by Metiria Turei
I was at the announcement of the terms of reference of the Foreshore review yesterday. It was rather hard in some respects, seeing many people there who were such a major part of the campaign against the law and remembering what an awful campaign of hatred it was.
I heard the Maori Party clearly state that they wanted the bill to be repealed and their hope, expectation even, that the review would result in that. I heard John Key leave the door open but not make any promises. There was also reference to Tariana’s repeal bill and mention of her having resigned her ministerial position and leaving Labour over it.
I couldn’t help but wonder why no-one asked the question: “If National does not repeal the Act, will you relinquish your ministerial posts as you did before?” It is a tough question but needed to be asked.
The Maori Party is an exceptional political advocate for kaupapa Maori. But the Act is the Maori Party’s raison d’être. Anything less than a repeal (with a sop to public access) will give them serious credibility headaches. Could Pita and Tariana really stay on as Ministers with anything less than repeal and still be the principled MPs that they are?
The National Party will also be feeling the pressure. What if they were to lose the Maori Party from their government? They don’t need the Maori Party for votes, but they do for credibility.
The Nats are promoting themselves as able to work across the political spectrum, trying to woo Maori. They are purposefully looking quite different from the “last cab of the rank”, the much more defensive previous Labour Government. The Maori Party is critical to this image.
I hope that the Maori Party is seriously considering abandoning its ministerial posts if the outcome is a white wash and I hope they have said as much to National.
I can understand that they could not secure a promise to repeal the Act when they signed up to Government. They didn’t have the clout then.
But as more time passes, National is investing more and more of their future political credibility in the apparent stability and management of diverse political interests. They will not want to have the happy lovefest ruined only a year into Government. The Maori Party is at its strongest over this period of the review, if they remain willing to talk and willing to walk away. We could see the back of this legislation if they flex that muscle. I sincerely hope they do.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Metiria Turei on Thu, March 5th, 2009
Tags: foreshore, Maori, maori party, national party, ocean, seabed
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
“It was rather hard in some respects, seeing many people there who were such a major part of the campaign against the law and remembering what an awful campaign of hatred it was.”
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/23397/index.php
The credibility of The Greens is on the line also, as Chris Trotter points out:
For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?
And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/258693
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A FORESHORE PRIMER
Prepared by Te Hau Tikanga – The Maori Law Commission.
This Primer canvasses some of the questions being raised in the current debate about the foreshore and seabed. It is based upon common concerns expressed by Maori over a course of Crown action that has already been labelled a new confiscation and which raises serious constitutional issues about the true nature of the Treaty relationship.
* Is this debate a new issue?
No. Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.
So it’s a Treaty issue then?
It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.
However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.
* Why has the debate become so prominent only recently?
The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.
* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?
No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.
The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.
* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?
No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.
What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
…………………………………………
Note The Greens endorse the above but take the view that Moari have a closer association with the land than Pakeha (a racist view) and would administer the foreshore and seabed benevolently for everybody (even on a bad day). The Greens also claim that this would cover small areas…………hmmm? for now maybe? In addition this is to be the setup for eternity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maori arrived later than thought – study
Their work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, concludes that the earliest evidence for human colonisation was about AD 1280 to 1300.
Their results do not support the findings from previous radiocarbon dating of rat bones, which implied a much earlier human contact of about 200 BC.
The original dates have been a source of debate since they were published in Nature magazine in 1996.
Critics say there is no supporting ecological or archaeological evidence for the presence of kiore or humans until the late 1200s, and they question the reliability of the bone-dating.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4569888a10.html
OVER the last 40,000 years, as anatomically modern but primitive hunters spread around the world, species after species of big animal vanished from the Earth in their wake. “Blitzkrieg” has long been scientists’ favorite image for these spasms of biological destruction.
Nowhere, perhaps, was the extinction more striking than in New Zealand, where an entire class of large flightless birds called moas, 11 species and an estimated 160,000 individuals in all, once lived. New evidence now suggests that it may have been the most rapid extinction ever brought about by primitive people.
http://dml.cmnh.org/2000Apr/msg00529.html
[Of course we would have done the same]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am not quite clear on why the frog sees some implied conflict between the Maori Party and Act on this issue.
