The status of the Waitangi Tribunal

July 11th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are calling on the Maori Party to walk the away from its support agreement with National over the Prime Minister’s “insulting” comments about the Waitangi Tribunal.

The “insulting” comment was noting the fact that the Tribunal’s recommendations are not binding on the Government and Parliament.

As opposition parties are calling on the Maori Party to walk away from the Government on this issue, I can only assume that means it is their intention to make the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on Government and Parliament.

No tag for this post.

92 Responses to “The status of the Waitangi Tribunal”

  1. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Everyone knows the recommendations are not binding, so why mention it? Surely by now he knows how to answer questions without them blowing up in his face.

    Perhaps he was trying to telegraph to investors that the Government had already decided to ignore whatever is recommended?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. double d (225 comments) says:

    “so why mention it?”
    maybe he was asked a question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    It is the baubles and perks of office or the Waitangi tribunal. Wait a second, wait.
    Methinks Sharples and Turia will feign outrage, throw a bogus tantrum, and keep their BMW limos. Cars built by white men are so comfortable, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I think Key knows exactly what he’s doing. I’m expecting a rise for National in the polls as a result of his comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Talk about a storm in a teacup. Seems like even mentioning the truth in politics now days can cause a shitstorm. It is becoming extremely tiresome. The only ‘insulting’ thing about this issue is that we have a democratically elected government who is now having everything thrown at them to stop the implementation of a policy they campaigned on for a year by an opposition who cannot accept the result of an election. It is a disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    The “insulting” comment was noting the fact that the Tribunal’s recommendations are not binding on the Government and Parliament.

    Key has subsequently pointed out that the recommendations are not binding, but what he initially said was that the Government could “ignore” the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal.

    That is of a different nature from something to the extent that: The government will due consideration to the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, but ultimately, the recommendations are not binding and the question is one on which the Government will reach its own view on what is in the best interests of New Zealand and all New Zealanders.

    Saying that the government can ignore the findings of a Commission of Inquiry is very different from saying they will consider the findings, but reach their own view, and it should be obvious why some people would consider the former insulting to the Commission in a way that the latter is not.

    The Maori Party certainly adopts the view that the Government is required to act in good faith in its treaty relationship, and that if it doesn’t, that is a breach of the Treaty. They do not expect the Government to follow every recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal, but do expect the Government to consider those recommendations in good faith. “Ignoring” the recommendations would certainly be seen as acting in bad faith, and insulting.

    Maybe John Key was using shorthand when he said “ignore” and actually meant “take full account of in our decision-making, but may reach a different view”, but no one should be very surprised that other people take a differing view about exactly what he was initially saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. JC (958 comments) says:

    Its a dangerous game for Maori here..

    What I see happening is the issue moving away from asset sales and on to who owns the water. Once the public understand that Hone might get to decide who gets the water.. then Maori, the Waitangi Tribunal and even the Treaty could get the flick.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    I have long said that in time – and perhaps we are close to that time – the greatest mistake of the Lange Labour government will be seen as giving the Tribunal the jurisdiction to enquire into alleged grievances dating back to 1840. That broadening of jurisdiction – togther with a generation brought up to nurture rather than resolve grievances – means we will never be rid of the Treaty gravy train, and the grievance mentality which goes along with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    I have long said that in time – and perhaps we are close to that time – the greatest mistake of the Lange Labour government will be seen as giving the Tribunal the jurisdiction to enquire into alleged grievances dating back to 1840.

    Irrelevant here. In this case the claimants are concerned about something that is happening now, or is about to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Irrelevant here. In this case the claimants are concerned about something that is happening now, or is about to happen.

    But it has happened, Graeme. There are a number of hydro dams in private hands already, and there were apparently no grievances raised pertaining to water rights for those dams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. double d (225 comments) says:

    what interests me is the actual issue of ownership of wtaer. whether Key was insensitive with a slip of the tongue or whether it was an intentional statement, saying he would ignore findings of the tribunal is not clear.
    what is clear is that the VAST majority of NZers would not be comfortable with the idea that water is owned by any group other than the crown.
    if the waitangi tribunal did rule that maori “owned” the water, it would see all hell break loose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Bottom line is a group/groups of Maori are trying to cash the treaty cheque but the public/crown/people won’t wear it.

