case with Treaty settlements. One query though If an Iwi or hapu doesn’t like the result of direct dealing with the Government can they still have another go through the court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. berend (1,602 comments) says:

    DPF: A “secret” deal that gets published and has to be ratified by Parliament in open session.

    Currently the National Party and the Maori Party would have enough votes to ratify any “deal”.

    You really think the National Party should be able to give away land? What happened to limits on government power? Ah, now the National Party is in power, so no limits needed, as they are the “good” dictators.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Go on cross the floor.
    You know its wrong.
    Its not balanced
    Ask your electorate what they think

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    Bob’s testicles may be back but Martin Douglas mightn’t get his back, ouch!.

    A mother-of-four has appeared in court accused of biting off her boyfriend’s testicles in a drunken attack.

    Martin Douglas, 45, underwent emergency surgery to reattach his genitals after the alleged attack by Maria Topp.

    Mr Douglas, a DJ, called 999 in excruciating pain and operators struggled to understand what he was saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lipo (226 comments) says:

    “The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill is generating a significant level of angst – especially in provincial cities and towns.
    The fact that Hone and others are campaigning against it, because they thinks the test for customary title are far too tough, indicates to me that the balance is about right”

    I have seen many people make this statement and to me it seems a rather foolish thing to say.
    What you are in fact saying is, that no matter who is right and who is wrong if we meet in the middle then the right decision is made.
    My experience with the Disputes Tribunal is that the run a similar system.
    We have two parties who are in a disagreement. How about we meet half way and everyone goes home happy
    A scenario for you DPF. Two people are arguing over how much money to steel from a old lady. Person A wants to beat her up real bad and steal everything she has
    Person B wants to scare her and run off with her tele
    According to your logic, if they are somewhere in the middle of the two options, then things will be hunky dory
    How about working out what is correct, form your position, stick to your guns

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    “One major point of difference is that ACT believe the courts should set the test for customary title. This is an entirely legitimate view. What isn’t mentioned is that it is quite possible the courts (and it would probable y eventually be a decision of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Elias) would set an easier test for customary title.”

    One will never know what the New Zealand Courts would have made of this particular property rights dispute if it went to the High Court under their common law jurisdiction. All we have to go on is some obiter statements at the Court of the Appeal which suggested that the areas covered by customary title would be limited. The bottom line is that Maori had the right to have the matter tested in Court under the common law and that right has been removed by the previous and current govts.

    We also know that Maori claimed that going to Court would have been expensive, drawn out and that they would get a better deal in the parliament i.e. they were unsure the Courts would be a generous to them as the National Cabinet has been.

    The Maori party have also said that this is the start of the process not the conclusion as the Govt asserts. Frankly the Maori Party view seems much closer to how Maori see dealing with the Crown than does the Govt view. It now swings on how reliant National are on the Maori Party to govern after the next election – or how willing National and Labour are to arrive at an understanding that they won’t revisit the issue whatever demands are put to them when seeking the majority to govern.

    So both the Crown and Maori were unwilling to go Court. This sort of suggests that the Courts are a good place to get a definitive statement of the extent of any property rights. After that the negotiations should have started.

    BTW the assertion of property rights in the sea bed and foreshore isn’t a Treaty settlement matter. And the CJ isn’t the only judge on the Supreme Court. It is rather odd to have a property rights dispute being subject to the legislative process. Makes it seem much less a matter of the extent of the rights and more about the politics of the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    The Maori leaders will use the maori rabble to protest until the government caves in and grant more land/resources to enrich the same Maori leaders. Sure, they’ll throw an occasional bone, such as painting the marae or a university scholarship, but the bulk of the cash will end up in a few accounts.

    Just check the Sealords deal. The most money the average maori will get from that is an hourly rate for scrubbing fish blood & guts off the floor.

    And, it will be another excuse to pillage the oceans resources. Just watch Coastwatch on TV, it will only become legal now and coastwatch will have no criminals to chase.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (10,738 comments) says:

    If you really think Simple Simon is popular you should get out more. Most see him as a propaganda machine for the press office. Yet to stake his own beleifs on anything. And I live and daily go into homes in this area and have yet to meet any one except the blue rinse Nats and Don the Kiwi who have any enthusiansm for him. and of course he will go back in but only because there is no one of substance standing against him in opposition.
    He also has a vested interest in this bill being part Maori. A trait that seems to be permeating the National Party and its MP’s.
    As for slagging Clarkson Off. He may be older than Anderton but he is certainly more successful and also has more money than smile and wave although you would never know it.
    At 72 he is still doing stuff that most of you in the National Party will only ever dream about.
    You knats have short memeories and remain ungrateful pricks. Clarkson was the person who got rid of your arch rival out of your hair. You didn’t even have a candidate to put against Peters with out Clarkson.

    [DPF: Bob Clarkson will always have my gratitude for getting rid of Peters from Tauranga, as does Sandra Goudie for doing the same to Fitzsimons in Coromandel. Doesn't mean he is always right though.

