Colin Craig says

December 13th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Audrey Young interviews Colin Craig:

Increasing oil and mineral exploration

It’s almost criminal to be so well vested with resources and not use them. I wonder at the logic of that. I find it fascinating that if you dig a hole and plant a tree in it, you are a greenie; if you dig a big hole, take the gold out of the ground and plant a forest, suddenly you’re an eco-terrorist. There’s no consistency in that. I do think we should make sensible use of our resources. I’m not so keen, however, on letting foreign corporations take the lion’s share … Norway did it well.

Well said.

Labour’s target to get 50 per cent women MPs by 2017

I don’t believe positions should be picked on the basis of whether you are a man or a woman. I think it should be merit. I’m not a politically correct person. I despise because what it actually really does is just keeps people quiet. I would rather live in an environment where we could freely debate things.

Hear hear.

On the and the Treaty of Waitangi

We think the Maori seats served a purpose at a time; that time is over. They don’t serve that purpose any more so we need to move forward and moving forward means getting rid of the Maori seats.

I think they should go, but only if Maori agree. What I would do is have a referendum every nine years on whether to keep them, amongst those of Maori descent. I’d replace them with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the electoral system to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs.

Parliament now has 25 MPs of Maori descent. I doubt there is another Parliament in the world that has the indigenous minority so over-represented in their Parliament. I don’t think it is a bad thing we have such over-representation. But I do think it weakens the case for retaining the Maori seats.

Tags: , , ,

55 Responses to “Colin Craig says”

  1. JMS (314 comments) says:

    to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs

    You argue Maori seats should be abolished, but then argue that political privilege based on race should continue in a different form?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rouppe (962 comments) says:

    I think they should go, but only if Maori agree.

    That’s like saying “we’ll have Thanksgiving dinner, but only if the turkeys agree”

    … to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs

    Define “Maori parties”. Is National a Maori party because they have Maori MP’s? Are the Greens a Maori party because of Metiria?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    “I think they should go, but only if Maori agree”

    In other words they will be there forever!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Labour Lite’s official line on Maori seats: http://www.national.org.nz/files/agreements/National-Maori_Party_agreement.pdf

    The National Party agrees it will not seek to remove the Maori seats without the consent of the Maori people. Accordingly, the Maori Party and the National Party will not be pursuing the entrenchment of the Maori seats in the current parliamentary term.

    Both parties agree that there will not be a question about the future of the Maori seats in the referendum on MMP planned by the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,788 comments) says:

    “…..I think they should go, but only if Maori agree. What I would do is have a referendum every nine years on whether to keep them, amongst those of Maori descent….”

    LOL – why? They’ve got a political party – the Maori Party!

    You can’t have both – it is simply seen as corruption of the intent of democracy to have both.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Three, two, one. P.G. arriving any minute to start attacking the “unreliable” Colin Craig. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dave_1924 (113 comments) says:

    Maori only seats have had there time. They should go. If Maori really want Maori representing them in parliament then they can vote that way either in an open constituency seat or via a list vote for Maori party. Stop the pandering to Ratana Church and make it a true one person, one vote democracy.

    And for those who think this will lead to a lower number of Maori in Parliament – I don’t think any political party can afford to not consider 15% ish of the population.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. bringbackdemocracy (423 comments) says:

    The Maori seats need to go, just like racial division in South Africa. If we don’t our rugby players may be stopped from touring.
    45% of Maori are already on the General role. If we ditch the Maori seats general seats will be smaller.
    1) Abolish race based seats
    2) Increase the number of South Island seats to 17 to compensate
    3) Lower threshold to 3% to allow for a Maori party if there is enough support

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,789 comments) says:

    I keep hearing about the Norway model…

    How much easier was it to get their oil than ours?

    I had an argument with some dipshit MP on twitter – the one who hates muslims from nz first. hes demanding the govt form a company and blow through 100 million in exploration cause its “chicken feed”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (4,788 comments) says:

    ‘….I don’t believe positions should be picked on the basis of whether you are a man or a woman…”

    Stop winding National and the gayboys up Colin with that outright lie……

    ….everyone knows that the Monarchy cannot function without a functioning vagina :cool: so gayboy Marriage cannot ever be part of the King Queen relationship. They simply can’t breed.