Act has always supported the right of the Maori to go to court on this issue because they were claiming a property right and could claim that only in a few special cases as the court recognised in its decision.
While National has been less committed to property rights it too has always been amenable to that argument with a few caveats. (I agree that this matter should not be decided by the Maori Land Court because it will be essentially a settlement of conflicting claims about use and pakeha would not be allowed to argue their case in the Maori Land Court.
If the Maori were able to win their claim then if the Crown demanded clear ownership then it could take the land and compensate the owners.
The matter had been resolved by the Harbours Act of 1909 or thereabout but unfortunately the Harbours Act was repealed with the passing of the RMA and no one remembered to reinstate its declaration that the whole foreshore belonged to the Crown.
I wrote a paper for an Act conference on the Foreshore at the time. It is at:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/issues/45-maori-culture-club/65-the-foreshore-law-and-politics-conference-october-4th-2003
or directly downloaded at
http://rmastudies.org.nz/documents/foreshore.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To save the time required to read right to the end of the paper here is the footnote dealing with the Maori Land Court Issue:
Footnote
Some suggest that Iwi should be allowed to pursue their claims through the courts, and then have the Crown purchase any successful titles granted by that process. The merit of this argument is that it reduces the grievance claim that Maori have been denied a right. My own view is that this would prove an expensive and divisive solution for all concerned.
I also believe that these claims should not be dealt with by the Maori Land Court because the Court itself currently admits that the foreshore and seabed are not Maori Land. The jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court is limited to Maori land. Maori cannot use the Maori land Court to claim ownership of the seabed any more that an iwi can use the Maori Land Court to claim ownership of my land, your land or anyone else’s land because there are competing claims to ownership and use. An exclusive property right to the foreshore or seabed requires the creation of the new title or other right.
In other words the Maori Land Court is currently limited to adjudicating competing claims to existing Maori land. It was not always so. The original function of the Court was to create genuine legal title (as guaranteed by Article II of the Treaty) so that Maori would enjoy the benefits of clear title and gradually dispose of the weaker customary rights to use and
development. Hence the Court’s function was to create new title.
But times have changed and in particular times have changed in relationship to the use of the foreshore and seabed. There are now four million New Zealanders, all of whom have some relationship to the foreshore and seabed and could not as a matter of natural justice be excluded from a legal action designed to create title over such a huge area of territory always presumed to be in Crown ownership.
No matter how or what a Maori Land Court decided on such a matter the vast majority of New Zealanders (including many Maori) would feel they had been denied justice because of their exclusion from the judicial process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How can anyone claim to ‘own’ the unownable???
The foreshore was unowned before the first immigrants arrived, it has remained unowned since, it will be around long after the nasty infestation called humans have passed into history.
The Foreshore act’s only failing is that it does not go nearly far enough. ALL TITLE MUST BE EXTINGUISHED. I can fully understand the grievance of Maori if they are the only group to not have their day in court. I would have thought The Greens would be at the forefront of the ‘foreshore belongs to nobody’ school of thought.
It’s the only truly fair and sustainable long term protection for our precious coastline. Find any existing ‘titles’ and rip them up!
“I belong to (Mahia/ Kaipara/ Waitamata)” is one thing, I can respect that. “(Mahia/) belongs to me” is so arrogant and pretentious as to be laughable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/comment-whoareditorial-foreshore-law-changes-likely-to-be-cosmeticand-how-clarklabour-really-blew-it/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This will be interesting. My general impression was that you had the Maori Party (and the Greens to some extent) on one side of the debate and National on the other. Labour were stuck in the middle and tried to come up with something that attempted to keep everyone happy, but in the end truly pleased nobody. The only thing the Maori Party & National have in common on this is their dislike for what the Labour Party came up with.
This is the true test of whether the Maori Party and National can work together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Crown was assumed to own the foreshore and seabed just as the Crown owns all the land of New Zealand.
We have the right our private lands by virtue of fee simple which means we pay an eternal lease up front.
