Beware “the racial bogeyman!”

The editorial in this week’s NBR puts an ill-informed boot into Maoridom in a manner that would bring joy to Don Brash – in fact for all I know he may have written it! Under the guise of assessing the membership of the recently appointed constitutional advisory panel, the extraordinary excursion into purple prose seeks to shock us with the news that ‘the racial bogeyman stalks the land‘.

Apparently the panel, with five Maori, one Pacific Islander, one Asian, and five non-Maori, is “…on the surface, stacked against more than three-quarters of the population”.  Makes me reluctant to even consider what might be going on below the surface!

A government plan to dovetail New Zealand into tail-wagging Maorification must be resisted…the rabid property demands of Tuhoe – who want their own private fiefdom in the hills – are evidence of a brand of racial separation that has no place in New Zealand”.

Rather odd language from a newspaper that is usually a staunch defender of property rights.  It is well established that Tuhoe never sold or gave away their land in Te Urewera, and that Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finalyson, not generally described as one of the more radical figures in Cabinet,  favoured giving them back control of the land until sideswiped by John Key’s populist antennae.

“Economic growth and investment confidence should not be threatened or undermined by the potentially nation-fracturing agenda of a minority”.  I’m guessing they are talking about Maori here, rather than this NACT government.

This sort of divisive nonsense does NBR no credit, and serves no useful purpose.

p.s. There must have been something very strange in the coffee at NBR this week – in the same edition, Owen McShane informs us (while yet again railing against metropolitan urban limits and in favour of urban sprawl) that “EU bureaucrats invented the IPCC to punish our rural sector with ‘food miles’ and ‘bovine methane’. ” Who knew?

13 Comments Posted

  1. Do you own some land Samiam? If so, it would obviously much safer if it was gazetted as National Park and you were booted out. That OK then?

  2. National Parks are gazetted by statute, so I beg to differ that any government could just whack up ‘for sale’ signs. Their protection is the best our laws can offer. How could the Greenz even contemplate any breaking up of that protection for any reason?

  3. From an outsider’s view, I say they have a right to the land. However, things are rarely that clear cut. I would imagine that a settlement that is beneficial to all of the population of New Zealand would be the best way forward. I wish I was more familiar with the politics of the situation, so I’ll do some more research before commenting further.

  4. Kerry

    It is European land owners who have big gates with security guards.

    May I suggest a side trip to Whale Bay near Raglan


    Very large gate at the end of the road. Not European but Maori.

    Try walking on that beach behind the gate (after climbing over barbed wire to below the low tide mark). Get a short shift from some mean looking dogs.

    There are defenders of “their” turf by all racial groups. No racial group is holier than another.

  5. “So what’s so wrong with the guardianship provided by the National Park status?”

    Too easy for it to be watered down or removed by a Government.

    See. Asset sales. Ports.

  6. “So what’s so wrong with the guardianship provided by the National Park status?”

    Vulnerable to gerrymandering.

  7. Owned is the Western concept.

    Which is why many Maori originally thought they were just selling rights of use.

    I would not argue with you Samian, if the Tuhoe were given back the land under a title of guardianship, similar to the way Maori originally regarded land.

    Obviously I cannot speak for Tuhoe and what they may do, but there have been several parks returned under treaty settlements that have been gifted back under Guardianship of DOC and the local Iwi for public use.

  8. Owned??
    Excuse me??
    Just because i stake my heart to my homeland does not mean it belongs to me. I might belong to it, but it will never belong to anyone. A National Park is the safest form of guardianship from that pathetic anthropocentric concept of ownership. Particularly in the light of the fact that none of us has been here more than a measly few hundred years.

  9. Not giving away. Giving back what they already owned.

    Given NACT’s mania for privatising and giving away public property to private interests I am much more confident that I can still go tramping in the Urawera under Tuhoe control.

    One thing I am sure of with Tuhoe. They will not turn around and sell the land to overseas interests. As Jeckell and National want to do with our ports.

    I have never been denied access to go to the beach or tramp on Maori land. You just need to ask nicely.
    It was European land owners who set the dogs onto me and tried to prevent me rowing on a, public, stream.
    It is European land owners who have big gates with security guards.

  10. So you would give National Parks, that belong to everyone, away to a certain group of immigrants??
    What good can come of that?

Comments are closed.