    Or in other words – no gayboy can ever be the ruling Monarch of NZ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Maori are indigenous? What, they immigrated here 600 years ago and now have indigenous status? Gosh the left love changing the meaning of words.
    So my (white)family has been here 175 years. Is that long enough to call ourselves “indigenous”?

    indigenous [ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs]
    adj (when postpositive, foll by to)
    1. originating or occurring naturally (in a country, region, etc.); native

    2. innate (to); inherent (in)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    bringbackdemocracy (291 comments) says:

    “Lower threshold to 3% to allow for a Maori party if there is enough support”

    Until when? At what point do we say maori have equal opportunity to enter parliament? They are already over represented in parliament. Do we decide to drop this sort of rule when government is made up of 50% maori MP’s? Or 60%? When does it ever bloody end!?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Graeme Edgeler (3,281 comments) says:

    What I would do is have a referendum every nine years on whether to keep them, amongst those of Maori descent.

    How about if the proportion of those of Maori descent enrolled on the Maori roll (as at a boundary re-drawing) ever drops below, say 45%?

    [DPF: Not as good, as people may oppose retaining the seats but take advantage of them being there by enrolling on them to be in a more marginal electorate]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. edhunter (535 comments) says:

    Oooh I know we should follow Australia’s High Court & overturn gay & lesbian marriages ….only if the gay community agrees of course. FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ashley Schaeffer (457 comments) says:

    I’m sure Maori will be happy to part with the Maori seats once our new constitution enshrines the Maori Upper House.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. homepaddock (408 comments) says:

    Why should only Maori have a say on this when it affects us all?

    The seats provide inferior representation because most are too big.

    It’s just not possible for people to have ready access to their MPs in the big seats. No matter how effective MPs are, it’s far harder for them in Maori and provincial electorates spanning several thousands of square kilometres than for those in urban ones which start at just 24 square kilometres.

    If the Maori seats were to go we’d probably have one more South Island electorate and several more in the North Island giving better representation for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    if you dig a big hole, take the gold out of the ground and plant a forest, suddenly you’re an eco-terrorist. There’s no consistency in that.

    Reductio ad absurdam.

    You don’t just dig a hole and lift ingots of metallic gold out of the bottom of the hole with your hands. If you could, perhaps “the greenies” would be less concerned.

    Good on Colin for talking about policy, but if misrepresenting people is a key plank of all he can do then he has some way still to go…

    I despise political correctness because what it actually really does is just keeps people quiet,,,

    AGREED.

    Tweedledee: I don’t like brown people.
    Tweedledum: Wow, you’re a bit of a racist cnut aren’t you?
    Tweedledee: STOP BEING SO POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!

    Tweedledee: Fags shouldn’t be allowed to get married. It’s just CLEARLY NOT RIGHT.
    Tweedledum: Wow, you’re a bit homophobic aren’t you?
    Tweedledee: STOP BEING SO POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ashley Schaeffer (457 comments) says:

    I’d replace them with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the electoral system to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs.

    Does the Mana Party qualify as a Maori Party?

    Mana describes itself as ‘a political waka for all peoples’ with a specific focus on giving a voice to ‘the poor, the powerless and the dispossessed’ and to ‘empower them against the government by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful’.

    Does the Maori Party qualify as a Maori Party?

    Flavell said the Maori Party wanted to target the general vote at next year’s election and needed high-profile candidates in order to compete. The party also wanted to broaden its appeal with Flavell saying their aim was to represent wider New Zealand, but realised they had to address the perception they were a party for Maori only.

    The party had stood Chinese, Pakeha and Pacific Island candidates when it was first formed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    Three, two, one. Manolo arriving any minute to start attacking “Labour Lite”.
    Three, two, one. Manolo arriving any minute to start attacking me”.
    Three, two, one. Manolo arriving any minute to start attacking Obama.

    Edit: Hang on, he’s been there, done that, two out of three ain’t bad.

    Craig has been a very reliable media provider for the last few weeks. He will be relying on his mega exposure to start translating into poll improvements.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. iMP (2,354 comments) says:

    The MSM is REALLY REALLY struggling with letting go of their addiction of defining Colin Craig as “whacky.” You can feel their withdrawal pains. Audrey has a go here, as did Guyon Espiner yesterday. As Craig says, eventually they’ll be forced to move in to real land and let their manufactured nonsense go.