    As for Simon's popularity, well the last time I was in Tauranga, he was helping open a new hospital wing construction, and the hospital staff had plastered "we love you Simon" signs over all their office windows. I'm guessing a fair number of them were female of course :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. lofty (1,295 comments) says:

    Ah well Viking2 it looks like Winstone is doing a good job of raising his profile in Tauranga with the stirling assistance of the BOP times, it must be for the last 4 or 5 weeks now they have given Winnie a full page to spout his views.
    What with the grossly biased hubbard cartoons, Winstones ugly dial peering out from the deadwood every week, one could be excused for thinking that the BOP times is anti nat (Simon Bridges), surely not!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (5,151 comments) says:

    I have to agree with others DPF re the supposed protection of deals done in the AG’s office being “ratified in open session”…I learned very quickly that the idea of anyone actually being persuaded of anything in the House and changing their vote as a consequence is simply moonshine…As you well know, anyone in the governing party who decided not to vote for a bill ratifying a deal the AG had done with some claimant group would find their career was over by the time the House rose for the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    berend points out:

    What happened to limits on government power? Ah, now the National Party is in power, so no limits needed, as they are the “good” dictators.

    Same reason the greedy little power whores all lined up to grant King of the World status to Emperor Gerry… no thought from the “opposition” as to whether it was constitutionally appropriate, just jealousy that they weren’t handed an excuse to bypass Parliament and the courts – and of course a tacit wink from National that they’ll give the same power if Labour’s fortunate enough to have a major disaster on its watch… after all, turn about is fair play and all that.

    Sadly, most people still think it’s left v right, or Maori v Pakeha, or warmists v deniers or whatever. But the most important division – the one that is widening and which will dictate the outcome of all those other debates – is the one few people can see – the elites v the people. So we remain divided while they conquer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    lofty notes:

    it must be for the last 4 or 5 weeks now they have given Winnie a full page to spout his views.

    Is this an opportunity being offered to every Auckland pensioner, or just the one? Perhaps it’s community service – reparation for pinching $158,000 of the taxpayers’ money?

    Meanwhile David Garrett notes:

    the idea of anyone actually being persuaded of anything in the House and changing their vote as a consequence is simply moonshine

    Something with which I wholeheartedly agree. And a situation made worse by MMP and the advent of List MPs, whose role – especially in the major parties – is akin to that of the nodding dogs once popular in the back windows of cars: sit still, do nothing, don’t make a mess and keep agreeing.

    Ironically, it also facilitates deals of the type that saw Mr Garrett become an MP… though he’s far from alone in being the beneficiary of a bit of back room list place trading.

    The only way it’ll ever improve is if we have the sense to abolish MMP and replace it with a system which requires that every person elected be directly voted for by, and accountable to, voters (or a subset thereof), while retaining the benefits of proportionality. Personally I’d like to see us as a nation invent a uniquely NZ system, picking the best bits from existing models. But failing that, multi member STV would do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Vinick (213 comments) says:

    I actually seem to remember one MP being persuaded of the merits of an argument during debate – ironically I think it was David Garrett.

    David – am I remembering that correctly, and did you change your stance as a result? Or was it just a “I can see where you are coming from” kind of realisation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    Just because the ‘all your beach are belong to us’ crowd are campaigning against it doesn’t mean the balance is about right.

    In any case this should not be a negotiation where the goal is to reach a compromise acceptable to both sides. The government has a duty to enact laws that treat all citizens equally regardless of race. If it has to depart from that because of any other obligation, it should do the absolute minimum necessary to satisfy that obligation. The courts are best qualified to decide what that minimum is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (10,738 comments) says:

    As for Simon’s popularity, well the last time I was in Tauranga, he was helping open a new hospital wing construction, and the hospital staff had plastered “we love you Simon” signs over all their office windows. I’m guessing a fair number of them were female of course :-) ]

    Some time ago and it was Ryall who made all this happen along with Clarkson. Simon is a pretty face which is why the Nats put him there. The place is full of women who vote with their eyes rather than their minds. Simon Eye candy for the sad.

    Its notable that he has discontinued his polling of the electorate while this debate on the foreshore is being had. Why is that do you think?

    What does he stand for. Can anyone tell us?
    We know he follows the company line but what are his personal principles? Never been disclosed. Like most Nats these days. Power I guess. oh and socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. CharlieBrown (792 comments) says:

    Clarkson represented tauranga voters much better than “tow the party line” bridges. Bob was one of the few parliamentarians who put his money and beliefs where his mouth was, and look where that got him in the national party. Proves that you can do well in politics if you have a massive brown politically correct nose.

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

    David Garret is right. Finlayson is trying to look like he is listening to those who criticize this bill about back room deals. Why would he change the current bill, wouldn’t it be more transparent to go to the High Court instead of politicians. Finlayson is hoping that the majority of the population doesn’t know what goes on in Parliament and flash is bullshit like some good simaritan.

    “The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill is generating a significant level of angst – especially in provincial cities and towns.
    The fact that Hone and others are campaigning against it, because they thinks the test for customary title are far too tough, indicates to me that the balance is about right”

    Well, Mr Farrar, the fact that only 4 people on the committee decided to appeal this act have leanings toward maori, the fact that Finlayson went to the Maori Party and made up this bill, the fact that FInlayson is an iwi lawyer, the Fact that the Select Committee, the Maori affairs committee heard the landslide submissions AGAINST this bill for months but only deliberated 2 hours on it returning to Parliament suggesting that there be no change to the bill, the fact that there have been two major natural disasters and National is keen to get this bill through looks to me that the balance is horribly slanted in favour of Corporate Maori. And, the last one, the grand prize:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4777119/Trans-Tasman-Resources-seeking-investors-for-iron-sands-project

    and Finlayson said there was only 78000 a year income from this. Being a business man, I don’t think Trans Tasmanian Resources would be investing 100′s of million if it wasn’t safe to mine. My guess , and a pretty good one, Finlayson has already done the deal with Maori with this.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.