Key’s fight with Maori no accident

Written By: - Date published: 9:13 am, July 11th, 2012 - 145 comments
Categories: Maori Issues, maori party, national, water - Tags:

So, just 32 hours after Key started running the line that the Government would ignore the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision on the Maori Council water rights claim if it didn’t go his way, the Maori Party reacted.

Key is abusing the privilege of his office by trying to pre-empt a judicial body’s decision says Pita Sharples (he has, and Crown lawyers have been told to provide a written explanation to the Tribunal of Key’s behaviour). Tariana Turia says they will talk about their ‘future’ with National.

Big words. Saying the Prime Minister who gave who your warrant has overstepped his powers and intimating that you might leave the government. But what will come of it?

Nothing.

Key came out with a pre-prepared line this week on the Waitangi Tribunal designed to inflame Maori. It was not, as the Herald editorial claims, an accident of his candidness. Now, Key, having foolishly chosen to make this into a Maori v Pakeha issue to divide his opposition rather than sensibly orchestrate a deal with iwi that would have increased his mana, knows he has nothing more to lose by standing firm and having a fight with the Maori Party.

They can leave if they want and he would still have the numbers for the big stuff – yes, it would get dicey at times needing both Banks and Dunne, but they, too, need him more than he needs them and would know that bringing down the government would see them lose the protection from National that gives them their seats.

So, Key loses little by the Maori Party bailing out. Turia and Sharples on the other hand, lose a whole lot of pay and funding, a whole lot of power and respect, and those nice comfy limo seats. They’re not going anywhere.

145 comments on “Key’s fight with Maori no accident ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    11 July 2012 at 9:33 am

    They should back themselves and announce today that with immediate effect their support for this government is on hold.

    Fire it straight back at Key. Fight fire with fire.

  2. prism 2
    11 July 2012 at 9:34 am

    It’s disgraceful that John Key is so relaxed about proper process and has to mouth off about his opinions like some despotic king. He was brought up in a democracy that made some effort to pay attention to all its people, and was concerned to advance NZ as a whole, not to sell off major assets for ever, for short term gain.

    In hindsight Key’s financial background was just game playing with money as the measurement of success. Not business, not venture capital for new and innovative ideas. He certainly doesn’t have any of these. We would get a better, more calculating mind from the ‘game’ of chess, where the long and short term advantage is considered before moves are made. It seems that pollies like Jokey Hen are less committed to intelligent playing of the political game than players of mind games like this.

    And the public who feel they must put their ideas forward in emails and texts blattering on about how water can’t be owned. As if that’s the end of the matter and we don’t need to protect our water and its quality. Practical people don’t mouth off idealistic platitudes but ensure that the reality is as close to the ideal as possible.

    • muzza 2.1
      11 July 2012 at 10:02 am

      “He was brought up in a democracy that made some effort to pay attention to all its people, and was concerned to advance NZ as a whole, not to sell off major assets for ever, for short term gain”

      –Yes but the fledgling Key grew up to not see the world that way, he went into finance and money creation/shifting. I would very much doubt he ever gave a stuff about trivia such as sovereignty issues, and clearly is only, and only been in it for himself, his cronies and his masters!

  3. mickysavage 3
    11 July 2012 at 9:47 am

    I wouldn’t put it past him but I am not sure.  Banks’ future is dicy at best and if he falls over and MP go then Key’s majority is no more.  Although I agree that it is unlikely that MP will defect.  The only one with principles left a while ago.
     
    It is a big gamble though.  The sort that a forex trader would take …

  4. ad 4
    11 July 2012 at 9:57 am

    Key is about to buy a fight with the Supreme Court, because that is where this is heading.

    This National-led government have been pretty cavalier with the attitude to all sorts of processes, the last worst one being procurement in the National Convention Centre.

    If, following the Hearing there is a successful High Court injunction against the sale of Mighty River proceeding, we will have an almighty clash of race-division as a counter-split against asset-ownership division.

    The net outcome will be:

    – European Liberals will split on “those who see red about Maori and Treaty of Waitaingi issues” and “Those who oppose asset sales”.

    – Maori will be split along “post-sellement iwi who can afford the litigation to sink the legal wedge in and get a slice” and “every other Maori”

    Which will get amplified in the media, with the business commentators being pro-sale, and Maori TV being split but coming down more in favour of Treaty of Waitakngi and courts processes.

    This ought to finally mean that international potential investors start issuing opinions about uncertainty guiding potential listing price down.

    At which point Key then has to specifically legislate new law about water ownership to overcome the Supreme Court.

    Can’t wait to watch Shearer trying to form a stable position on that one!

    Not sure if Key has the skill for that kind of grand game.
    God it’s going to be fun to watch though. Just when Armstrong thought the worst was over and his golden touch had returned!

    • mickysavage 4.1
      11 July 2012 at 10:11 am

      I think you are right ad.  I would not rule out the prospect of urgent legislation being introduced to deal with the “crisis”.  The Government cannot wait for months and months to let the Justice System make a call on these issues, it has power company shares to sell!

