Clowns to the left of me, racists to the right…

Something ugly crawled out from under a rock this week.  In response to the Government’s proposals to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act, some strange bedfellows have established the Coastal Coalition.  Its stated mission is: 

…that the foreshore & seabed is the common heritage of all New Zealanders and should remain in Crown ownership. 

The curious mix in this coalition includes John Ansell, the designer of Don Brash’s notoriously racist “Iwi-Kiwi” National Party 2005 campaign billboards.  Ansell is recycling that design concept for the Coastal Coalition, with billboards like the one above.  Also involved is former ACT Party Deputy Leader, Muriel Newman, who is the Administrator for the Coastal Coalition.  No surprises in that, either. 

Green Co-Leader Metiria Turei was quick to condemn the Coastal Coalition campaign: 

“John Ansell’s bill boards are designed to scare instead of educate,” Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said. 

John Ansell was behind the iwi/Kiwi National Party billboards that stirred racial tensions in the 2005 election. 

“This attempt to re-run the divisive and dishonest campaign from 2005 is sad. New Zealanders have moved on. 

“Scaremongering like this is disgraceful. It inflames and creates division between communities as well as utterly distorting the truth. 

“The issues surrounding the foreshore and seabed are about the treatment of Maori equitably under the law. The right to access the courts and the right to have customary title recognised and respected. 

What is surprising, though, is that the likes of Ansell and Newman, both from the hard right and with a history of racism, appear to have allies from the other end of the political spectrum.  The Coastal Coalition’s spokesperson is Hugh Barr, Secretary for Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations, whom Ansell himself describes as “centre left”.  Ansell also claims media commentator Chris Trotter, who has published and blogged arguments similar to those of the Coastal Coalition agenda, and Jim Anderton as supporters of their cause. 

The problem for those who perceive themselves to be  on the left joining this racially divisive and dishonest campaign is that there are already around 12,500 private titles over the foreshore and seabed.  If they believe the foreshore and seabed should all be in public ownership, they should be advocating nationalising those 12,500 private titles.  It is not a position I agree with, but it would at least be a consistent one – nationalise the lot, not just the bits Maori may have claim to. 

Those purportedly on the “left” supporting the Coastal Coalition risk exposing themselves as… [insert your preferred option from this blog post title].

93 thoughts on “Clowns to the left of me, racists to the right…

  1. I’d suggest that we sorely need a “freedom to roam” law of the type enacted in many European states (including even the UK).

    That would ensure access to beaches (as well as lakes, rivers and high country) whilst allowing Maori to take full ownership of their lands. (Subject to the same limits as any other landowner, such as the above right to roam).

  2. I agree. No private title too foreshore and seabed. Put the lot into public ownership. Keep the ideal of the Queens/Public chain. With all of us having guardianship. That is the most consistent stance with Maori concepts of land ownership anyway.
    Hugh Barr is right about public access, but he should address the many places where private owners already restrict access. Often Illegally.

  3. Anderton and Trotter have no understanding of history. Their history is colonist history. They dont want to look at the raupatu or of how we were forced to the cities because we had no land to support us anymore.

  4. @Kerry Thomas 7:17 PM

    Sorry, I do not agree entirely. I don’t think it is fair for the Crown to unilaterally confiscate property, including that which iwi and hapu may have legal claim to.

    If we as a country make a decision that the foreshore and seabed should be in Crown ownership, then there should be a compensatory mechanism for those who can establish they still have ownership.

    Personally, I would hope we don’t do that, because the record of tangata whenua re environmental sustainability is better than that of we newcomers to this land.

  5. I do not think that environmental management from Maori of the seabed will necessarily be better as the first motivation for the foreshore and seabed claims was so they could join in with planting fish farms all over the sounds.
    I am waiting for the response when an Iwi wants to put a mussel farm in New Chums bay.
    If we are going to confiscate Maori title without recourse to the courts or compensate them for taking ownership. Why not make it fair and say no one can have title. Confiscate all foreshore and seabed from private hands and compensate private owners accordingly. We would all benefit.
    I am Tangata Whenua. My family has been here 6 generations on my Dad’s side. We have been associated over time with several Iwi. Peter Sharples Father is from UK. Who are the new comers?

  6. Oddly, the only part I find subious is the assertion that not supporting it somehow implies you are not ‘left’.

  7. Just because Ansell says that those lefties agree with him, doesn’t mean it is true. It is also possible for people who aren’t racist to be opposed to the government’s act for a variety of principled reasons.

    If Anderton and Trotter actually come out and say they support Ansell’s campaign then they can be vilified, but at the moment it is guilt by association.

  8. Agreed, Barry. I am waiting for the Anderton media release, or the Trotter blog. Much of Trotter’s blogging I have seen recently suggests he does support this racist campaign. Nothing I can find on web re Anderton though.

  9. Sorry, I do not agree entirely. I don’t think it is fair for the Crown to unilaterally confiscate property, including that which iwi and hapu may have legal claim to.
    …..
    What do you mean “may have legal claim to?
    “Do you not agree with the writer from Indymeadia??

    “As well as raising the familiar lie that the F&S ownership debate is about whether people can have picnics on the beach, the leaflet carefully ignores the obvious fact: since tangata whenua never sold the foreshore and seabed to the Crown, it has no legitimate claim to own it in the first place. CC claim that:

    “The foreshore and seabed were vested in the Crown when New Zealand adopted British common law in the 1800s.”
    —–
    Isn’t the foreshore and seabed covered by article 2 in Te Tiritti? Aren’t the Greens committed to Te Tiritti?
    Are you ducking for cover?

  10. The problem for those who perceive themselves to be on the left joining this racially divisive and dishonest campaign is that there are already around 12,500 private titles over the foreshore and seabed. If they believe the foreshore and seabed should all be in public ownership, they should be advocating nationalising those 12,500 private titles. It is not a position I agree with, but it would at least be a consistent one – nationalise the lot, not just the bits Maori may have claim to.
    ….
    9693 are private land
    2916 Maori land parcels
    273 unresolved

  11. For Metiria Turei to call for “decolonisation” without a single sentence in what this entails and then have the cheek to say

    Scaremongering like this is disgraceful. It inflames and creates division between communities as well as utterly distorting the truth.

    is equally disgraceful.