    On the treaty it is Maori Party/Mana/Greens v’s National/Labour/NZ First

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    I dont agree Graeme. Under the original 1975 Act, the law relating to ownership of resources as between “the Crown” (which for all intents and purposes in this context means “the government on behalf of all citizens”) and Maori was frozen at that point. There was no dispute at that time that either the Crown, or no one, owned the foreshore and seabed (other than the few instances where the foreshore was in freehold title) and resources such as water.

    If the 1975 Act had remained unanamended, there could never have been claims for radio frequencies and the like…the ’75 Act was aimed squarely at breaches of the Treaty by Crown actions after 1975.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    I’m sure the Maori Party would LOVE Waitangi Tribunal decisions to be binding on the Government!

    Not sure I’m too keen on that though. Maori Elites are already getting cash hand over fist as “compensation” for historic injustices that they are NOT the victims of; paid by taxpayers who were NOT the perpetrators of said injustices. It’s a nice scam if you’re the Maori Elite.

    Just shut up and pay up New Zealanders. You know Tuku deserves it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    But it has happened, Graeme. There are a number of hydro dams in private hands already, and there were apparently no grievances raised pertaining to water rights for those dams.

    I don’t see how this answers the point. This claim is not about the past sale of hydro dams. It is about proposed future sales.

    Just because no-one complained at the time, or if people complained they were ignored, does not mean that today’s complaints are groundless. They may be, or they may not.

    The Government’s actions are either a breach of the Treaty or they are not. That we haven’t determined that similar past actions are a breach of the treaty, or are not a breach of the treaty doesn’t really mean very much. If you punch me once, I might not complain to the police, and if you then punch mean again 30 years later, I might: “I punched him 30 years ago and he didn’t complain” won’t work as a defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    This may come across as contridicting what i have been posting in GD but i don’t think it should.

    First it would be water, then the sunshine, the wind, anything that can be used as a natural resource. John Key came across as dismissive last night and made me cringe. His choice of words could have been better chosen. However, the Maori Party have always known nationals intentions regarding asset sales. They should have seen this coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I thought Morgan Godfrey summarised the claim quite well:
    http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/why-maori-own-water.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    There was no dispute at that time that either the Crown, or no one, owned the foreshore and seabed (other than the few instances where the foreshore was in freehold title) and resources such as water.

    That was a case with a lot of things. Maori have always considered they have had a customary right to go fishing. But they were happy for other people to go fishing as well. It was only once the government decided to monetize it, with fishing quota, that Maori started complaining. Same with Radio Frequencies: it was once the government decided to auction them off that Maori were concerned.

    There wasn’t a dispute with the Crown over these thing like fishing because Maori considered they owned them, and the for the most part, the government didn’t really act like that wasn’t the case (e.g. it wasn’t trying to sell them, and wasn’t stopping Maori from fishing). It became an issue/more of an issue once the government started acting in a way that was obviously incompatible with Maori conceptions of their ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    double d So there would be a lot more wimpy pakeha running to the airport if Maori owned the water ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Mikenmild – I think Morgan Godfrey might be being a little unduly optimistic there.

    Here’s a Maori-owned waterway… keep out whitey:

    http://www.boprc.govt.nz/environment/water/rotorua-lakes/lake-rotokakahi-%28green-lake%29/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Maori have an abysmal record as kaitiaki

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/moa/

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101213151417.htm

    in the short time they’ve been here:
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-06-03-new-zealand-human-arrival_N.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    Very good comments Graeme Edgeler. I thought Key was clear on that the Government could ignore the recommendations but I didn’t see that as meaning they wouldn’t consider the recommendations in a fair. It might also have said that the Government might not ignore the recommendations which equally wouldn’t have meant they would not have considered them.