    • travellerev 4.2
      11 July 2012 at 10:49 am

      John Key may not but his puppet masters do have the skills for the Grand game!

    • North 4.3
      11 July 2012 at 4:44 pm

      I am John Armstrong and all I can say is “gravitas gravitas gravitas”.

      All will be well with gravitas !

  5. Matthew Hooton 5
    11 July 2012 at 10:11 am

    I don’t think it is accurate to say the Waitangi Tribunal is a judicial body. When parliament set it up, it decided, for better or worse, that it’s recommendations were not binding on the Crown. This makes it more an advisor to the Executive and to parliament. So while the prime minister may have been unwise or impolite in his comments, they were entirely accurate and it is silly to say he has acted dictatorially or outside his warrant.

    • lprent 5.1
      11 July 2012 at 10:36 am

      Except that overriding the Waitangi tribunal usually winds up with the government and/or it’s subsidiaries going into court. As you say, he can ignore the tribunal – but only by causing a significant extra unknown risk to investors and a consequent fall in sales returns. But I guess that you and he feel comfortable with that?

    • Pascal's bookie 5.2
      11 July 2012 at 10:46 am

      Are you saying there was no subtext intended to what Key went out of his way to say?

      • Pete George 5.2.1
        11 July 2012 at 10:55 am

        Donna Hall on radio this morning:

        She said the Prime Minister is correct in his interpretation that the Government does not have to take up the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal.

        What exactly (and fully) did Key say?

        • mike e 5.2.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 11:09 am

          Mei Chen NZs most Knowledgeable constitutional lawyers one of the most intelligent people in our country(And hot as well)Disagrees with this opinion pathetic guile.
          Gareth Morgan also disagrees with you.
          Contact Energy disagree as they have settled with Ngai Tahu a “precedent” on water rights.

          • yeshe 5.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 11:17 am

            are you implying Pete is not “hot” ? ( Or are you just plain sexist and chauvinist ? 🙂 )

        • yeshe 5.2.1.2
          11 July 2012 at 11:39 am

          I’m sorry Pete .. but you are seriously disingenuous. You posted the following comment on line yesterday under the news story on TV3 that explained exactly what Key said. I just noticed because I offered the link lower down here in answer to another query.

          I’m posting your comment here ( sorry TV3) because of your reference to Waitangi Tribunal and and your use of the word ‘whim’. Seriously, ‘Whim’ ???? Cute reveal of your true thoughts and those of UF.

          “PETE GEORGE wrote: ( on TV3 News online)
          But we can’t have all legislation able to be held up on the whim of Waitangi Tribunal action. If water rights are a valid claim that should be dealt with, but it shouldn’t be used as a weapon against the anti policy of the day.”

          Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Government-can-ignore-Waitangi-Tribunal-on-asset-sales/tabid/1607/articleID/260757/Default.aspx#ixzz20GWoDkF0

          • Pete George 5.2.1.2.1
            11 July 2012 at 11:44 am

            “Whim” was not referring to the Tribunal, but to the use of the Tribunal.

            If this action achieves one of it’s aims, to halt the MOM share sales, then it may encourage others to use the Tribunal as a means of political coercion rather than for genuine claims. That would seriously devalue the Tribunal.

            • yeshe 5.2.1.2.1.1
              11 July 2012 at 11:59 am

              Best you stop digging your hole, Pete. You are making it worse. “Whim’ in any context around this is just insulting.

              And why did you post here asking for exactly what it was that Key had said when yesterday you were commenting on a news item that exactly contained it on TV3News online ? Disingenuous, at very best.

              And I won’t comment again no matter how deep you dig. Finally I understand it is a waste of time.

        • North 5.2.1.3
          11 July 2012 at 6:02 pm

          You are a complete dolt under pressure Pete George, just like the poncey dilletante who calls himself PM.

          Of course Donna Hall as counsel before an ongoing proceeding in the Waitangi Tribunal is going to be very, very measured in what she says. Already the Tribunal has indicated concern to Crown counsel who agreed to convey that concern to its client ????? no prizes for guessing who that is.

          Hall could hardly come out swinging this morning because that would amount to a disrespect to the Tribunal which has already spoken. Key’s idiotically arrogant mouth has buggered him and the Crown up. Why would she do that to herself and her client ?

          Because your fears are all lit up (viz. shitting yourself that these Meorries will show up Le Bouffant by taking on the role Le Bouffant is too gutless and bauble-fascinated himself to approach), because of your fears you quote Hall quite literally, without any regard to the context. Very stupid, or very dishonest of you. Very political of her yes, but, characteristically, very stupid/dishonest of you.

    • Pete George 5.3
      11 July 2012 at 10:53 am

      The result is not a given, it’s worth noting that the Waitangi Tribunal won’t automatically advise in favour of the Maori Council claims. If Key is being asked to abide by the tribunal then the Maori Council et all should pledge to do the same?