    What does “decolonisation” mean for the Green party

    Maori “uber alles”?

    Notice frog is quick to drop the racist tag into the conversation. Are people not entittled to an opinion without being called a “clown” or a “racist”.

    The term “bigot” comes to mind.

  12. Yeah, well apparently I am a bigot now. So, evidently, the bar has been lowered and the definition widened substantially. That or it has been redefined as anyone whom disagrees with frogs opinions/ideology; probably the latter.

    On the actual subject, the beaches were obviously in Maori hands prior to colonization. In most instances they were not sold or acquired through war, but just confiscated without reparations. While border-line legal, reparations are due regardless of if it is to be in the form of land or money (with the associated confiscation of all privately owned beach).

  13. “The issues surrounding the foreshore and seabed are about the treatment of Maori equitably under the law. The right to access the courts and the right to have customary title recognised and respected.

    What about the vociferous trumpeting of Te Tiritti?
    ………….
    1998 – Maori members of Green Party become the driving force for preparing a detailed stand-alone policy on te tiriti, as the Greens worked towards contesting the 1999 election separate from the Alliance Party. March 1999 – As part of the party’s justice policy, a “permanent partnership policy” is ratified. The policy includes the words: “We acknowledge that in international law covering treaties…. the indigenous text takes precedence”. September 1999 – The party’s constitution is registered. Under a heading “objects of the party” (3.0) are the words: “to honour te Tiriti o Waitangi”. In late 1999 to early 2000 – Te Roopu Pounamu, an organisation of Maori members within the Green Party, is formed. June 2000 – A draft preamble to the party’s charter refers to the Maori version of the treaty being accepted in principle. Mid 2000 – The party ratifies the Maori and Treaty Policy: “1.2 The Green Party acknowledge that in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi that in any ambiguity, the contra preferentum rule applies and that as such the indigenous version takes precedence over the English version”. For the last year this policy has been under review because of some unfortunate wording and detail and because it had received little debate in the party at a time we were all pre-occupied with settling in to Parliament. It does not represent current Green Party policy. However there has been no challenge to the statement above endorsing the Maori language version which was strongly supported at two hui – at Tamaki Makau Rau in April 2001 and Hirangi Marae in December 2001. It was reconfirmed at the Green Party summer conference in Picton, early 2001, at the AGM in Nelson 2001 and at the policy conference near Thames in January 2002. Green MPs have spoken out in line with the policy in numerous speeches at Parliament over the past two years.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/ka-rere-te-hue-mataati-first-buds-and-shoots-stretch-out-green-partys-journey

    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.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

  14. Ambiguity:
    SYNERGY BETWEEN TRIBUNAL AND GREEN POLICY POSITION
    1. Due process

    * Allow Mäori to follow due process through the Courts and the Government to make incremental changes as necessary. We agree that the Crown is not driven to act in such as expeditious manner.

    2. Public access

    * Agree that the public should have access to the Foreshore and Seabed (FSSB). The Tribunal also states that there may be necessary instances where exclusion is warranted. For example urupa, waahi tapu, rähui. The Green position supports some form of exclusivity in certain circumstances.
    * Access will be secure because it only refers to the FSSB – it does not relate to the area above mean high water springs. Clearly there would be practical difficulties in excluding people from the inter-tidal area. In addition most New Zealand beaches have sand above the high tide mark.
    * The Tribunal state that legislated access is unnecessary given the concept of manaakitanga. However the Greens may still prefer a legislated right of access.

    3. Inalienability

    * Agree that an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (TTWMA) could prohibit the conversion of customary title to fee simple thereby preventing any sale of the FSSB.

    4. Recognition of customary rights

    * Agree that there are rights in the coastal marine area and that these need to be recognised and provided for.

    5. Co-management

    * Both the Tribunal and the Greens have supported the idea of co-management arrangements. There is opportunity to build on existing examples such as Tuwharetoa/Lake Taupo, Okahu Bay, and the recently negotiated Te Arawa Lakes.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/summary-waitangi-tribunal-report-crowns-foreshore-and-seabed-policy-and-green-policy

  15. Toad. Calling someone racist because they disagree with you is one of the most overused ad hominum arguments I have heard.
    While I agree that the foreshore and seabed was taken without compensation in many cases. We have to come to a solution that is fair to all. Preferably by consensus, but it will not be robust if the majority appose it.
    Both Labour and NACT shut down the debate to soon in my opinion.

    The Maori party are all about property rights and continuation of using up natural resources. That is why they fit with NACT.

    I hope the Greens have a broader view.

    Those of us who use the coast for recreation are rightly worried that we will have to pay rentals for canoe and sailing clubs, pay a bigger bribe to use ramps or mooring areas. Maori would help their case a lot if they put our fears to rest.
    We already have a problem with landowners who threaten to call the dogs if you kayak up a creek on their property or who try to charge for access.
    I think the more consistent position is guardianship/Stewardship for future generations.
    The recent public outcry about schedule 4 land shows the (Maori and Pakaha) majorities attitude to guardianship.

    The right to roam is a good idea, but it needs to be coupled with responsibilities.

  16. I’ve always understood Green policy to mean not just relating to areas where there is a hapu and contiguous land to the foreshore which has been occupied generation to generation but much more: a recognition of tribal territories where access is “guaranteed” but the iwi name goes on the beach and the veto rights, development rights, kaitiakitanga etc????
    Am I wrong?

  17. It’s great to see the Green party sticking up for property rights like this. It may not be simple to sort out the foreshore issue, but we should start from the right basis: Maori must be as entitled as any other citizen to go to court to defend their property. (That doesn’t mean I think they will meet the legal tests to own every beach in the country, but I’m sure they will own some.)

    Interestingly, this used to be exactly what ACT argued (even Rodney). They were right. Now that ACT has abandoned it’s value of liberty, and seems to be intent to pursue popularist, authoritarian policies, it’s saying the opposite. As someone who’s voted for ACT several times (and was even a member of the party for a year), I’m astounded to see that the side of ACT I loved, like the protection of civil liberties, is so well represented in Green policy. I suspect there are other ex-ACT supporters who feel the same way I do. There’s even a surprising amount of overlap in tax policies (ok, this is sure to cause some disagreement, but principles like a generous tax free allowance are shared by other parties, and both parties don’t take an incrementalist approach to tax, but seem to believe it’s better go back to basic principles and develop and clean, fair system).