    My view for a couple of days is that there will be a deal done, Bill English signalled that a possibility earlier and it would make sense. I’ve heard some interesting comments on the proposal that the water is ‘used’ and given back, obviously without any attention that you only give things ‘back’ to the owners. Also free usage in the modern times seems like fantasy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Manolo, youve never been to a BMW factory obviously. In Germany, the white faces are few and far between. Most are robotic, and many immigrants, all highly trained. In the US, in the big BMW plant at Spartanberg, again, robots and rednecks. Just sayin… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Irrelevant here. In this case the claimants are concerned about something that is happening now, or is about to happen.

    I wasn’t aware that we stole any hydro power plants from Maori. Why should it be a concern to them if the government decides to sell a stake in an SOE? Are their panties in a twist cause we havn’t paid enough koha?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Some have been arguing for a Māori House of Representatives in Parliament for some time now.
    Make the decissions of the WT binding on government and you have a de-facto one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    mikenmild (4,936) Says:
    July 11th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    I thought Morgan Godfrey summarised the claim quite well:
    …. he bases it on the treaty and tikanga and claims:

    Alternatively, the courts could chose to fuse the common law with Maori customary law holding that under Tikanga Maori hapu exercised and retain ownership, therefore that is the position under New Zealand common law too. Such a notion is not, I believe, repugnant to the common law.

    I would have thought that the basis of all law would be justice for all and that while technically Maori might have rights over and above later arrivals the scale of what is being claimed does not equal justice. It would be a little like (eg) if we discovered one family owned the whole North Island (technically).

    claiming it isn’t about money, but about mana puts the debate on a whole different level where the group is not seen as behaving rationally to look after it’s own self interest (as tends to happen amongst other populations of humans).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Spam (588 comments) says:

    I don’t see how this answers the point. This claim is not about the past sale of hydro dams. It is about proposed future sales.

    No, apparently its about water. Isn’t it?

    (but I do agree with your other points).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (2,215) Says:

    double d So there would be a lot more wimpy pakeha running to the airport if Maori owned the water ?
    …………..
    when does the Maori are lovely people* kick in Grumpy?

    * holy, spiritual and up there in la-la land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    Remember the time Maori wanted a slice of the action when they were selling radio frequencies? Apparently there was some claim on the atmosphere directly over Aotearoa. Still you can’t blame them for having a go.

    Nonetheless, the glass of water you drink today once came out the arse of a dinosaur and will one day be snow in the Himalayas.

    There’ll be a hikoi!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m actually unsure of the scope of the claim, let alone what any actual settlement of such a claim might involve (a la foreshore and seabed).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    While reading the legal arguments I wonder (forget) how we can base things on the treaty when we don’t agree what it means? The Greens hold that the indigenous version is the right one but can’t tell us what “tinorangitira tanga means in the modern context”*

    * however Catherine Delahunty interprets it I suspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    hj
    I think we fall back on judicial interpretations that established what the ‘principles of the Treaty’ meant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. KH (695 comments) says:

    Do I blame them for having a go. Frankly yes.
    It’s beyond tiresome this constant ‘ambush at the pass’, with a bunch of statements from a well rehearsed chorus of well trained supporters.
    Time for Maori shape up. Become strong supporters of New Zealand. And leave behind the cultural baggage of grabbing what you can get from others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Time for Maori shape up. Become strong supporters of New Zealand. And leave behind the cultural baggage of grabbing what you can get from others.

    Unfortunately, hell freeze over first. Blame politicians and the welfare state for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Great “pull yourself together” message there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    “frog”
    “Anyone feel a hīkoi coming on? Angry protests on the cards? Cracks in the coalition? Iwi/Kiwi billboards and rednecks freaking out on talkback radio?
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/07/11/turbulent-waters-ahead-for-government/

    ……………..

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mm

    “I think we fall back on judicial interpretations that established what the ‘principles of the Treaty’ meant.”

    I agree.
    Lets use the one that Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast used in 1877 when delivering a reserved judgment in the case of Wi Parata v. The Bishop of Wellington.
    He declared the Treaty ‘worthless’ and a ‘simple nullity’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    O_A
    Good one – do you think more recent decisions may have come to a different conclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    “I think we fall back on judicial interpretations that established what the ‘principles of the Treaty’ meant.”
    ….
    when pounded they turn to rubber!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “…the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day….”