    If you read what Craig actually says in the transcripts, it bears little resemblance to what the media made up and ran with.

    It’s really just a case of throwing stones at a new kid on the block that they don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kowtow (8,184 comments) says:

    The Maori seats were introduced because the franchise was based on property ownership.

    Honkies who didn’t have land weren’t allowed the vote either.

    Now the roll is universal ,there is absolutly no justification in retaining race based seats.

    It’s that simple.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kowtow (8,184 comments) says:

    The bird on RNZ at 1010 this am tried it on too…….but her guest put her back in her box by saying Craig is a latter day Socrates…..posing questions that should be posed…….

    brilliant!

    But the point is all arms of the “progressive” media are out there attempting to blacken his reputation. For that alone I would give the Conservatives my party vote.

    If the progressive media see him as an enemy and threat ,then he must have an important message.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. big bruv (13,674 comments) says:

    “Honkies who didn’t have land weren’t allowed the vote either.”

    Nothing wrong with that. I would change the law so that only those who were not receiving a benefit of any type (save the Pension) could vote.

    On the DPB…no vote
    On the Dole…no vote
    On the Sickness benefit…no vote
    On the invalids benefit…no vote
    On the WFF benefit…no vote

    Only those who put in more than they take should be allowed to vote.

    The rest are just bludgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. OneTrack (2,981 comments) says:

    “I’m sure Maori will be happy to part with the Maori seats once our new constitution enshrines the Maori Upper House.”

    Why cant they have both?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    In a separate NZH article:

    Conservatives would seek repeal of anti-smacking law, says Craig

    It was a response to a 2007 act which abolished the use of reasonable force by parents as justification for disciplining children, although police have the discretion not to prosecute in the use of force against a child when it is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in prosecuting.

    “I do think there is a mandate from the people to change that and I do think that is something we could reasonably ask for a change.”

    There is no current mandate to change it. The referendum was four years ago, in 2009. Labour don’t still have a mandate to govern from 2008.

    Mr Craig said the smacking law was clearly not working because child abuse rates had not gone down.

    I haven’t seen any evidence that it “was clearly not working”. It’s possible publicity over the bill and referendum may have lead to less abuse but more reporting of the abuse that still occurs.

    It’s interesting that Craig is fixated on the smacking bill, still.

    On the questions of same-sex marriage, he said it would be “rather naive to think you are going to change the redefinition of marriage” given the overwhelming vote in the House on it in April, with 77 votes in favour and 44 against.

    He is already dropping opposition to the marriage bill which passed with a far smaller majority than the smacking bill. This is inconsistent.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Harriet (4,788 comments) says:

    “…..If the progressive media see him[Craig] as an enemy and threat ,then he must have an important message…”

    Just the truth kowtow…..just the truth…… a simple but important message…..a very easy way to stay on message too…..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. OneTrack (2,981 comments) says:

    imp -“, eventually they’ll be forced to move in to real land and let their manufactured nonsense go.”

    Yeah, right. Did they ever let go of Brash, Hide or Banks?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (4,788 comments) says:

    “….This is inconsistent….’

    LOL PG………..you lefties talking about ‘consistancy’ :cool:

    A fetus dosen’t turn into a human ‘baby’ by travelling down the birth canal in all of 20sec. Human life starts long before that -every dectetive knows that- abortion is homocide and that is why it was under the homocide laws!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    For that alone I would give the Conservatives my party vote.

    Odd.

    If the progressive media see him as an enemy and threat ,then he must have an important message.

    Funny. The media have given Craig more attention and coverage than Key, Cunliffe or any other politician or wannabe politician over the last month. He’s been given a huge amount of free publicity with a fairly open forum. And he’s not complaining about what the media are giving him, he’s milking it as much as he can.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. cha (3,935 comments) says:

    Honkies who didn’t have land weren’t allowed the vote either

    Poor honkies.

    This is, however, to focus on the level of representation at the expense of an appreciation of the original intent of the legislation – the creation of a special franchise. The fact that the Act saw male Māori receive the right to vote irrespective of any property qualification, twelve years before non-Māori, often escapes comment.

    [...]