  18. Personally, I would hope we don’t do that, because the record of tangata whenua re environmental sustainability is better than that of we newcomers to this land.

    You sure about that Toad? Because the last time I checked, the Maori had a disturbing record of stripping the beaches of shellfish and other seafood (I’ll grant though that it isn’t as disturbing as the Asian record).

  19. toad,

    Your proposal to franchise Maori with enviromnmental status equal to that of the deepest green is not born out by their statistics.

    They care so much for their environment they are statistically more likely to kill their kids, break the law and end up in jail, be dependent upon the state, etc.

    So in that “safe” Maori enviromment you want the rest of Tauiwi to place trust?

    Slightly misguided surely.

    I love the environment as much a you. What you are proposing is Maori “uder alles” in regards environmental concerns ahead of the likes of you and me.

    Is this part of the Greens “decolonisation” strategy as well?

  20. Stop fiddling the FSB on the basis of political expediency and the control of customary rights, repeal the thing, so that the right of iwi to go to court and sort it out is reinstated.

    Simple.

    Fiddle the FSB, let it continue, resulting in new arrangements emerging based on its existence, use it to continue to oppress the rights of iwi to customary title –

    complicated, unjust, wrong.

    National would also make Labours racist law their own.

  21. I absolutely agree that all private titles involving the beaches, seabed, foreshore should be in crown ownership, in perpetuity, and there should be no attempts by this government to try to privatise these areas in line with their agenda to privatise every other part of the beach, seabed, foreshore that Maori don’t get in this giant carve-up.

    NActMU would not be considering this at all except that they stand to gain from privatisation and therefore future pecuniary interest.

    It is also a given that any land to Maori or to Others will end up in the general public having to pay to access or have access at the whim of the land ‘owner’. With this government so happy to sell off our land to overseas interests whose political and humane interests are even worse than this government’s, I shudder to think what is going to happen to our rights to access for free, without hindrance, along the usual lines of clean up after yourself and do no harm.

  22. Toad Says:
    Personally, I would hope we don’t do that, because the record of tangata whenua re environmental sustainability is better than that of we newcomers to this land.
    ….
    Not so toad Tangata whenua were responsible for the fastest mass extinctions (of a mega fauna) in the history of humanity.
    The extermination of the moas “is probably the clearest instance of the extinction of a whole fauna of large animals” in a short time by hunter-gatherers, said Dr. Richard N. Holdaway, the chief author of the new study, which appears in the current issue of the journal Science.
    http://dml.cmnh.org/2000Apr/msg00529.html

  23. Greens: Changes don’t go far enough
    John Key’s foreshore and seabed proposals protect saleable private title in the foreshore and seabed while undermining Maori customary rights,[to a few places or the rohe of Iwi and Hapu @ 1840?] said the Green Party today.

    Meteria Turie:
    “If Maori customary rights are put into “public space” it is only fair that all the foreshore and seabed is.

    “The repealing of the 2004 Act is a just a symbolic gesture from John Key’s Government. Maori want to see change on the ground, not empty gestures,” Mrs Turei said

    .
    Where? a few spots or the whole coast? … It’s not clear is it? Would think the greens would want to clarify that point?
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1006/S00217.htm

  24. *** Metiria Turei: Denial of customary rights unacceptable, say Greens ***

    Media release, 18 August 2003

    The Green Party is calling on the Government to recognise Maori rights in regard to the foreshore and seabed.

    Green Maori Affairs spokesperson, Metiria Turei said today that the reduction of the term ‘customary title’ into ‘customary interests’ in the Government’s consultation paper and Government prescription of what constitutes customary activity is an abrogation of the Treaty.[refering to the Maori version Article Two]

    “Where is the good faith relationship?” Metiria asked. “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.

    Metiria welcomed the Government’s decision not to legislate for crown ownership, but she is concerned that the proposal comes perilously close to a confiscation of customary rights.

    “The Greens support responsible access to the foreshore, which is compatible with Customary Ownership governed by tikanga Maori and the concept of public domain.

    “The clearest example is Lake Taupo, where ownership of the lake bed rests with Maori but everyone enjoys recreational access.

    “Customary ownership does not provide for the sale of land in the way that freehold title and western forms of property ownership do.”

    Metiria is also disturbed by the timeframe for consultation over the plan.

    “Seven weeks is a ridiculously short period for consultation over such an important issue. Maori have been waiting 150 years for justice but the whole country has a stake in the fair resolution of this issue. The Government is treating New Zealanders with disdain by trying to foist this settlement on us in just seven weeks.

    “The speed of this process suggests that the consultation will be a sham and that the Government’s mind is made up.”

    The Green Party is appalled that environmental concerns have been ignored in the consultation proposal.

    “Responsible stewardship of our coasts is essential for a sustainable future,” said Metiria. “That’s something Maori have a major stake in. We want to make our coast the shared responsibility of all, for the private profit of none.”
    http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/66614/foreshore-and-seabed-protecting-public-a?page=1

  25. I am a bit bemused by the billboards, because I thought this whole foreshore & seabed issue was about Maori being allowed to go through the courts to claim “customary title” on a case by case basis, which even if they win, gives them stuff all actual control just some extra mana.

    But this billboard says “development rights, mining rights, veto rights”, which is something else altogether.

    Either I have had the wrong end of the stick for years, or the billboard’s creators are a pack of scaremongers, playing off the fear people have of “the other” who does not look exactly like them, for some kind of political end… i.e. the worst kind of scumbag.

    I may be wrong, but the onus of proof is on those who are making the claims

  26. Here is part of an argument which supports the Bill Boards From Law lecturer and environmentalist David Round:

    “Righto, the proposal is that these customary interests would not affect public access, fishing, navigation, and existing use rights until the end of their term. But ~ the next thing to be very alarmed about ~ note carefully that these customary interests would be able to affect other things. You may read about these on pages 38 to 41. The holders of customary rights would be able to have input into such things as the allocation of space in the foreshore and seabed, and how coastal permits are granted.Local authorities would have to take the planning documents of coastal iwi and hapu into account when planning under the Resource Management Act. The Historic Places Trust, Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries would have to take them into account.

