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].

We’ll start with the myths that Trotter is pedalling, both of which any journo doing a spot of half-arsed fact checking would have debunked.

The first is the now tired rumour, unfortunately amplified by Nandor post election, that the Greens were refusing to talk to National before, during and after the election. It’s simply not true, as the written and video records of the last year show. Here’s Jeanette, just 3 weeks before the election:

We have looked at the policies, programmes and public statements of both National and Labour. We found that they are closer to each other than either is to us, and neither of them aligns closely with our own ideals for a fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.

There are individual policies where we agree with the National Party, for example they helped us stop a law that would take away control of dietary supplements and they want to see more of the NZ Super Fund invested in New Zealand.

Depending on the outcome of the election, the Greens would prefer to work with Labour to form a Government, as their policies are more closely aligned with our own. But, no matter who forms the Government we will look for areas of common ground where we can work together.

That’s just one of the many records that Trotter could have looked up, if he could be bothered. The fact that it was said by Jeanette leads to the second myth, which is that Russel has taken advantage of Jeanette’s Co-Leader retirement announcement and signed an MoU with National, upsetting her and the rest of caucus. Trotter then goes on to predict our demise because of this tactical takeover by Norman, which is doomed to failure.

From Jeanette’s lines above, it is clear that she was willing last year to sit down with the Nats and talk about areas of common interest. As for caucus, well, I can say first hand that caucus was deeply engaged in the entire MoU process. It’s the way Greens do business. By consensus.

The Greens are obviously doomed to destruction under the divisive direction of the dictatorial Dr Norman. Yeah Right.

Then there is Trotter’s happy-go-lucky, Greens Come of Age effusion in the ODT. After waxing lyrical about the possibility of a Green win in Mt Albert, supported by secret whisperings from pollsters he knows, he goes on to say:

What they’ve actually decided to do is parachute in Mr Norman, the Green’s top-gun, along with his newly acquired coven of media wizards, to use the opportunity of the Mt Albert by-election to build and enhance “Brand Green”.

Simply by standing Mr Norman, and waging an aggressive campaign, the Greens are signalling that all is not what it was on the Centre-Left.

The children have left home.

The children have left home? How condescending. The Greens were never the child of Labour, the way the Alliance, New labour and the Progressive Parties are or were. Labour has eaten all her children, like Atreus in Greek mythology.

We were born from the hardy root-stock of the Values Party – a very different whakapapa of which we are very proud. Try as they might, Labour has never been able to eat her Greens. This might explain her weakness at the last election.

So Chris. Is Russel going to be the demoniacal demise of the Greens or the dashing debutante, ravishing Mt Albert?

Oh, and what’s this about a coven of wizards? Are we gender confused? (As I am with my dashing debutante?)

But the main reason for hope is that the Treaty settlement process is finally bearing fruit. Settlements have given Maori tribes an economic base on which to build and restored lost mana. The process has also given non-Maori a better understanding of injustices done to Maori in the 19th and 20th centuries.

This may well be true. Trotter claims that recent efforts to cement Maori into New Zealand’s capitalist elite are bearing fruit at last, despite the failed rear-guard action of Don Brash during the 2005 election.

But for me, listening to National Radio all morning while luxuriating in the day off, it seemed that the coverage had a more solemn, patriotic feel about it. Not jingoistic like the fourth of July celebrations I experienced in the States, where any questioning of the rituals was taboo. Instead, there was a civil debate about the appropriateness of our national anthem, our flag and our other national symbols without any of the polarising name calling I would have expected in the past.

Then there was the (and still is) the continuous flow of costumed party-goers making their way to the Cake Tin for the Sevens. The spirit around Wellington is positively buoyant.

Yesterday, I watched as the workers constructing the new Supreme Court hoisted a massive flag from the crane, and I assumed that it symbolised that the steelworkers had secured the last of the girders. (I’m showing my age, I fear.) No, it was all about Waitangi Day. Our national day.

There can be no doubt that the Treaty is the founding document of our nation and that the day of its signing  should hold a special place on our calendars.

The fact is, the odds are against New Zealand maintaining our status as a first world nation.

This statement is followed by many other prophesies of doom for the business and workers of New Zealand should we fail to follow the National Party’s prescription for “first-world” success.

I am more than willing to concede his points that NZ needs to boost productivity and that our current lifestyle is under threat because of the way we have structured our economy. The fact is, many of the OECD’s top economies are groaning from the bubbles and debt caused by unrestrained deregulation and pseudo free-market ideology. It’s the 1920s all over again. And here Hooton is, exhorting us to follow them straight down the road to perdition.

Some of my right-leaning readers will immediately assume that I am calling for some sort of socialist revolution, because that is the sort of name-calling we all like to engage in. However, like Hooton, I just want a proper dialogue before we rush headlong down the ideological path.

Hooton is right. We are a small, isolated island nation with only one massive multinational to our name. Only one? Is that so bad for a whole country the size of most medium size cities? Do we really want to judge our success solely on the number of multinationals we have? Or on the penis-envy scale of GDP? I think not. Nor do I think we should be rushing headlong into the American economic paradigm, like Hooton and the National Party would like us to do.

He’s right, we should take our cue from nations doing better than us. America, with their free-market obsession, isn’t one of them. Their deficits, their debt, their disregard for human rights and their callous treatment of their own citizens does not provide a good model. There are however, several countries that are closer to NZ in demographic, size and resources, which are doing very well both economically and for the benefit of their citizens. What about the the many small Scandanavian countries that top the OECD? Could we not hatch our own Nokia, like Finland? Could we not top the list in citizen happiness and well being, like Denmark, who still rank highly in economic terms? Could we not guarantee free education, health care and superannuation for our citizens while still hovering in the top, like the Netherlands? All we need is the political will. We certainly have the resources. What I fail to see is any leadership. We are just plain tired of Helen’s vision, and Key is too scared to tell us what his vision is because he knows that we’ll reject it out of hand. If , in fact, he has any vision at all. What a sorry state of affairs!