      Today’s NZH editorial:

      The case brought to the tribunal by the Maori Council this week seems to assert not only a Treaty right to the water and riverbeds used by a hydro power plant, but also a right to keep the plant wholly in public ownership. The tribunal may be hard to convince on both counts, particularly the second.

      It should also be noted that those taking this to to WT are not all Maori, they are arguably not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests.

      • marty mars 5.3.1
        11 July 2012 at 11:08 am

        It should also be noted that those taking this to to WT are not all Maori, they are arguably not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests.

        more attempted racial division I see pete – up to your usual tricks. Why should it be noted and what significance do you see from this? And I’m saying that the second part of your sentence is wrong, incorrect and part of the disinformation campaign so loved by your ilk – put your proof up and let’s see it.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.3.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 11:12 am

          I expect we’ll see that at about the same time we see him give examples of ‘over the top rhetoric’ from Iwi, or an explanation of why he used the word ‘extorting’ to describe the claims process.

        • Pete George 5.3.1.2
          11 July 2012 at 11:32 am

          I said ‘arguably’. Tracey Watkings says:

          The Maori Council does not enjoy the wholehearted backing of iwi leaders, many of whom the Government remains in direct negotiation with.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/tracy-watkins/7250815/Claim-on-water-case-of-deja-vu

          And that doesn’t account for all the Maori population.

          And you are saying it’s wrong. Prove it’s wrong. How much of Maori is the current tribunal claim representating?

          • marty mars 5.3.1.2.1
            11 July 2012 at 11:41 am

            “The NZMC has a statutory responsibility to advise Government on behalf of all Maori.” Maanu Paul New Zealand Maori Council co-chair

            http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00069/maori-freshwater-and-geothermal-claims-crystal-clear.htm

            That’s my evidence – where’s your evidence pete?

            • Pete George 5.3.1.2.1.1
              11 July 2012 at 11:55 am

              That’s not evidence they represent the views of all Maori. It’s obvious that Maori views will differ.

              The Government has a statutory responsibility to govern on behalf of all New Zealanders – is everything they do on your behalf?

              The Maori Party represent a different group of Maori. Sharples on Firstline wouldn’t voice support for the current claims (he did support the right of the NZMC to make claims).

              • marty mars …
                11 July 2012 at 12:18 pm

                “they are arguably not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests.” that is what you said

                “put your proof up and let’s see it.” that is what I said

                You quoted watkins saying that Iwi Leaders haven’t given wholehearted backing to The Māori Council and that’s all you got? Not really proof is it? so why not put it up? – because it doesn’t exist – you said, “… not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests” and you just made that up.

                • Pete George …
                  11 July 2012 at 2:14 pm

                  But the reality is that if the Government cannot get these sales away on the projected timetable there will be a huge fiscal hole which will present issues for this heavily indebted nation. The Maori Council knows this. So does the Freshwater Iwi Leadership Group which has conveniently pointed out that the council does not speak for all Maori and that it prefers a more progressive approach.

                  It is notable that the claimants’ urgent application was initially opposed by the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group who wanted to address any water rights issues through direct dialogue with the Crown – not by litigation.

                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10818711

                  Another couple of points in that same link:

                  Some Maori interests have informally suggested that about 5 per cent of shares should be put aside for settlements of their claimed water rights.

                  There are obviously plenty of other ways of settling these so-called ownership issues without costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars in forgone IPO revenue. And without threatening race riots.

                  Hmmm, threats that could be settled with a cut. If that happens there is likley to be major displeasure.

                  As this application plays out there is some frankly nutty stuff emerging.

                  Yep. Where selfish interests take precedence over national debt. If the share floats don’t go ahead it will cost the country – and will make it fiscally even harder for the next Government.

                  • marty mars …
                    11 July 2012 at 3:40 pm

                    so you translate “the council does not speak for all Maori” which you bolded, into “they are arguably not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests.”

                    LOL no wonder you are ridiculed.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 July 2012 at 3:43 pm

                      I’ll say this for him, he’s slightly more honest than he is smart. Not by much, but still.

                      Edit: Have to note that this a margin call, and I have no evidence for it. Others mileage may vary, I just can’t see how anyone caould be less anything than Pete is smart, given the above logic display.

                    • Pete George …
                      11 July 2012 at 4:00 pm

                      I didn’t translate that, I was showing another example of the NZMC not being representative of all Maori. And you’ve have not shown anything to suggest they are (I mean in practice, not a generalised aim).

                      There’s about 600,000 people claiming Maori ethnicity – how many do you think will agree with and support this NZMC action?

                      How many people are involved in deciding what actions the NZMC take?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 July 2012 at 4:12 pm

                      None of that is at all relevant Pete.

                      You said it was arguable that the council was ‘not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests’

                      Marty and I would like to hear this argument. I don’t think your statement makes sense as a sentence, so I’m keen to hear this argument that might show it is true

                      I’m also still keen to hear about what you meant by all your talk about ‘extortion’, and whether or not you will be retracting it and apologising.