    In 1876 the Act was extended indefinitely as European members began to fear that abolishing the seats would result in a flood of Māori voters onto the European rolls, thereby jeopardising the chances of European members in those seats

    http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000111521

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. peterwn (3,239 comments) says:

    Saying that Maori are over-represented with 25 MP’s may be an over simplification. These MP’s would be need to be ‘weighted’ by the portion of Maori blood they have. On this basis Maori MP’s may be under-represented. This could be difficult to do scientifically and querying this too far may be regarded as offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,973 comments) says:

    “These MP’s would be need to be ‘weighted’ by the portion of Maori blood they have.”

    Then wouldn’t you also have to weight the electorate by their portion of Maori blood?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,835 comments) says:

    He is already dropping opposition to the marriage bill which passed with a far smaller majority than the smacking bill. This is inconsistent.

    There is no inconsistency if you read what he had to say. He may have not had time to point out that John Key promised to repeal the anti-smacking law if good parents were being prosecuted for minor physical discipline. That is big difference to the redefinition or marriage law.

    If your leader had not been so pig headed and arrogant over parental authority he could still have had a number MPs in Parliament. He hoped to get a number of MPs in his party knowing full well their conservative values and thought he could have his own way on all issues and was not prepared to compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    He may have not had time to point out that John Key promised to repeal the anti-smacking law if good parents were being prosecuted for minor physical discipline.

    I’m not aware of and significant cases of good parents being prosecuted for minor physical discipline so Key would appear to be fine on that.

    There is no mandate for changing the status quo on the smacking bill.

    If Craig gets into Parliament and wants to change the smacking bill he will need to get a majority of MPs to support it or he can initiate a CIR, get the required signatures, get a favourable result in a referendum and then convince Parliament it should act on that mandate.

    Otherwise Craig has no current public support for changing the smacking bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. gretchenp (5 comments) says:

    I’ve decided – CC will be getting my vote!!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    Bob McCoskrie from familyfirst has been commenting for some years about numbers of parents that are being investigated for smacking their children.

    “There have been recent examples where only the common sense of juries has protected parents from the actions of politicians. These include a couple who faced 15 charges of excessive time out and chores, physically restraining a child, and smacking – and who were acquitted by the jury unanimously on all 15 charges. And a father was acquitted in the Wellington District Court in June by a jury after being charged for attempting to control a disruptive and unruly child.” – See more at: http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=1978#sthash.HptN2ygc.dpuf

    The public opinion against the anti-smacking bill has in the past been in the region of 85% against this legislation. So I would like to see a referendum on this issue. Because I believe most parents would like the right to physically discipline their own children. And most parents would like the police and the state to stay out of their families lives. Parents would accept that there is a need for police or social work intervention in cases of child abuse. However this was adequately covered in the previous legislation under section 59.

    Unfortunately what we are having is more and more government intervention in the lives of ordinary New Zealanders who are now telling parents how to raise their own children.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bc (1,365 comments) says:

    Ye gods – what’s going on, Colin Craig is starting to make sense!!

    Remember the United Future worm moment – could the same thing happen to Colin Craig?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kowtow (8,184 comments) says:

    …..more and more intervention……

    and a new law of parental consent to give alcohol to others…..reinforced by really stupid TV ads.

    More parliamentary knee jerk reactions to a failure of decency,manners and common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. grumpyoldhori (2,361 comments) says:

    One would hardly call Nat MPs who have a slight tinge of brown Maori, for one damn good reason, they are all too damn lazy to learn reo.

    Big bruv, you must be a screaming liberal, why not make it that the only ones who can vote are those who spent time in the NZ military ?

    Amusing that Craig wants NZ youth to go through compulsory military training when he did not do it himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. iMP (2,354 comments) says:

    RightNow at 1:34 pm… “Then wouldn’t you also have to weight the electorate by their portion of Maori blood?”

    Mate, if Maori Mps had to be weighted according to their indigenous blood, then Parekura Horomia would have held ALL the Maori seats by himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Odakyu-sen (576 comments) says:

    “Maori are indigenous? What, they immigrated here 600 years ago and now have indigenous status? Gosh the left love changing the meaning of words. So my (white)family has been here 175 years. Is that long enough to call ourselves “indigenous”?”