    It is easy to imagine that such a simple thing as the renewal of a whitebait stand (which requires a coastal permit under the RMA) could become involved in racial politics. If Maori have a customary interest, might they not insist that they should own all whitebait stands? One can imagine a hundred situations like this. On page 40 we read that ‘the coastal iwi/hapu would have the right to decide whether an activity requiring a coastal permit could be progressed by the consent authority’. So any Maori with customary title will essentially have a right of veto over innumerable things which might take place on the foreshore and seabed.

    They ‘would not be obliged to comply with the requirements of the RMA when giving or declining permission for a coastal permit’. They ‘would have the right to…refuse to give…consent to conservation proposals and applications…’ they might well decide that in future they, with their customary rights, will be the sole users of foreshore and seabed in future. And even if they decide to let other people use the foreshore and seabed, there will, of course, be nothing to stop iwi from accepting a koha ~ a financial inducement ~ in helping them to reach a decision on the matter. You will have heard just in the last couple of days that Meridian Energy has donated money to a West coast iwi which, after initially opposing the proposed Mokihinui dam, changed its mind in the course of the hearing, and now supports the scheme. This is by no menas the first case where financial sweeteners have assisted Maori decision-making. Even blunter expressions than ‘financial inducement’ and ‘sweetener’ may spring to your mind. But this is the future being made possible by the present government. Thanks Chris. Developments may well continue on the foreshore and seabed ~ marine farming is quite profitable, I believe ~ but another opportunity will be given to the new landlord/rentier/parasite class to clip the ticket on each proposal.

    And do not think for a second that this will be the end of it. If this proposal goes through it will just be an opportunity for further claims. Most of the coastline will have customary interests claims made over them. Planning documents will proliferate. Before very long things will get so complicated that new legislation will be required, which will give Maori just a bit more. And then more, and more…”
    Riding Roughshod Over Our Right to the Foreshore and Seabed

    David Round

    11 April 2010
    PS Put that up your pipe and smoke it frog!

  27. Slippery slope isn’t always wrong in every conceivable situation. If those things he outlines aren’t going to happen what is the objection to ensuring they don’t?

  28. People are concerned about the legislation – they are voicing their concerns, doesn’t make them racists…

  29. Just because it isn’t always wrong in every conceivable situation doesn’t mean it is right in this case. The onus is on the person making the argument to prove that it is right in this case, not prove that the opposite is not right most of the time. Ugh, triple negative :)

    I don’t need to refute the assumptions and conclusions if the conclusion is arrived to by using a fallacy.

  30. “…the last time I checked, the Maori had a disturbing record of stripping the beaches of shellfish and other seafood”

    ‘Stripping’ may gbe pushing it a bit, but sure Maori had a negative impact on the environment from time to time. But last time I checked, Pakeha had a pretty disturbing record of participating in the virtual wiping out whales and some tuna species, bottom trawling, over fishing, and assorted other damage to the marine ecology, so I whouldn’t start throwing stones just yet.

    “People are concerned about the legislation – they are voicing their concerns, doesn’t make them racists…”

    No, but declaring the categories ‘iwi’ and ‘Kiwi’ to be politically in opposition to each other does make them racist. There’s nothing so Kiwi as an iwi.

  31. For the last 25 years, the people of New Zealand have fallen hook, line and sinker for a massive emotional blackmail campaign by the Maori (really part-Maori) tribal aristocracy.

    Such has been the success of this campaign that people are terrified to speak out against the aristocracy’s view that they are entitled to own virtually all of New Zealand.

    Anyone who questions the fairness of that – as I know only too well – is automatically branded racist. It’s a classic trick and it works.

    The question is, people, will you cave in to this blackmail? Because if we’re going to be that lily-livered we might as well all pack up and move to Australia now.

    This issue is NOT about Maori v Whites.

    It’s about the National Party and the (mainly non-Maori) Maori aristocracy v the rest of Maori (who haven’t had a snapper from the grievance industry) and the rest of NZ.

    It’s about whether we want our country to remain a constitutional democracy or revert to a tribal aristocracy – like Tonga.

    If you put fear of being branded racist ahead of the love of your country, prepare to wake up one day between now and this Christmas and find that you no longer own your coastline.

    Key is trading our coast for votes.

    Before bagging this claim as far-fetched, I challenge you to go to http://www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz and do some reading.

    If Key’s plans are so innocent, why did he release his consultation document just before Easter and the school holidays, and allow just 20 days for you to comment?

    (Even with the mining proposal he allowed 48 days.)

    I repeat, don’t believe those slagging our campaign until you’ve read the details.

    I for one would certainly not be helping with the ads and exposing myself to this kind of abuse if I had not satisfied myself that the claims Dr Hugh Barr is making are genuine.

    To make sure I was telling the truth, I’ve peppered him with every conceivable question. Every time he’s come back with a compelling answer.

    Don’t let slick politicians and journalists (or ad men) do your thinking for you. Go and read the facts.

  32. Racists and clowns (clowns being the ones who think it’s an ideal solution):

    [frog: Thanks for restarting this thread, after an almost two-week hiatus, jh. While I do not support your views on this, I agree the foreshore and seabed issue needs more debate so the facts come out above the prejudices.]

    Maori Party welcomes repeal legislation
    Monday, 6 September 2010, 5:23 pm
    Press Release: The Maori Party
    The Maori Party is pleased with today’s introduction of a bill that the Maori Party and iwi across the country have been longing for.
    “We’re really pleased to see that a great injustice, a wrong will finally be righted and our people will get access to justice,” acting Maori Party leader, Te Ururoa Flavell said.

    The NZ Marine Coastal Area Bill was introduced to the House today and will have its first reading this Thursday. It corrects a major injustice through the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

    “Iwi and hapu leaders have had input into the drafting of the bill and will continue to guide the Government in creating the strongest pathway forward. We’re expecting there to be some refining of the bill during select committee.”