                    • marty mars …
                      11 July 2012 at 4:21 pm

                      “how many do you think will agree with and support this NZMC action?”

                      a signifcantly large representation support it and that is obvious to anyone who honestly looks at it – but not you pete because it is not in alignment with your desire for racial division.

                      No proof, no evidence, just slurs and nastiness.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 July 2012 at 12:47 am

                      How many people do United Future and Pete George represent again?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                11 July 2012 at 12:23 pm

                “they are arguably not even a signifcantly large representation of Maori interests.”

                You said it’s arguable, so argue it.

                Are you saying that unless they have the whole hearted support of every single maori, then their support isn’t significant?

                Edit: Marty, snap

          • mike e 5.3.1.2.2
            11 July 2012 at 11:55 am

            Peter’s Groupie Key has fucked up again had he treaded water he would not have stirred up such opposition.
            This has now galvanised opposition .
            Conmankey foot has now been firmly stuck in his mouth since the election.
            His GROUPIES are trying to take it out of his mouth unsuckcessfully.

          • prism 5.3.1.2.3
            11 July 2012 at 12:04 pm

            Pete George again blah blah takes up too much space

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.3.1.2.3.1
              11 July 2012 at 1:33 pm

              No arguments, just insinuations, bad faith questions and assertions as demonstrated by Yeshe above, weasel words, hypocrisy, thinly veiled racism – a waste of band width and oxygen. No wonder he’s unelectable.

    • Deano 5.4
      11 July 2012 at 11:11 am

      So, you’re saying Pita Sharples was wrong?

      And you’re saying that the tribunal was wrong when it told Crown lawyers to explain Key’s comments?

      What kind of non-judicial body has presiding officers that must be lawyers, can be chaired by judges, has hearings with lawyers and then accounces findings?

    • Tom Gould 5.5
      11 July 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Nonsense, Matthew, it is more in the nature of a permanent commission of inquiry. Besides, the Executive cannot be bound unless it choses to be, even by the courts, because it has the power to legislate, in effect. And this is where this matter may well end up, in the House under the Whip.

    • North 5.6
      11 July 2012 at 5:03 pm

      Distraction distraction distraction Matthew Hooton…….keep it up if it makes you feel good.

      Truth is Key’s clay feet are crumbling and he’s got an idiot mouth when he’s under fire. That is becoming more and more apparent to more and more people (including within the National caucus I’d wager).

      Overall people don’t give a stuff about your whistling in the dark that the Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body. Important thing is that Key looks more and more a fuckwit. And his little porkies come out with increasing regularity.

  6. shorts 6
    11 July 2012 at 10:36 am

    is this govt doing everything in their power to ensure any partial sell off returns peanuts to the state?

    bargains for their mates whilst having a go at maori – some sort of investment bankers wet dream

  7. tsmithfield 7
    11 July 2012 at 10:43 am

    “So, just 32 hours after Key started running the line that the Government would ignore the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision on the Maori Council water rights claim if it didn’t go his way, the Maori Party reacted.”

    I would be interested to see a link, Eddie for your comment that Key said he would ignore the Waitangi Tribunal. When I heard him on breakfast the other day I am fairly sure he said that the government wasn’t bound by the Waitangi Tribunal, which is a little different to what you said. If that is correct, then it is merely a statement of fact that is not particularly controversial.

    I have also heard opinion that it is likely that the government will likely do a compromise deal with Maori over water to avoid the necessity of it going to court. That being the case, any decision from the Waitangi tribunal won’t have been entirely ignored.

  8. Inventory2 8
    11 July 2012 at 10:48 am

    Eddie; can you link to the quote where Key said that he WOULD ignore the recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal? I haven’t been able to find it yet…

    • Deano 8.1
      11 July 2012 at 11:16 am

      oh, so, your position is that Key is an idiot and didn’t realise that his comments on the Government’s power to ignore the Tribunal would be interpreted exactly as they have been – as an indication he’ll do exactly that if the Tribunal findings don’t suit him?

    • Pete George 8.2
      11 July 2012 at 11:29 am

      Here’s a more full quote:

      “The Waitangi Tribunal’s rulings are not binding on the Government, so we could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could.”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818360

      Eddie’s claim that “Key came out with a pre-prepared line this week on the Waitangi Tribunal designed to inflame Maori” lokks a bit iffy, but presumably it’s an opinion rather than based on fact.

      The partial quoting and misuse of what he said seems to be closer to deliberate attempts to “inflame ‘Maori”.

      And it looks like both Green and Labour interests are trying to talk up a Maori Party to walk out on the arrangement they have with National. Political jealousy?

      • McFlock 8.2.1
        11 July 2012 at 12:08 pm

        Oh, we’re back to the pedantic examination of the words, rather than incorporating context and message? As opposed to Dunne on selling water assets, where you insist that the message was substantively different from what was actually said?

        switch “choose to ignore what findings they might have” with “beat seven kinds of shit out of jimbob”. Would that be a threat against jimbob? Damn straight it would.