    [Apologies for veering off topic]
    You think you’ve got it hard. The Japanese have been living on the Japanese archipelago for over 3,000 years since the start of Yayoi Period(1, but they are not the “indigenous” people (that would be the Ainu, it seems). So, duration of occupation has nothing to do with it.

    To be “indigenous” you have to:
    1. Be there first
    2. Not be considered by Marxists to be in a position of “power”

    1. Ref.http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/3753/1/SES73_006.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    He will be relying on his mega exposure to start translating into poll improvements.

    Try not to impose your own venal view of life onto someone else’s motivations Pete. It just makes you look silly and ignorant. Not to mention unfair, insensible and unreasonable.

    There is no mandate for changing the status quo on the smacking bill.

    I may be wrong but personally I think this is what marketers call ‘latent demand.’ Which occurs when no-one asks for a product because it hasn’t occurred to them to ask for it but as soon as it hits the shelves it’s an instant hit. Vodka Citron was one of these. Changing the smacking legislation regardless of prosecutions that have or have not been made, I think is another. I think people perceive it for what it is, state intrusion into the family and I think most people think on this: the state can f right off out of their families.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. iMP (2,354 comments) says:

    Parliament needs a smack.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nasska (11,169 comments) says:

    It’s amazing….all this free publicity & exposure for the CCCP yet the last Roy Morgan poll showed them flatlined on 2% support.

    Media bias…..not lately.

    Lack of funding…..nah.

    Lack of blind, sycophantic, arse licking support on Kiwiblog….never!

    It couldn’t be, just suppose, that 98% of the electorate equate CCCP policies with a cup of cold sick?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. BlairM (2,314 comments) says:

    We already have a referendum on the Maori seats every five years. Maori choose whether they want to be on the General or Maori roll. The majority choose the General roll. So a clear majority have already said they are unnecessary by voting with their feet.

    Get rid of them now!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Amusing that Craig wants NZ youth to go through compulsory military training when he did not do it himself.’

    Only because our socialist house has always been against boudaries and discipline and substantial guiding vision for youth

    who had apprenticeships taken away from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. DJP6-25 (1,362 comments) says:

    So far so good. Now when they ask fruit loop questions, he just has to remember to say ‘no comment’. Then he has to ask the ‘journalist’ (trained and professional) if they’d ask David Cunliffe, or Russel Norman that question. Step three is to rescind the ‘use it or lose it’ policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. grumpyoldhori (2,361 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business, fuck, when did the NZ army have a substantial guiding vision for youth ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Duxton (633 comments) says:

    “I’d replace them with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the electoral system to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs.

    “Parliament now has 25 MPs of Maori descent. I doubt there is another Parliament in the world that has the indigenous minority so over-represented in their Parliament.”

    FFS, David! Do you not realise that the second of these sentences contradicts the first? If Maori are getting into Parliament in greater numbers than their proportion of the population (and I don’t have any problems with that), then surely there is no need for an additional hand-up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Duxton (633 comments) says:

    GOH: “One would hardly call Nat MPs who have a slight tinge of brown Maori, for one damn good reason, they are all too damn lazy to learn reo.”

    Perhaps they were too busy learning something useful…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. doggone7 (769 comments) says:

    Saying Parliament has 25 MPs of Maori descent might be right. Saying that means the indigenous minority are ‘over-represented’ is silly.
    Do all MPs represent everyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. OneTrack (2,981 comments) says:

    Pete – “If Craig gets into Parliament and wants to change the smacking bill he will need to get a majority of MPs to support it or he can initiate a CIR, get the required signatures, get a favourable result in a referendum and then convince Parliament it should act on that mandate.”

    And since we have already had that CIR with a significant majority, it wont cost us any money (like the Greens referendum still is).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    That CIR was over four years ago. History.

    It would be interesting to see what opinion was now on the actual legislation, rather than a question only vaguely related to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. stephieboy (2,690 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business (2,648 comments) says:
    December 13th, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Wiri it was National who abolished School cadet military training in 1964.
    True Labour abolished compulsory military training in 1972 but National never has had an inclination to reinstate it.
    The facts are that a fully professional army, navy and air force gets the best results.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    I can just see the Con Party motto now- Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, Spanking.

    And incidentally, apart from Christine Rankin and ex-Kiwi Party hack Simonne Dyer, just how many women are on their party list?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.