    That shows what an ignorant idiot Catherine Delahunty is. The latest archeological evidence suggests that the first people arrived in New Zealand around 1280.
    Then again, facts never bothered Delahunty and her fellow travelers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mikenmild

    “Good one – do you think more recent decisions may have come to a different conclusion?”

    And those ‘conclusions’ about the ‘Treaty’ can be changed again, just like the one of 1877.
    In the end the ‘Treaty’is as relevant and important as the people in charge want to make it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    KH drop the cultural baggage of grabbing what you can LOL, who the hell do you expect the local darkies learnt that from ?

    Might I suggest dear boy, that you crack a couple of books on NZ History,damn there is a lot of ignorance among pakeha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    I wonder how long before there will be a massive backlash in the streets from non-maori. You can only poke a sleeping giant for so long before it rises up and squashes you. Alot of non-maori see these kinds of issues as an attack on the fabric of this country. They see it as completely unfair to the ordinary kiwi that maori continue to get this kind of compensation. Whether this anger is justified or not, it is a worry that one day it may boil over. I think most people understand compensation to a point but when you start talking about water, airwaves etc it is more then people would be willing to handle. Maori cannot continue to dismiss peoples concerns but just calling them rednecks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I agree O_A. The present status of the Treaty, the tribunal, etc, etc is a result of a broad political consensus that seems unlikely to unravel in the short term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Im starting to wonder if John Key isnt saying to himself – “Thank Christ for the Treay of Waitangi. Looks like its going to get me out of a bind. I know that no one thinks selling the assets is a good idea – but we had to look like we were going to sell them because we said we would. But that would cost us the next election and actually Id like an excuse not to sell them. And good old Tariana etc have saved me………Now all I have to do is get all them maoris and greenies all wound up and everyone will think Ive given into them. I guess the best way to get going is to call the Treaty something we can ignore…. that will get them ranting “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Cunningham what, another white pride march with Nazi flags to the fore by pakeha ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    Theres an awful lot of crap going on in NZ at the moment. The Treaty is ongoing, the current constitutional review being undertaken by a panel with obvious biasses, the foreshore and seabed debacle, the argument over who the fuck owns what. Lets face it, it’s just a bunch of Maori politicians and Maori elite taking the piss. I’m glad my children live in Australia and my grandchildren were born in Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    grumpy I would be very careful about using extremes if I were you, we might start applying them to Maori, oh but then that would be racist wouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    It’s worth noting what Key originally said:

    “The Waitangi Tribunal’s rulings are not binding on the Government, so we could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818360

    Maybe ‘ignore’ wasn’t the best choice of words, but I think this has been blown out of all proportion to what was intended.

    Like Key’s fight with Maori no accident – where what the Herald says is dismissed and factless claims are made while trying to talk up a fight and also trying to divide the Maori Party from government.

    Alongside multiple attempts to trash the share floats (Russel Norman the latest). Those seeking power and money don’t give a stuff about the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    I wonder how long before there will be a massive backlash in the streets from non-maori.

    It will never happen.
    The sheeple is apathetic and will accept whatever lying politicians say. On the other hand, tke masses will continue voting for those who offer more freebies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mikenmild

    “The present status of the Treaty, the tribunal, etc, etc is a result of a broad political consensus that seems unlikely to unravel in the short term.”

    With some of them using taniwhas to stop projects and collecting ‘koha’, stopping access to places that were previously open to the general public, claiming radio waves, beaches, the sea bed and foreshore, fish, oil, forrests, gas, power stations and water, that broad consensus might be changing….
    By the way, I think this consensus isn’t really a consensus anymore but more a matter of ‘politics of power’ between the various parties with the Maori Party playing several parties against each other, trying to extract as much as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    + 1 Muzza. Ignore the koro one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori this is exactly the kind of dismissive attitude that alot of maori have. Someone doesn’t agree with maori views?? Oh well they must be a redneck or nazi right? You will find many ordinary kiwis who are outraged about issues like this. Personally I am supportive of compensation to right the wrongs of the past but I think owning water (and airwaves which is even more outrageous) is a step to far and no I am not a nazi!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    koro taki! accck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    From tha Maui Street post:

    It makes me sick seeing the right stoke the embers of racial tension…

    …the debate cannot afford to descend into an us vs them battle.