        • Inventory2 8.2.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 4:31 pm

          There’s nothing pedantic about challenging someone who makes things up McFlock; here’s what “Eddie” said:

          So, just 32 hours after Key started running the line that the Government would ignore the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision on the Maori Council water rights claim if it didn’t go his way, the Maori Party reacted.

          As Pete has noted, that’s not what the PM said at all; it’s close, but no cigar. “Eddie” is dog-whistling, and not being 100% honest, although quite why anyone would be surprised by that is another matter.

          • McFlock 8.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 4:38 pm

            Oh please, even mentioning the possibility was a clear threat to do so. A bit like how bunker doors get closed and AAA is put on alert when POTUS says “we are prepared to use any means to resolve [issue x]”.
                       
            And yeah, it’s pedantry when the same commenter yesterday was arguing that his Hairness was only talking about high country rivers when he talked about “water”.

          • Pascal's bookie 8.2.1.1.2
            11 July 2012 at 4:41 pm

            I’m pretty sure the PM has said that he doesn’t care what the Trib says, water belongs to everyone.

            Pretty reasonable to assume that he’s saying he’ll ignore them if they say otherwise.

            But if you’ve got a quote from him saying that water ownershiop is up for negotiation, let’s be having it.

            And nah, a few shares in MRP on a take it or leave it basis won’t cut it

      • Pascal's bookie 8.2.2
        11 July 2012 at 12:10 pm

        There were journos on twitter yesterday saying that another minister used the line to them last week, which certainaly adds to the idea that it’s a deliberate line.

        On the other hand, I can’t think of any reason to bring it up if it’s not meant as some sort of threat.

        It’s also a fact that the government could scrap the Tribunal, or outlaw the speaking of Te Reo, or do away with the maori seats. I don’t see any innocent reason for a PM to be mentioning those fact though, unless they were intending to send some sort of message. I think any PM that did just pop those facts out there would be reasonably interpreted as having those abilities of the government in mind.

        I’m all ears though, for an explanation of why people think the PM mentioned the fact that he can just ignore the Tribunal’s findings if he didn’t intend to send some sort of message with the statement.

  9. freedom 9
    11 July 2012 at 10:49 am

    “”We could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could,” he said on TVNZ’s Breakfast.” so what part did you not understand?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818534

    a politician only protects themselves like this when their mind is made up, and we know which direction his mind is locked into

  10. tsmithfield 10
    11 July 2012 at 11:47 am

    There is a vast difference between the words “would” and “could”. I could strip naked and run down the street. But would I?

    • yeshe 10.1
      11 July 2012 at 12:14 pm

      Well, would you ?? ( Sorry, couldn’t help it !)

      But this seems very clear. This is what TV3News reported yesterday from Firstline ( see link posted by me just above) .. and it’s what I remember hearing Key say appearing on the programme.

      “Mr Key told Firstline he will go ahead with asset sales regardless of whether the tribunal finds in favour of Maori who are claiming ownership to water.”

      • tsmithfield 10.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 12:20 pm

        There is a big difference between that and ignoring the Waitangi Tribunal findings though. The government might well negotiate some sort of compromise deal with Maori that recognises their rights but also allows the government to proceed with the sale. I suspect this will happen because the government won’t want the process bogged down in court for years.

        • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 2:51 pm

          ” The government might well negotiate some sort of compromise deal with Maori that recognises their rights but also allows the government to proceed with the sale.”

          That’s the crux of it. I’m sure you’ve thought about what it means. The OM sale is the very least of the crown’s problems if those rights are acknowledged. All those dairy famers spraying water will be stoked by the acknowledgement for starters.

        • Puddleglum 10.1.1.2
          11 July 2012 at 8:09 pm

          Here’s the fuller quotation from tv3:

          “Mr Key told Firstline he will go ahead with asset sales regardless of whether the tribunal finds in favour of Maori who are claiming ownership to water.
          “It’s our view that no-one owns water, just in the same way we don’t think that anyone owns the sea, and we don’t think that anyone owns air, and that has been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand governments,” he told Firstline this morning.”
          So are you arguing, tsmithfield, that Key may well be open to a compromise in which he accepts that iwi own the water ‘just a little bit’? 

          • Akldnut 10.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2012 at 10:19 pm

            I’m thinking that if the WT finds in favour of Maori he may just do what Helen did with the S&F – you guys own it but we are going to administer it on behalf of all Kiwis.

    • McFlock 10.2
      11 July 2012 at 12:16 pm

      The power of a threat is that if you can, you might.
             
      Streakers are not completely unheard of around my local campus, for example 🙂 

    • Pascal's bookie 10.3
      11 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

      Do you think the PM was being sarcastic when he said he could ignore the trib?

      Sort of like saying ‘well I could strip naked and run down the street’, with an obvious subtext that it is not the sort of thing I’d do?

      The NZ crown has a history of ignoring rulings though, and not honouring the treaty. And the National party has had a book written about how it has used treaty issues politically in the very recent past. So it actually is the sort of thing they’d do, or at least, we have no strong reasons to believe they wouldn’t.