So the Crown can allocate certain property rights to the foreshore and seabed just as it can allocate fishing quota rights and the right to farm mussels etc.
The problem with something totally “unowned” is that no one knows who to approach to negotiate a right to occupy or use.
In times past one normally opened such negotiations with a war party and a show of strength and if mediation did not work then tribal war was the means of resolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘… Moari have a closer association with the land than Pakeha (a racist view) …’
Why is this a racist view? My ancestry is Scottish, and would say I have an closer association with the highlands than Maori. Is that racist? I was brought up with stories of Robert the Bruce watching spiders, not Maui hauling up fish. My distant ancestors are buried half a world away, not here. In my Whaka
I find it disturbing that people throw around the ‘r’ word so easily. Acknowledging differences between peoples cultural traditions is not racist. Denying people access to the courts because of those differences is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the hope of repeal [ foreshore Act] might be real fwwog
but the reality is that if repealed
it will be replaced by something more real.
like we all own the foreshore fwwog,
and we invest this ownership with the State,
nothing any radicals can do or say wiull change this,
the State is power and ownership fwwog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
>‘… Moari have a closer association with the land than Pakeha (a racist view) …’
> Why is this a racist view? My ancestry is Scottish, and would say I have an closer association with the highlands than Maori.
I think the traditional Scottish emotional attachment to the land has taken root quite strongly in Otago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From the reaction of my Maori neighbours and friends these kinds of statements become racist when written into District Plans which make statements such as:
“Maori believe this…” and “Maori believe that … ” and imply that all Maori hold the same beliefs. One of my Maori neighbours who is Ratana Maori got quite cross when he read the “Maori Issues” chapter and said “Who are these people who claim to know what I believe – just because of the colour of my skin. I am an individual and I happen to be Christian and don’t hold with any of this old stuff.”
I know how he feels. I would not like to declared a Catholic because of my Irish ancestry and nor would my wife like to be declared a Presbytarian because of her Protestant Ancestry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
How can anyone claim to ‘own’ the unownable???
The foreshore was unowned before the first immigrants arrived, it has remained unowned since, it will be around long after the nasty infestation called humans have passed into history.”
Another example of the Greens being anti human troglydytes…..when are you gearing up the camps and the ovens then samiam?
Property ownership is the basis for civilization you nong….it determines what belongs to who so to avoid conflicts and allow people to live with each other in peace.
Go visit some places in the world where they don’t respect property rights…and witness the poverty and death that results.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who was that Act member who wanted to own the beach around the black opal farm at Wainui?
How many rich dudes are miffed they can’t buy their own exclusive beach like their mates overseas?.
Should we own the birds James? The value of property rights is not absolute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Why is this a racist view? My ancestry is Scottish, and would say I have an closer association with the highlands than Maori. Is that racist? I was brought up with stories of Robert the Bruce watching spiders, not Maui hauling up fish. My distant ancestors are buried half a world away, not here. In my Whaka
…………………….
Yes but most relevant is what people who grew up in NZ experienced. I wouldn’t call hearing stories of Robert the Bruce as being as important as the place that made you homesick (whenever you left it), as a child.
Tariana Turia’s father was an American soldier both my parents were born here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
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.”
* fastest mass extinct in human history
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17412
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Hope that the Foreshore Act will be repealed is real”
I hope that it isn’t, and most reasonable New Zealanders would agree with me. The last thing I wish to see is a toll booth at New Zealand’s beaches and the people having to pay to access them because of an accident of birth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James. Humans are land based creatures, we cannot live on the foreshore or seabed. It’s not our domain. Some would suggest that it should belong to all New Zealanders, I however believe it should belong to none. Belonging to all brings the specter of ‘the tragedy of the commons’ where everyone rapes it before others do. Our use of the foreshore and its resources should be a privilege, not a right. Sustainability should be paramount.
Cut the stupid insults too please, and no I don’t speak for The Greens so don’t tar them with my brush.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Michael King said:
Travel overseas at the age of thirty confirmed and emphasised for me that it is New Zealand and its experience and traditions, Maori and Pakeha, that is in my bones; and that there is no other part of the globe in which I would want to live or could live with the same sense of belonging and enrichment.