    I’ve seen plenty of them vs us on both sides – including a little from Godfery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    Thanks Northland Wahine – Kia kaha

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @PG

    “It makes me sick seeing the right stoke the embers of racial tension…”

    Are you (Is he-she) serious?
    First, why is this a ‘right’ or ‘left’ issue and why are you the ‘right’ when you disagree with this?
    Secondly, are you (is he-she) saying that if you do not agree with this you are “stoking the embers of racial tension…”?
    In other words, you are a right wing racist for questioning this?
    Talk about stoking the embers of racial tension…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I didn’t think that was the main point of Godfrey’s post, which I found to be a good summary of the claim. You don’t have to be a right-wing racist to question this claim, but you do need to think a little about the concept of ownership as it can be applied to water and other resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Other_Andy: I’ll go further – there have been very deliberate attempts to blow this up into a racial and political divide.

    Ironically part of the campaign has been to try and diss the Maori Party and disconnect them from government. Labour and Greens are very jealous of the MP’s success at being a part of government, and think that bringing them down, or at least breaking from government ranks, will make their job of destroying the current government easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @PG

    Not sure what you are trying to say.
    Are you saying this is a Labour campaign to “stoke the embers of racial tension…”?
    If so, the Maori Party seems to be a willing partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Other_Andy – no, I don’t think the Maori Party are willing partners at all, they reacted to the overblown furore about Key’s ‘ignore’ comment but have since sounded more conciliatory.

    The campaign is more Green/Labour/Mana orientated.

    Another thing from Godfery: https://twitter.com/MorganGodfery/status/222612158045892608/photo/1
    Now covered by Dim-Post: https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/plus-ca-change/

    Even if it was a poster from 1972 (if genuine and that’s questionable it would have been despicable) but circulating it now trying to taint National is as despicable.

    I first saw that last night promoted on a tweet by a Green activist:

    “if you have a racist friend, now is the time for your friendship to end” – Specials AKA @maori_party

    Walk, @Maori_Party, walk. Hikoi right out of coalition with those Racists. ‪#keepourassets

    @NZNationalParty – rascist then, rascist now. Walk @Maori_Party, walk. ‪#keepourassets‬ http://yfrog.com/hsi4qukj

    Like a duck, cruising along (but legs working frantically under the water!!) raising money, setting up infrastructure. Planning disrupti …

    The green duck sticking the boot in underwater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    @MorganGodfery
    @norightturnnz Saw that too. Classy stuff from the Nats of old. Wouldn’t put it past Ansell and co. to recreate another

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Positan (390 comments) says:

    Maori greed has at last reached the point where it has completely outraged the rest of the country, and it’s a watershed from which their “grievance industry” can never recover. All the past pandering now concludes in a single stance of monumental stupidity.

    The incredible thing is that at any stage prior to this, Maori could have pulled their heads in and accepted that there wasn’t the remotest likelihood that even the most patient, PC-waffling New Zealander whose past tolerance towards claims and “grievances” had been tested and, indeed, pushed so very far, was going to accept anything like the absolute absurdity of Maori ownership of water.

    The astounding beauty of it is that Maori have done it entirely to themselves. They’ve ended the Treaty industry and exposed every past “reason” as to why any of their “claims” ever possessed any credibility. We’ll no longer have to tolerate the posturing nonsense and absurd inanities we’ve had to endure from those like Sharples and Turia, whose credibility, like that of every other who’s attempted to justify Maori ownership of water, has been blown forever. Sharples should now be able to find the time to wash his ever-greasy locks and act like a 21st century person, instead of attempting to maintain further his abominable “refugee from reality” appearance.

    Now, if we can get rid of the Maori seats, the Waitangi Tribunal and every racist Maori-favouring piece of legislated PC-idiocy, we might have a real chance of restoring ourselves to some entitlement of self-respect at last.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Perhaps you should start a political party with that platform and see how you get on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    mikeandmild, staunch Labourite, is still longing for the days where Maori votes were taken for granted.
    The actions of his former leader, nowadays resident of New York, created the racist party, leading to the loss of the hitherto sacrosanct Maori seats.