      If you had made a habit or running down the street buck naked, and said that you could indeed do so this afternoon, I think it’s not unreasonable for people to intrepret that as something you were thinking about doing.

  11. tsmithfield 11
    11 July 2012 at 12:14 pm

    The stupidity in the way the left is interpreting Key’s comments can be seen by reversing Key’s statement. If instead of saying:

    “We could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could,” (as per the link from yeshe)

    But if he had said:

    We could chose to accept what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could,”

    The effect of the two statements is exactly the same in that they both accurately describe the fact that Waitangi Tribunal decisions are not binding on the government. And I doubt anyone would be inferring from the second statement that Key had said he would accept the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal.

    Therefore this issue is obviously a complete beat-up from the left with no basis in fact what so ever.

    • Pascal's bookie 11.1
      11 July 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Apart from, you know, all the history and facts and stuff.

      • tsmithfield 11.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 12:24 pm

        I seem to remember that National has had a pretty good record with Treaty settlements- remember Douglas Graham for instance.

        My opinion, as per my comments above, is that the government won’t be able to ignore the Waitangi Tribunal findings if they want a smooth road ahead for asset sales. I suspect they will have to do some sort of deal so that the issue doesn’t drag on forever in the courts. Key is a pragmatist, and has proven to be very good at doing deals. So, I guess time will tell.

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 12:28 pm

          Christopher Finlayson is no Doug Graham.
          And Key is no Bolger. 

        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.2
          11 July 2012 at 12:36 pm

          Yeah, I remeber Graham and his fiscal envelope. Reckon Joyce and his emails are more relevant to this government though.

          The MOM dog is stupid as it is, further deals won’t make it any better in terms of policy. If Key is a pragmatist, he’d drop the whole stupid MOM thing and just enter negotiations with iwi about water rights.

          • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2012 at 2:51 pm

            I also remember Doug Graham … in the dock, not so long ago, being exposed as not particularly trustworthy. I also remember a minister in Key’s Government calling his threat to ignore the Waitangi tribunal ‘an insult’ just yesterday. It doesn’t matter what pedantic slant Key’s defenders put on it, this has been seen by maori for what it is; a rich pakeha with money and power bullying the tangata whenua for the further enrichment of himself and other rich folk.
             
            The question is, will Sharples and Turia put the people before the privilege?

    • yeshe 11.2
      11 July 2012 at 12:20 pm

      See above. You are not correct. It is what Key said; it is not an interpretation. For sure, Key did say it differently on TVOne, but was completely without equivocation on TV3’s Firstline, which must add real weight to the notion Key was deliberate in his bellicosity — why ? Because it was many hours after his original comments. Read it for yourself. No interpreting required.

    • McFlock 11.3
      11 July 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Nah.
      Either statement implies that the government might ignore the WT. Which tends to make a mockery of the entire process, not to mention attempts to correct past violations of the Treaty.
          
      The latter version seems to imply the default position is “won’t”, by the way.
             
      Have another try at spinning bullshit into a fine-weave wool suit. 

      • tsmithfield 11.3.1
        11 July 2012 at 12:58 pm

        “The latter version seems to imply the default position is “won’t”, by the way.”

        I disagree.

        The word “could” implies a probability somewhere between >0 and <100%. Key's statement doesn't imply a weighting to the word "could" so no conclusion can be made about whether this is a default position or not.

        • Pascal's bookie 11.3.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 1:11 pm

          Blah blah.

          Key reckoned he would “ignore” the findings. That was the insult.

          • tsmithfield 11.3.1.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 1:14 pm

            Is “Blah blah” code for “I can’t come up with a decent response”?

          • DJ 11.3.1.1.2
            11 July 2012 at 1:28 pm

            How is Key’s quote any different to this from Labour and Swain back in 2000 sometime.

            “MAORI claiming ownership of New Zealand’s gas and petroleum resources are wasting their time with a Waitangi Tribunal hearing this week, according to the Government, because the tribunal’s recommendation will not affect its policy.

            Associate Energy Minister Paul Swain said last night that he had assured oil drilling companies of continuing crown ownership of oil and petrol — and no Waitangi Tribunal hearing or subsequent court action by Maori would change that.”

            • Pete George 11.3.1.1.2.1
              11 July 2012 at 1:34 pm

              Most people (even those trying to talk up yet another ‘bad Key’ story) know that the Waitangi Tribunal was set as a voice but with no teeth.

              It would be interesting to know how often it’s recommendations have not been followed by Government.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                11 July 2012 at 1:45 pm

                “interesting” – then go and find out how many times it is, weasel, instead of wasting bandwidth telling us how interested you are. Does anyone here gives a toss what PG finds “interesting”?

        • McFlock 11.3.1.2
          11 July 2012 at 2:53 pm

          “I could choose to beat seven kinds of shit out of y- ‘my dog’. I’m not saying I would, but I could.”

          “I could choose to not beat seven kinds of shit out of y- ‘my dog’. I’m not saying I would, but I could.”