Among the subsequent experiences that have sharpened that feeling for me are being informed by members of the Aahi Kaa group that I was in fact a tau iwi or foreigner in this land; and, just as offensively, listening to Cabinet Minister Doug Graham say that Maori people had spiritual feelings for lakes, mountains and rivers, and that Pakeha people did not. Doug Graham might not have those feelings: but I and my family have them, as have the thousands of other Pakeha people I have encountered in four decades of walking, tramping and camping on this beautiful land; and doing their best to preserve the contours and the character of Papa-tua-nuku from a variety of commercial interests which have sought to destroy that character by ill-considered development projects.
“It is for all these reasons that I would say now what I did not go as far as to say two decades ago: that Pakeha culture can no longer be considered an imported culture; it has now been here long enough, in interaction with the land and the tangata whenua, to be considered a second indigenous culture. And it has become indigenous in the same way that East Polynesian culture became Maori culture in New Zealand: by turning the attention of migrants away from their land and culture of origin, and focussing their sense of commitment to this land. ”
“In the new edition of Being Pakeha, I go on to say that, as another indication of how far Pakeha culture has become indigenous, it is only right to see the macrocarpa and the wooden church as being as much emblematic of the New Zealand landscape and human occupation of it, as the meeting house and the cabbage tree.”
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/origins.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James. Humans are land based creatures, we cannot live on the foreshore or seabed. It’s not our domain.’
Matters not….we can use it for our needs so it should be owned to prevent conflict
“Some would suggest that it should belong to all New Zealanders, I however believe it should belong to none. Belonging to all brings the specter of ‘the tragedy of the commons’ where everyone rapes it before others do.”
Correct….that is what happens to things under “public ownership”.But private ownership prevgents that from accuring.
“Our use of the foreshore and its resources should be a privilege, not a right. Sustainability should be paramount.”
“Sustainibility…gag! This bullshit non concept is a joke…what does it mean? The most sustainible mechanism is the free market with its use of prices.
“Cut the stupid insults too please, and no I don’t speak for The Greens so don’t tar them with my brush.”
I will call you what you are you anti human dung feeder.Your view condems me and my family to death because we are human beings….fuck you ! Feel strongly about the issue…? Then you remove yourself from planet earth and do us all a favour….I will enjoy my RIGHT to life as long as I can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed”
White people have a very limited “relationship” with the beach and sea?
Uh-huh. You mean us seafaring nations? Those of us whose ancestors have been sailing the worlds oceans and harvesting its fruits for hundreds of years before Maori existed?
Speak for yourself, Catherine. What a truly silly distinction.
btw – I notice the “guardians of the seabed” are heavily featured on Coast Watch…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Doug Graham say that Maori people had spiritual feelings for lakes, mountains and rivers, and that Pakeha people did not
“Spiritual” meaning what, Douggy boy?
You and Delahunty should get a room somewhere….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Whoar’s rose tinted spectacles:
“The fears of five years ago have abated on both sides of the coastal ownership issue.
The first recognition of a customary claim to foreshore and seabed under Labour’s legislation is soon to be granted to Ngati Porou.
The tribe has assured the public that as kaitiaki (guardian) of the east coast from Gisborne to the Eastern Bay of Plenty..
..it will not restrict access to the beaches and foreshore except for burial sites and rahui..
..and no protests have been heard..”
Yet…….. but while eventually there could be a this beach is ours message and later all the iwi want to claim their beach and who guarantees good behaviour? The only guarantee is some alleged “kaitiaki responsibilities”. In otherwords this is acceptable to Pakeha as long as it is non substantial but as with water torture the message this is ours will grate. We are lucky that Moari descended to Aotearoa from Heaven not the bowels of the earth like the rest of us.
The reality is that this will translate into Moari versus Pakeha down on the waterfront. Every “they wouldn’t” discussion on radio brings a flood of “they did” responses from listeners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We shall fight on the seas and the oceans…we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches….we shall never surrender….
Yet more race-war can of worms being opened….