    The bill would give iwi the opportunity to gain customary title and to have customary rights recognised and protected formally, Mr Flavell said.

    “This legislation will give iwi a real say in the management of the coastal areas in their tribal domains in a way that was never possible before.

    The Maori Party has always argued that providing for the expression of mana is necessary to restore the relationship between the Crown and iwi, he said.

    “We welcome the statement upfront in the bill of the enduring mana-based [racial]relationship of Maori as tangata whenua, with the foreshore and seabed; and that the expression of that mana is to be legally recognised and protected.”

    ENDS

  33. It must just kill people like you that National are doing this. You going to vote Labour? Or maybe this will be the big comeback chance for NZF – and you’ll get Labour and us in the bargain. What’s a poor red neck voter to do? :mrgreen:

  34. “Responsible stewardship of our coasts is essential for a sustainable future,” said Metiria. “That’s something Maori have a major stake in. We want to make our coast the shared responsibility of all, for the private profit of none.”
    That would be good, but the reason why NACT are supporting the Maori party over ownership is so they can get the iwi aristocracy support for exploitation of the coastline.

  35. Valis Says:
    It must just kill people like you that National are doing this. You going to vote Labour? Or maybe this will be the big comeback chance for NZF – and you’ll get Labour and us in the bargain. What’s a poor red neck voter to do? :mrgreen:
    ……..

    Like last election I didn’t vote. I did donate $250 to the bill board campaign however.
    When will the Green Party submission become public or don’t you want to “scare the horses”?
    Hone Harawira says a Green/Maori Party coalition would deliver customary title?

  36. @Kerry Thomas 6:42 PM

    The problem I have with the current legislation is that it expropriates property rights on a racially discriminatory basis. It is only potential customary Maori rights to foreshore and seabed that it affects. A port company or rich prick who has or in future acquires fee simple property rights to foreshore and seabed is unaffected by the current Act and retains their property rights.

    The current law is racially discriminatory, and that is my biggest problem with it. If a Government were to decide that it is in the public interest for all foreshore and seabed to be in public ownership, and then negotiate compensation with those who have or can in future prove they have, title to various areas of foreshore and seabed, I would have less of a problem.

    But what Labour’s legislation provides is a racist response that impacts only on Maori customary ownership of foreshore and seabed.

    I agree with your analysis of National’s motives though, Kerry.

  37. It must just kill people like you that National are doing this. You going to vote Labour? Or maybe this will be the big comeback chance for NZF – and you’ll get Labour and us in the bargain. What’s a poor red neck voter to do? :mrgreen:
    …….
    this demonstrates one of the pernicious effects of MMP. You get your votes for a number of reasons and then decide for yourselves why your voters voted for you. You turn your backs on the voters under the guise of deal making (“it isn’t me , I was forced to do it). People aren’t as silly as the arrogant left believe however.
    Remember your success in the “yes” vote. :mrgreen:
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/07/arrogant-left.html

  38. “The problem I have with the current legislation is that it expropriates property rights on a racially discriminatory basis. It is only potential customary Maori rights to foreshore and seabed that it affects. A port company or rich prick who has or in future acquires fee simple property rights to foreshore and seabed is unaffected by the current Act and retains their property rights.”
    ….
    At least we have more chance of becoming a rich prick than holding “manawhenua”. In other words manawhenua is racially based and forever.
    Whats more it is likely to be the rich pricks who do deals with “tangata whenua” . This is already happening where an exclusive coastal subdivision pays off a local hapu while attracting rich Americans. Owen Glenn has this sort of set up in Fiji.

  39. Your don’t seriously object to a port company having private title do you?
    As for the others many are on eroded land and same are old titles. Either way this is just a diversionary tactic.

  40. FFS jh:

    A supportive link to Chris Trotskyter as well as a supportive one to Trevor Loudon on the same day.

    That does make it hard to pin down your political views, other than to confirm you support the sort of bigotry that labels anyone other than nice white folk like you as inferior and less “deserving” of human rights.

  41. That does make it hard to pin down your political views, other than to confirm you support the sort of bigotry that labels anyone other than nice white folk like you as inferior.
    ……..
    Give me an example.

  42. Many years ago North South magazine had an article “What do Maori want?”. The problem with that question is that not all Maori want the same things. You maybe excused for thinking the Green party want to vest the foreshore and seabed in total under Maori customary title.
    You could also be excused for believing that this move is predicated on a belief in the uniqueness and appropriateness of Maori culture; Maori have an altruistic (rather than self serving) and anenvironmentalist culture (compared to all the lesser cultural backgrounds of NZrs)?

  43. No, jh. I just want the law (as clarified by the Court of Appeal before the FSA) to take its course. Some bits of foreshore and seabed would end up under customary title. Some wouldn’t, because intervening events have extinguished that title.

    I really only want (the legislation to require) justice be administered in a manner that is non-discriminatory according to the prohibited grounds for discrimination contained in the Human Rights Act and the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

    Edit: Thumbs down wasn’t mine, jh.

  44. Some bits of foreshore and seabed would end up under customary title. Some wouldn’t, because intervening events have extinguished that title.
    …..
    Proponents of this process aren’t prepared to hazard a guess as to what or where (Piha, Raglan, Ninety Mile Beach?). The other issue is who is to say that this will satisfy any particular group. We have a Maori land court judge who laments the fact that in Fiji the indigenous tribes own all the coastal land, the difference being that there Fijians are in the majority. In the end it could all come down to power and if so then what better principle than equality amongst the citizenry.

  45. Like last election I didn’t vote.

    Figures. Can’t say I mind though.

    When will the Green Party submission become public or don’t you want to “scare the horses”?

    Hint: the last review process was last year, not this year.

  46. Valis Says:
    Hint: the last review process was last year, not this year.

    [frog: Thanks for restarting this thread, after an almost two-week hiatus, jh. While I do not support your views on this, I agree the foreshore and seabed issue needs more debate so the facts come out above the prejudices.]
    …….
    What’s the matter Valis is your policy a poison chalice compared to (eg) your “where all in this together” approach to mining? Chickens coming home to roost?