          Hmmm. Now I can see it either-or.
          They’re both pretty threatening. The dog getting a walloping is definitely on the cards either way. Certainly neither’s just a bland statement of fact.

    • yeshe 11.4
      11 July 2012 at 12:22 pm

      No tsmithfield. This is what he said:

      “Mr Key told Firstline he will go ahead with asset sales regardless of whether the tribunal finds in favour of Maori who are claiming ownership to water.”

      Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Government-can-ignore-Waitangi-Tribunal-on-asset-sales/tabid/1607/articleID/260757/Default.aspx#ixzz20GgZlW67

      • tsmithfield 11.4.1
        11 July 2012 at 12:27 pm

        You obviously didn’t read my reply above.

        That statement doesn’t mean the government will ignore the Tribunal findings. But it does mean they have an intention to push ahead with the sale regardless of the findings. This doesn’t preclude them doing some deal with Maori to recognise their rights as determined by the tribunal though. However, what we can infer from Key’s statement is that such a deal will not involve stopping the asset sale process. As I have said several times, I think National is going to have to come up with a deal if they don’t want the asset sales process bogged down forever in the courts.

        • Populuxe1 11.4.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 8:20 pm

          What about legal precedent – Attorney-General v Ngati Apa (Ngati Apa) (2003).
          http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/nrl/water/NativeTitlePossibilites.pdf
          This would strongly seem to suggest that Common Law has not extinguished Native Title – the government can’t ignore legal precedent even if they can ignore the Waitangi Tribunal.
          In saying that however, I am firmly in the camp that state assets should remain the property of the state.

    • North 11.5
      11 July 2012 at 5:10 pm

      You’re a desperate person ts.

    • felix 11.6
      11 July 2012 at 9:39 pm

      tsmithfield is correct; if you change the words of the PM’s statement it seems different to how it seemed the way he actually said it in real life.

      In other news, if my Auntie had nuts she’d be my Uncle etc.

      Yawn.

  12. yeshe 12
    11 July 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Not sure I agree, but if what you suggest is true, then Key has chosen the MOST provocative way to deal with the issues, hence the headline on this whole post. Or is he really just so completely ‘out of touch’ ?

    • tsmithfield 12.1
      11 July 2012 at 1:08 pm

      Key was repeating the line, less emphatically actually, than Paul Swain did for Labour.

      From the link”

      Associate Energy Minister Paul Swain said last night that he had assured oil drilling companies of continuing crown ownership of oil and petrol – and no Waitangi Tribunal hearing or subsequent court action by Maori would change that.

      So, on that basis, Key could be seen as taking a more softly softly approach than Labour had on the occasion I linked to.

      • yeshe 12.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 2:19 pm

        and that makes it right how ?

      • McFlock 12.1.2
        11 July 2012 at 2:45 pm

        More to the point, that sort of attitude led to no difficulties for Labour whatsoever, did it. Once again National fail to learn from Labour’s mistakes.
             
        Now one or two other tories have picked up your little link. You little terriers must have been googling away for ages to find that little gem. That’s got to get you a couple of pinot gris down at the Legion of Evil clubrooms tonight…

        • tsmithfield 12.1.2.1
          11 July 2012 at 2:50 pm

          So I can understand the position of both you and yeshe clearly,

          Do either of you believe that the government of the day should be bound by Waitangi Tribunal decisions?

          • McFlock 12.1.2.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 2:58 pm

            Actually, I think the government should be bound by the Treaty.
            The only reason settlements need to be “negotiated” is because previous government violations of the Treaty were so egregious that full compensation is impossible.
                     
            But the government should certainly operate under it in good faith from now on, rather than just threatening further violations. Which is what Key is doing – selling not just stuff that the government owns, but stuff the government doesn’t own.

            • tsmithfield 12.1.2.1.1.1
              11 July 2012 at 3:04 pm

              You haven’t quite answered my question.

              • McFlock …
                11 July 2012 at 4:14 pm

                Yes, in the same way the government is bound by the courts.
                       
                I’d probably want a bit more constitutional protection for that, too. 

          • Pascal's bookie 12.1.2.1.2
            11 July 2012 at 3:26 pm

            Speaking for myself, I think the Crown should absolutely honour the treaty.

            If it does not, I lose my moral claim to be ‘of’ NZ rather than just ‘in’ it.

            When the Crown says it can ‘ignore’ Waitangi Tribunal findings, that is saying more than that they are not bound by them. You ignore things that are of no consequence. Things that just don’t matter.

            I do not think that the Crown can ignore WT findings. To do so, calls into question it’s commitment to the treaty from which it derives its authority.

            The PM may have used the word ignore without thinking. That’s not an excuse as far as I’m concerned. he ought to have thought. he was talking about the intersection of one of his most important policy pieces and the very bones of our constitution. He has been in the job for while now. He has been in parliament through some pretty vexious national debates about the Treaty. He simply ought to know better than to use language like that with regard to it.