Key & the Maori party need to tread VERY carefully
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fascinating discussion. I agree with what Michael King says, that Pakeha culture is often very much under-rated. However, I also agree that for good reasons many Maori may have “stronger” links to the land than I would – that doesn’t mean I don’t have links though.
Regarding what Owen says about Plans “speaking for all Maori” I completely agree. It would be offensive to many Maori to have words and thoughts implanted upon them, just as it is offensive to me for someone to say “Pakeha don’t have links with the land”. I get annoyed at District Plans (and the RMA to some extent) getting all warm and fuzzy about “spiritual relationships” and “lifeforces” that Maori have with the land, sea & air. This isn’t because the links Maori have are not worthy of mention in District Plans, but rather that giving such “airy fairy” wordings leaves what are often very valid reasons for a place being sacred (like the site of a battle, or a mountain of great cultural and historical significance to a local tribe) open to ridicule by others.
As I said earlier, my general impression of this issue is that the Maori Party and National were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Does nobody remember the Iwi/Kiwi billboards?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
More hypocrisy from Met
“I hope that the Maori Party is seriously considering abandoning its ministerial posts if the outcome is a white wash and I hope they have said as much to National”
Right up until the last election there were issues that many thought the Greens could and should have taken a stance on, they could have taken a position against Labour yet they refused to do so as it would not be good for “stability”.
And now Met has the cheek to demand the Maori party do something that the Greens were never brave enough to do themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reality is this, if Non Maori can still swim, fish and play in the seabed and on the foreshore as they have always done then it is not a big issue as to who “owns” it.
However, if Non Maori have to ask permission or pay a fee to Maori for access to the beaches then Key will unleash a race war of the type we have never seen in NZ.
The total rubbish spoken by the likes of mad Cath do not help matters either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, the Greens weren’t part of the last govt. The Maori Party IS part of this govt. How can you compare?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I also agree that for good reasons many Maori may have “stronger” links to the land than I would – that doesn’t mean I don’t have links though.”
I don’t think you can extrapolate one (mixed) race to another when it comes to emotional attachment (spiritual is not verifiable). Members of my (greater) family had bitter disagreement over a piece of land and it wasn’t the money and i personally have a strong affinity to the place i spent the first few years of my life. The price people pay for view etc is ultimately about “the land”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it depends on the piece of land in question jh. If a Pakeha family has owned a piece of land for 130 years and passed it down through 4-5 generations then undoubtedly they would have strong connections with that.
However, if a Maori whanau/hapu/iwi has a connection with a piece of land that goes back 800 years then I don’t think there’s much debate that 800 year connection would be stronger than the 150 year one, assuming that over the 800 years there was somewhat continuous occupation etc. etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“However, if Non Maori have to ask permission or pay a fee to Maori for access to the beaches then Key will unleash a race war of the type we have never seen in NZ.”
I think the reality is that most of the broader members of the family tree will realise their little bit isn’t worth the angst. As John Tamihere said (something like) “and don’t think that when you go back to the old (seat of it all) you will be (important) they are the boss…….” (human nature).
This whole thing is based on a generous “all they want is mana” interpretation of Moaridom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very easily, the Greens were part of the last government in as much as they could have brought down Labour at any time, “we were not part of government” is simply hiding behind weasel words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB: re “And now Met has the cheek to demand the Maori party do something that the Greens were never brave enough to do themselves.”
I did not have a minsiterial post from Labour, nor did the Greens have a confidence and supply agreement with Labour. We didnt have the power to make them do the right thing in 2005. We could not have “brought them down”: just count the votes.
And the Maori Party didnt have the power with National in 2008 either, because thier vote was desirable not necessary. They are in a slightly different position in 2009, they have more leverage than they did last November. I hope they use it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Weasel words Met, you and I both know you supported the Labour government, hell you even admitted as much when you made the stupid choice to tell the voters you could not work with the Nat’s post election 08.
The fact remains that you have the hard neck to demand the Maori party do something that you people would not do yourself.