  47. A ministerial review panel was appointed by the Attorney-General in March 2009. The Panel undertook a nationwide consultation process with key commentators and key stakeholder groups, and held 21 public meetings and hui around the country. It concluded that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 failed to balance the interests of all New Zealanders in the foreshore and seabed, and was discriminatory and unfair. It advised repealing the law and replacing it with new legislation.

    The Government has considered the report and engaged in conversations with iwi representatives and other interested parties (business, local government, ports etc) to canvass options for an enduring solution. In March 2010 the Government released a consultation document outlining its preferred solution.The Attorney-General consulted widely on this document, including around 20 hui and public meetings.
    .
    We have a population of over 4 million and he considers himself to have “consulted widely”…. yeah right….!

  48. What’s the matter Valis is your policy a poison chalice compared to (eg) your “where all in this together” approach to mining? Chickens coming home to roost?

    It’s great of course, that’s why it’s been available on the website for over a year, and really hasn’t changed since 2004. Where have you been?

  49. This?

    *** Metiria Turei: Denial of customary rights unacceptable, say Greens ***
    Media release, 18 August 2003
    The Green Party is calling on the Government to recognise Maori rights in regard to the foreshore and seabed.
    Green Maori Affairs spokesperson, Metiria Turei said today that the reduction of the term ‘customary title’ into ‘customary interests’ in the Government’s consultation paper and Government prescription of what constitutes customary activity is an abrogation of the Treaty.[refering to the Maori version Article Two]
    “Where is the good faith relationship?” Metiria asked. “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.
    Metiria welcomed the Government’s decision not to legislate for crown ownership, but she is concerned that the proposal comes perilously close to a confiscation of customary rights.
    “The Greens support responsible access to the foreshore, which is compatible with Customary Ownership governed by tikanga Maori and the concept of public domain.
    “The clearest example is Lake Taupo, where ownership of the lake bed rests with Maori but everyone enjoys recreational access.
    “Customary ownership does not provide for the sale of land in the way that freehold title and western forms of property ownership do.”
    Metiria is also disturbed by the timeframe for consultation over the plan.
    “Seven weeks is a ridiculously short period for consultation over such an important issue. Maori have been waiting 150 years for justice but the whole country has a stake in the fair resolution of this issue. The Government is treating New Zealanders with disdain by trying to foist this settlement on us in just seven weeks.
    “The speed of this process suggests that the consultation will be a sham and that the Government’s mind is made up.”
    The Green Party is appalled that environmental concerns have been ignored in the consultation proposal.
    “Responsible stewardship of our coasts is essential for a sustainable future,” said Metiria. “That’s something Maori have a major stake in. We want to make our coast the shared responsibility of all, for the private profit of none.”
    http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/66614/foreshore-and-seabed-protecting-public-a?page=1

  50. “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.”
    …….
    No need for no Green Party? Will the Greens combine with the Maori Party?

  51. Toad 6th 8.22pm.
    http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2010/09/kia-ora-its-disappointing-that-john-key.html
    As you can see here I have already said that all foreshore and seabed in common/crown whatever you like to call it ownership/guardianship is the only durable way forward.
    There are some potential fishhooks such as land which has been eroded. Allowing ownership for the present owners life like DOC did with the Rangitoto baches could solve that one.
    The principal that anyone who can prove ownership rights is compensated both Maori or Pakaha equally takes away one of the main objections.

    Land such as that occupied by ports is already owned publically. It is an accounting entry to make it public foreshore and seabed. (Until NACT sell POAL anyway) The ports etc should then pay a lease.

  52. This?

    Naturally, I meant the Green Party website.

    “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.”
    …….
    No need for no Green Party? Will the Greens combine with the Maori Party?

    That is possibly too stupid to even respond to, but – obviously – there is a role for both, and other groups as well. No need to cut Maori out.

  53. Foreshore and Seabed – FAQs
    What are common law customary rights?

    These are rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown (although there is a strong argument that that sovereignty was never ceded only kawanatanga). The basis of common law aboriginal title is the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Native title is neither an institution of the common law but is recognised by the common law. Therefore they exist prior to the Treaty (but are guaranteed by it).
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/foreshore-and-seabed-faqs
    …..
    SYNERGY BETWEEN TRIBUNAL AND GREEN POLICY POSITION
    4. Recognition of customary rights

    * Agree that there are rights in the coastal marine area and that these need to be recognised and provided for.

    5. Co-management

    * Both the Tribunal and the Greens have supported the idea of co-management arrangements. There is opportunity to build on existing examples such as Tuwharetoa/Lake Taupo, Okahu Bay, and the recently negotiated Te Arawa Lakes.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/summary-waitangi-tribunal-report-crowns-foreshore-and-seabed-policy-and-green-policy

  54. So Green Party Policy is that customary rights aren’t extinguished by the acquisition of sovereignty by the British Crown and that (in fact) they would argue that sovereignty wasn’t ceded.
    To what areas would this apply to?
    Anywhere where there were “rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown”
    The Government should pay Maori a premium for the Foreshore and seabed if it abolishes customary rights:
    “The tribunal also makes the telling point that Mäori used some foreshore and seabed areas much more intensively than many mountainous areas in the remote interior (areas which the government acquired by formal deeds and payments).”
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/summary-waitangi-tribunal-report-crowns-foreshore-and-seabed-policy-and-green-policy

    Which brings us back to the billboards which Meteria Turie claims are “scaremongering”. Perhaps it is the “visiting rights?”. But this statement is true as Maori would have discretion in some cases to exclude people (assuming there is no written by law involved.

  55. “A SCIENTIST wanting to perform an autopsy on a dead orca was prevented from doing so by Ngati Awa elders.”

    So the next time a free hold owner does something we don’t like, we’ll take all free hold owners rights away. That’s if you intend being consistent. Great plan.

  56. “So the next time a free hold owner does something we don’t like, we’ll take all free hold owners rights away. That’s if you intend being consistent. Great plan.”
    ….
    That’s not really the issue. The issue is the store you Greens place in kaitiakitanga as though it was some high craft greater than the combined knowledge of our scientific institutions.
    As Catherine Delahunty puts it:
    ““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.”

    http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/diary-debacle-archive-6th-september-15th-september

  57. Meteria Turie supports Maori ownership of the local beach.
    .
    Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says the Maori Party need to argue that the bill is a win for them – but they will be voting, she says, for a confiscation of Maori land and for Maori rights to be treated in a second-class way.