    The wound on the socialists’ flank hasn’t healed yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    @Pete. Clearly it’s not just Labour and the Greens shouting RACIST is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    This isn’t rascist, just shows how hissy and derisive they can be when anyone who actually gets to do something in government (when they can’t):

    gobsmacked15

    Anyone remember “mana-enhancing”? This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic …

    “Key said he is happy to talk with the [Maori] party co-leaders about his remark, but he won’t be able to meet them this week because of his travel schedule.” (Radio NZ)

    No walkies today, poodles! Next week, OK?

    Kotahi Tane Huna 15.1

    …next week:

    “Here Fido, bring the slippers.”

    I’d probably be more left orientated if it wasn’t for the nature of many of those who are active on the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    re
    mikenmild (4,949) July 11th, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Surely the issue is that ‘common law’ applies and is constantly evolving. Its basis is “what would the common man think?”; in today’s New Zealand, you would have to get consensus of a random group that represented Maori, Pakeha, Asian, African, etc., etc., to come anywhere close to true representation of NZ’s commaon man.

    If it falls from the sky (air, water, radio frequency, etc.,) it is surely “common” property with all obligation for preservation vested with the government of the land. So yes, let common law apply and be adhered to. we could have a pole here I guess.

    I’m Pakeha and believe water is common property with all obligation for preservation vested with the government. What do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m not so sure, actually. If it is common property, what is the legal basis for that? I guess the Maori Council case is, roughly, the treaty guranteed Maori possession of everything and you would need to show how they had alienated their presumed ownership of all natural resources, including water, since 1840.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    That’s why I think a deal will be cut, probably shares at least in the new entities, possibly more.
    I think JK is driving this well. I’m not sure I agree with it, but to this point it’s a classic ‘sell something but still own it’ having taken some equity out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I must explain, the rain we gain via main. pull chain, then wane via drain, sea lane to Spain, Bahrain, Ukraine, in vain. Retain? Insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wiseowl (899 comments) says:

    Dave Stringer@4.14
    One of the first things to do is stop using the word that starts with ‘P’
    We are New Zealanders!
    I find the understanding of the actual Treaty and its interpretation is very poor and people should read the likes of Apirana Ngata and other more recent publications to get a grasp of the truth.
    DG’s post @12.30 was right .
    It’s time to get rid of this document from our legislation and any attempt to entrench in a constitution will be disastrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Call a referendum on anulling the treaty and abolishing the Maori seats
    Then do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Mr_Blobby (178 comments) says:

    Race and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with Politics.
    We are long overdue for a ceremonial dumping of the Maori seats. With 1% support, the raced based Maori party would be consigned to history. Between raced based seats and maori in list seats they have twice the number of MP’s they are entitled to under 1 man 1 vote.
    As for the so called treaty. It was irrelevant 5 minutes after it was signed. It was not a founding document of this nation and should be seen for what it is a historical document of little note. How on earth did it rise from the ashes in the last couple of decades and take on such importance, is beyond me. Scrap it and change Waitangi day to New Zealand Day and be done with it. Labor did cahnge it and National reversed it back.
    Leave the moaning minority to scrap amongst themselves.
    A referendum would settle the question of treaty once and for all. It would probably be like the smacking referendum at about 90%, but as we know referendum are non binding. We don’t have any Politicians of note in a position to act on it.
    That is why this Government set up there constitutional committee Loaded up with Maori and sympathizers and a Maori chairman with casting vote. What do you think there recommendation will be and how will they sell it to the Majority. Or will they institute it without a vote, much like the treaty process.
    These clowns are just taking the piss surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Again, may I suggest that, if 90% or so espouse such views, that you form a political party and try your luck in an election?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Spam (588 comments) says:

    mikenmild (4,965) Says:
    July 11th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    Again, may I suggest that, if 90% or so espouse such views, that you form a political party and try your luck in an election?