The Maori party will achieve more for Maori in this term than they have ever achieved under Labour, you never know they may even decide to take personal responsibility for the ills that affect their people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I note that South Island Maori are trying to charge people to fish on Lake Elsemere, if this charge is applied to everybody then I have no problem as apprantly the money is being used to clean up the lake.
However, if reports are true it seems they are only planning to charge non Maori to fish the lake.
The government must step in here immediately, you simply cannot have a fee structure based on race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
User pays?
Fine by me.
So long as all members of Iwi start paying for ALL the services they use that are provided by the taxpayer. Any member consuming more than they pay in tax will be sent a bill.
Only fair. Us non-iwi are managing our resources.
I look forward to SI Maori meeting their enormous shortfall each year, and my resulting lower taxes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said..
“..From Whoar’s rose tinted spectacles:..”
wrong again/still there..eh..?.. jh..?
..i did not write those words..(sniff..!..)
..i quoted them..
..but..top marks for consistancy..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Metiria Turei Says:
They are in a slightly different position in 2009, they have more leverage than they did last November. I hope they use it.
……………..
“leverage” as in more power than votes, the downside of MMP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro doesn’t like facts, but here are a few anyway.
At no point since the 2002 election could the Greens have brought down the Labour govt. From 2002-2005, we even voted against them on every confidence and supply motion. Don’t take my word, do the counting yourself as Meyt says.
The Greens were not part of govt in that strict sense, but certainly worked with Labour throughout this period and particularly 2005-2008 when we had two govt spokesperson roles. Its true we could have pulled support and lost the two spokesperson roles, both of which afforded real influence and were going well, but that would not have brought Labour down despite big bro’s fantasies.
And there is no comparison to the Maori Party re the Foreshore and Seabed act. Tariana did resign her Ministerial role in Labour over it. It is the defining issue for the Maori Party and the reason they exist. It seems a fair question to ask why they would continue to take part in the National govt if they don’t get what they want on this one. The closest comparable issue the Greens had was over the GE Moratorium being lifted, though even that does not really compare in magnitude. Nonetheless, it did lead to a rejection of Labour, which is why we voted against them from 2002-2005. Nothing hypocritical about this at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro, the Ngai Tahu commercial users permit applies to all commercial fishers on the lake. At present there are 5 fishing in the current eel season and apparently another 3 who catch flounder. These three are not included at present because the flounder fishery is closed there.
I know at least one of the fishers can whakapapa back to Ngai Tahu.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Met
If it does apply to ALL fishermen then I have no problem with them charging what they like, after all it is their land and their fish.
As for your last comment, I genuinely have no idea what that means, if you used a language that an old bugger like me can understand then I can comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can an old bugger use Google?
http://maaori.com/whakapapa/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I did not have a minsiterial post from Labour, nor did the Greens have a confidence and supply agreement with Labour. We didnt have the power to make them do the right thing in 2005. We could not have “brought them down”: just count the votes.”
You actually could have. I’ll count the votes for you
You had National’s 48; then you had ACT’s 2; then you had the Maori Party’s 4; then you had Field and Copeland, add the Greens’ 7, and you get 63 = enough to bring down the government. The Labour Government relied on your guys absention once Field and Copeland left the fold.
“At no point since the 2002 election could the Greens have brought down the Labour govt. From 2002-2005, we even voted against them on every confidence and supply motion. Don’t take my word, do the counting yourself as Meyt says.”
From 2007, it was possible. Once Field was kicked out of the Labour Party, the Labour Government relied on the Greens abstaining – since you cannot do the sums, I’ll do them for you (49 (Lab) + 7 (NZF) + 3 (UF) + 1 (Jimbo) < 61).
“However, if reports are true it seems they are only planning to charge non Maori to fish the lake.
The government must step in here immediately, you simply cannot have a fee structure based on race.”
Exactly big bro, why should I have to pay to fish on a lake because of an accident of birth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And what of Meyt’s response to big bro just above that the charges apply to all who fish?
“The Labour Government relied on your guys absention (sic) once Field and Copeland left the fold.”
No, Field and Copeland always guaranteed Labour their confidence and supply votes, probably because they were afraid they might cause an early election and get turfed out all the sooner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)