    The Maori Party has painted itself into a corner, Ms Turei says, and will end up supporting an unjust law.
    …………
    Pushing one way and claiming everything will be the same at the other.

  58. Sorry, jh, I agree with Meyt. The right to go to Court to assert property rights should not be abrogated on discriminatory racial grounds. On that basis, I think I will keep voting Green, rather than vote for that racist scumbag Lhaws you jh, if you were to stand.

  59. The key point is that Maori in this case are not on the same footing as the general population. At the time the treaty was signed they were about 60,000 or there abouts but Iwi occupied every inch of territory. That according to the Green Party Foreshore and Seabed FAQ gives them customary rights. Today our population is over 4.2 million and Maori are of mixed race. Nevertheless this doesn’t stop you from claiming natural justice with regard to Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed. It is this that “the Crown” (actually the general population) are “stealing” from Maori.
    tch,tch,tch!

  60. “Instead of letting Maori have claims to customary title determined by common law, this bill spells out what those rights entail. These are substantially weaker than the private title rights enjoyed by non-Maori owners.

    “Under this bill, Maori will only get what the Government has decided they can get, irrespective of the strength of their claim under common law.

    “Yet 12,500 private titles over areas of the foreshore and seabed are unaffected*. This is unfair and creates a double standard which treats Maori customary title as inferior.
    …….
    So Meteria is arguing that Iwi have the right to the FSS under common law as occupiers in 1840 [correct me if I'm wrong]
    ==============================================
    toad (2295) Says:
    May 30th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    @hj 6:41 pm

    What exactly do the Greens think will happen by vesting control of the foreshore and seabed in the hands of iwi and hapu Toad?

    Justice! And goodwill between the peoples of our country hj.

    But it should be vested in them only if they can demonstrate *continuous customary ownership, or if it was alienated from them by a rip-off*. There is some foreshore and seabed that has found its way into private hands by legitimate means. Iwi and hapu have no claim to that.
    [Toad is arguing for something less draconian?]

    *General land 9,693

    Maori land 2,916

    Unresolved 273

  61. Thanks Valis.
    Meteria supports customary ownership of the local beach by tangata whenua (the people of the land- not you whitey/tauiwi… but you can do the tree planting while we supervise):
    .
    “What are common law customary rights?

    These are rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown (although there is a strong argument that that sovereignty was never ceded only kawanatanga). The basis of common law aboriginal title is the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Native title is neither an institution of the common law but is recognised by the common law. Therefore they exist prior to the Treaty (but are guaranteed by it). “

  62. Most land in Uganda is owned under ‘customary
    tenure’.
    The law recognises customary
    ownership as being equal to ownership with
    freehold title, and the landowners are entitled
    to the same compensation, whichever system
    of ownership they hold their land under.
    However, people trying to acquire land for
    development need to understand that there are
    differences between titled (or registered) land
    and customary (or unregistered) land.
    a) Customary land usually does not have
    any formal papers of ownership.
    ..
    Blah, blah… and you’ll get yours . I rest peacefully in the certainty that there will be a monstrous backlash when the proverbial hits the fan, as it will.

  63. How can the Green Party advocate for Maori customary ownership (of areas occupied @ 1840) and call yourself a green party? The point being that a green party to be honest to it’s name should be a party of greens and greens includes the whole population of people with green inclinations (not just a minority of leftists who feel Maori should own the beaches- a position which is anathema to a large proportion of New Zealanders)

  64. Let’s be quite clear Meteria advocates for: all the beaches (customary ownership being part of territory at time of colonisation); forever?
    Opposition = racism?

  65. Valis
    Posted September 8, 2010 at 8:38 AM
    You obviously didn’t take my advice about getting some rest as you’re talking more shit than ever.
    ………………….
    and you aren’t providing clarification. The point I’m trying to clarify is:
    Given:
    Foreshore and Seabed – FAQs
    What are common law customary rights?

    These are rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown (although there is a strong argument that that sovereignty was never ceded only kawanatanga). The basis of common law aboriginal title is the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Native title is neither an institution of the common law but is recognised by the common law. Therefore they exist prior to the Treaty (but are guaranteed by it).
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/foreshore-and-seabed-faqs

    When Meteria Says:
    “Instead of letting Maori have claims to customary title determined by common law, this bill spells out what those rights entail. These are substantially weaker than the private title rights enjoyed by non-Maori owners.

    “Under this bill, Maori will only get what the Government has decided they can get, irrespective of the strength of their claim under common law.

    “Yet 12,500 private titles over areas of the foreshore and seabed are unaffected*. This is unfair and creates a double standard which treats Maori customary title as inferior.
    ..
    She is advocating for customary ownership ofall the foreshore and seabed by Iwi and Hapu (since there were no unclaimed tribal areas in 1840)?

  66. and you aren’t providing clarification.

    Tired of doing so when all you ever do is ignore it and go back to your set lines.

    The point I’m trying to clarify is:
    Given:
    Foreshore and Seabed – FAQs
    What are common law customary rights?

    Literally don’t have time now to find you a definition, but such has been posted on this blog, it’ll be on our website and elsewhere too. But they are mainly traditional usage rights, much like you’ve quoted below.

    These are rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown (although there is a strong argument that that sovereignty was never ceded only kawanatanga). The basis of common law aboriginal title is the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Native title is neither an institution of the common law but is recognised by the common law. Therefore they exist prior to the Treaty (but are guaranteed by it).
    http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/foreshore-and-seabed-faqs

    When Meteria Says:
    “Instead of letting Maori have claims to customary title determined by common law, this bill spells out what those rights entail. These are substantially weaker than the private title rights enjoyed by non-Maori owners.

    “Under this bill, Maori will only get what the Government has decided they can get, irrespective of the strength of their claim under common law.

    “Yet 12,500 private titles over areas of the foreshore and seabed are unaffected*. This is unfair and creates a double standard which treats Maori customary title as inferior.