    Apparently centering a campaign on a particular issue, taking it to the electorate and getting voted in to enact that policy isn’t actually good enough though, is it milkenmild? Apparently that doesn’t give a mandate at all, and some call it t reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Now I’d never say National has no mandate for the lunatic assets sales. Re the Treaty, both major parties have similar policies, which I would take as indicative of fairly widespread support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    Spam

    Did the electorate vote on a single issue, in your dreams.
    That’s a pure myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Mr_Blobby (178 comments) says:

    Milknmild. Not one of your better ideas. You don’t start a political party just for a single cause unless it is race or religion based, and both of those,should stay firmly out of politics. Governments are elected to represent the country as a whole. How did Tandori Nachoes one cause to legalize dope turn out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Than (475 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, they did vote knowing (because Labour and the Greens spent the whole election making it abundantly clear) that National was going to sell 49% of state assets. By ticking National in the booth they indicated they could live with that. Or at least, that they considered it a better option than a Labour/Greens/NZ First government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Mr_Blobby (178 comments) says:

    Take the anti smacking legislation 90% apposed but would you start a party just to be elected to get rid of it. Nations have more pressing priorities to deal with.
    We have a disgruntled irrelevant 1% minority that is in the position of more influence, than they are entitled to in a democracy. As a Nation this is a distraction to the more pressing issues we have to deal with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    “Call a referendum on anulling the treaty and abolishing the Maori seats”

    yeah, like that would work….sigh….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    Than.

    ‘Or at least, that they considered it a better option than a Labour/Greens/NZ First government.’

    That’s probably closer to it. Though leadership may have beaten all the other issues, safe hands, optimism to some degree, the acknowledgement that it is a tough economy and therefore hard for the incumbents to look good – as well. Certainly, not a single issue though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Than (475 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, so you accept the voters put their trust in leadership. Which presumably includes leadership on the economy? And making decisions about state ownership of assets?

    The left can try and spin it all the like, but the election showed a mandate for partial asset sales. The underwhelming post-election protests against asset sales emphasize the point. People either don’t care at all about asset sales, or they consider other things more important. The fact that National has continued to push asset sales yet still polls basically where it did at the election is good evidence for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    Definitely leadership Than.
    We could be seeing some stunning leadership at the moment. I think we’ll see deals done that will get over some of the old hurdles and unlock parts of the economy that are land-locked. It’s positive in my opinion, but I don’t go for the single election issue aspect.
    In terms of asset sales I don’t see the current model as that, I see it as cashing up partially but keeping in mind that if the SOE continues to perform well then so does the tax take. For some, that is the trust issue, will 51% become 49% or less later? But that is really more an economic question than anything else, although some won’t see it that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler..

    A drunken man speaks with an open tongue..

    You emphasised ” ignore “.. When in my Umble opinion you should said ” Could “..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. simpleton1 (230 comments) says:

    Would just wish the treaty of waitangi tribunal would win and force the claim of water on the NZ government.

    I know quite a few others then would be able to sue the so called money making guardians for careless / negligent use of water, causing damages and costs during floods, and to impose rentals and compensation for the flood waters over their free hold land. It may just match the value of what they receive.

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

    I like DPF’s suggestion best:

    …make the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on Government and Parliament

    It’s amazing what a bit of selective editing can do- and again, it’s DPF I owe for the valuable training in this art I have received from Kiwiblog.

    But seriously, we Europeans have pretty much had it all our own way since 1840, even appointing the judges to our courts, so why not give Maori a turn?

    Then we could be the ones enjoying long marches and hui and all that jazz!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    But seriously, we Europeans have pretty much had it all our own way since 1840, even appointing the judges to our courts, so why not give Maori a turn?
    …….
    racial masochist speaketh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > the election showed a mandate for partial asset sales

    Rubbish, and you know it! Only a third of eligible voters voted National. If that’s a mandate, can I have whatever you’re having? Further, people vote for parties (and candidates) for various reasons. I suspect few voters went to the polling booths sallivating at the thought of asset sales. A few, like you, might have but you should be careful not to confuse your motivation with that of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Luc: “Then we could be the ones enjoying long marches and hui and all that jazz!”

    While Maori paid the tax and funded our welfare? What are you smoking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Q&A: Māori Council Water Claim and Asset Sales

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