    She is advocating for customary ownership ofall the foreshore and seabed by Iwi and Hapu (since there were no unclaimed tribal areas in 1840)?

    No she is not. How many times have I said it’s not about re-establishing what existed in 1840! This is about demonstrating continuous use to the present. Remember, it was the courts that said some Maori hapu had a case they should be able to argue. The F&S Act took their rights to go to court away. It was expected few would be able to get above the threshold, but the point is they were denied their day in court due to govt intervention because Labour were so afraid of people like you lying about access to the beach being ended forever when that wasn’t what it was about either. Now we have this mess, bigger than ever.

    The Green Party doesn’t think there should be any freehold title to the F&S, Maori or otherwise.

  67. And what would you do that would make that situation better rather than worse? You’re in la la land if you think extinguishing customary title would have that effect.

  68. No she is not. How many times have I said it’s not about re-establishing what existed in 1840! This is about demonstrating continuous use to the present. Remember, it was the courts that said some Maori hapu had a case they should be able to argue. The F&S Act took their rights to go to court away. It was expected few would be able to get above the threshold, but the point is they were denied their day in court due to govt intervention because Labour were so afraid of people like you lying about access to the beach being ended forever when that wasn’t what it was about either. Now we have this mess, bigger than ever.
    ………….
    Meteria Says:

    ““Instead of letting Maori have claims to customary title determined by common law, this bill spells out what those rights entail. These are substantially weaker than the private title rights enjoyed by non-Maori [and Maori] owners.

    “Under this bill, Maori will only get what the Government has decided they can get, irrespective of the strength of their claim under common law.”

    But common law is derived from aboriginal title and aboriginal title is “the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty” meteria is complaining that the government is interfering and common law should apply. Nowhere does she make clear that this only applies to areas where there has been a continuous occupation. If it is about areas of continuous occupation and if these are few why is it such a big deal (how will it help the wider Maori population…. why a Maori Party based on that issue)?

  69. jh instead of banging on about what Maori may or may not do. How about worrying about foreshore and seabed now or soon to be in fee simple title.
    I.e. Ports of Auckland are to be allowed title to their reclamations, which, if Hide gets his way, will soon be sold to Mearsk or CosCo.
    Or the Pakeha in Parua bay in Whangarei who planted trees all over the public access then set their dogs on you on the beach.
    The many choice bays you can’t get to because they are surrounded by farmers who do not allow public access.
    Contrast with Maori land at Pataua S where the public are allowed over the land to access the reserve. (Which is under Iwi guardianship).
    Or Tongariro national park which was gifted to everyone by its Maori owners.

  70. What does the government (2004) decision mean?

    It blocks access to the courts for those iwi and Hapu who wish to pursue common law claims. In effect the government is denying one of the fundamental rights in the Magna Carta.

    It subordinates rangatiratanga to the whim of the Crown and acts in breach of the Treaty.

    It assumes Iwi and Hapu are claiming “special” rights from the Crown when in fact Maori are simply trying to reaffirm rights that have been in existence for centuries.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

    Nothing about continuous occupation from the Maori Law Commission.

  71. Kerry Thomas, these are separate issues. Meteria seems to be invoking Maori right to the foreshore and seabed due to it having been part of their territory in 1840. Valis is saying it depends on continuous occupation but I don’t see anything (yet) refuting the notion that a tribe looses its’ customary title under common law unless you accept the soveriegnty was ceded under the treaty (something the Greens argue against).

    “Contrast with Maori land at Pataua S where the public are allowed over the land to access the reserve. (Which is under Iwi guardianship).
    Or Tongariro national park which was gifted to everyone by its Maori owners.”
    …..
    or my Grandfather who gifted 20 acres of reserve or….. that’s cherry picking and these days Iwi seem to be more militant and greedy.

  72. jh. They are not separate issues. The only enduring and fair way to treat the issue is to have all foreshore and seabed in public/crown/common ownership Guardianship/Kaitaingaita. Whatever you like to call it. Alienating Maori land without doing the same to land held in private title, taking away rights to go to court for those with customary rights only is unfair and racially biased. Maori will be morally in the right leading to revisiting the issue again and again.

    No one having private ownership of foreshore and seabed is the only durable answer.

  73. “taking away rights to go to court for those with customary rights only is unfair and racially biased”
    .
    I agree with that but the question is who might have customary rights. Meteria seems to be using a line of argument that means more than claimed but is trimmed for public palatability (= not loosing votes). This debate moves interchangeably between the narrow (“only where there has been continued use of”) and the wide as in the foreshore and seabed, and apart from aboriginal title becoming comon law (which) Meteria is talking about she also introduced a remit regarding the indigenous version of te tirriti being the correct one. Every indication has been that the Greens intend to bend over backwards to honor the treaty as regardless of how it disadvantages the present non Maori population. As kevin hague says:

    “I want to acknowledge that actually we are asking people to do something (and we are doing it too) quite different from what we usually ask with our policy. Normally we have a very clear idea of the outcome we are seeking, and establish a policy to reflect how we will get there.

    But the Treaty is different. The words all have the potential to sound pretty hammy, but fundamentally the outcome being sought is a process: the process of absolute good faith negotiation, in which we Pakeha engage from a position of honour – acting ethically and morally.

    That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!”

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/05/03/my-speech-at-blackball-2010/

  74. I think it is sad that this debate/issue is driving a wedge between most Green Party Members. So much so that alot of members are dropping out. Alot of us are fed up with all of this Maori Rights contention, that they won’t be voting for the Green Party as a consequence. Is this issue important enough for all G.P. supporters to loose out entirely at the next election?! I also find that other changes are occuring, such as the emphasis on Maori culture, at all Huis/ conferences etc. Such as : the guest speakers are usually Maori; Maori language is being used alot; Moari songs being sung etc. I love the culture for its difference & quality, but politically speaking it is unpopular with the majority of N.Z.rs, who are mostly non-Maori. This is in fact political suicide. Keep Maori issues in the Maori Party, that is why they were formed. If you don’t agree with this then maybe you should think about joining the Maori Party instead? Cheers.

Comments are closed.