            Deliberate or not, (and I agree with Tracy Watkins that it was deliberate) he ought to apologise.

          • yeshe 12.1.2.1.3
            11 July 2012 at 3:50 pm

            Yes, I do; and our country would more elegant because of it.

            Watch this space …. the Treaty may yet remain our only possible protection and defence against the secrecy of the proposed TPP and the ‘search and destroy democracy’ provisions contained within it. My personal horror is the potential for Monsanto and its similars to completely subvert our food sovereignty and destroy our precious environment with GMOs. This isn’t the post to cover it … but to answer you very clearly, yes, I do. As a fourth generation Christchurch-born pakeha, yes, I do.

            And for me, the Waiwhetu Marae siting of the current Waitangi Tribunal emergency hearing is poignant. Unless I am mistaken, it is the marae of the Te Atiawa Council of Chiefs, daughters and sons of the great Te Whiti of Parihaka. And, how ironically sweet it is, they own the very land upon which Parliament sits.

            But what difference can my opinion possibly make for you, tsmithfield, in terms of the current posting? This is about our dilettante of a prime minister and his motives and/or loose lips, not mine. Wish it were otherwise !!!

  13. Pete George 13
    11 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Key came out with a pre-prepared line this week on the Waitangi Tribunal designed to inflame Maori.

    There has been absolutely no evidence presented of that.

    It was not, as the Herald editorial claims, an accident of his candidness.

    Claiming NZH is wrong, no evidence, so although made as a statement it must be an opinion unless it’s deliberately wrong.

    Now, Key, having foolishly chosen to make this into a Maori v Pakeha issue to divide his opposition

    Again, no facts, in something more like an attempt to divide the Maori Party from Government.

    Key’s fight with Maori no accident

    He was answering a question asked of him, and then his response happened to be misreported, neither were his fault.

    Who has deliberately tried to stoke this up into a fight?

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 13.1
      11 July 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Who, weasel? John Key has picked this fight, that’s who. “There were journos on twitter yesterday saying that another minister used the line to them last week”.

      No wonder The Hair Party lost votes when you stood for them.

      • Pete George 13.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 2:20 pm

        Cool. I can claim anything here with ““There were journos on twitter yesterday saying…”.

        What line? That the Tribunal recommendations weren’t binding? That’s been said since, ah, since about when the Tribunal was set up.

        • Tom Gould 13.1.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 2:35 pm

          Key is simply playing the race card, just a little more cunningly than his predecessor did. Most folks have no idea the Tribunal reports are not binding. As usual, these Tories play to the ignorance and fears of the ‘silent majority’ and any voice of reason is drowned out by the Tory shock jocks and bloggers. It’s almost too easy. Yesterday, it was drug testing dole bludgers, the day before
          it was sterilising solo mums, now its handing water over to the Maoris. What will tomorrow bring?

          • Pete George 13.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 2:49 pm

            Key is simply playing the race card,

            I call bullshit on that. There’s been no proof of that at all, just accusations from people trying to play the race card.

            Tariana Turia:

            She said she did not believe he had made his comments about the Waitangi Tribunal to deliberately incite a racial backlash.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818870

            She also spoke about Labour’s attempts to divide and conquer:

            But she scoffed at Labour’s calls for the Maori Party to walk away from the support arrangement given its record in preventing Maori from going to court on the foreshore and seabed.

            “Who cares what they say and what they think actually?”

            Green supporters may care, they’ve been trying to talk up the same divide.

            • gobsmacked 13.1.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2012 at 2:52 pm

              There’s been no proof of that at all

              Did Don Brash play the race card?

            • Te Reo Putake 13.1.1.1.1.2
              11 July 2012 at 2:57 pm

              Are you trying to deny maori are a race, Pete? Pita Sharples called it an insult. Who do you think he meant were insulted?

            • North 13.1.1.1.1.3
              11 July 2012 at 5:16 pm

              Well the old bum in BMW lady might have the moral right to dismiss Labour over the matter but I’d like to hear a simmilar response directed at Hone who has said the same thing with a great deal more vigour.

              Come on Toryana Torya………have a go at Hone !

            • Populuxe1 13.1.1.1.1.4
              11 July 2012 at 8:55 pm

              Time and again Tariana Turia has been shown to be completely out of touch with the real world including the majority of Maori who live in it – the classic being that family planning and the discouraging of teen pregnancy is an attack on Maori fertility based on the dubious assumption that some young Maori women don’t occasionally make bad choices and that all young Maori women have access to encouraging and supportive extended whanau. She demands that the state support it.
              http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0411/S00021.htm
              Basically she doesn’t care how destructive to the collective advancement of Maori and New Zealand generally the policies she supports are, so long as mana is upheld – usually her mana.

              • North …
                12 July 2012 at 3:17 am

                And HER Beamer the greedy, nasty old bag. Still spitting hatred of Helen Clark while licking Key’s arse, still. Always will, keeps HER Beamer that way. Every Maori person I speak to in the North think she’s an old kupapa egg with no relevance to their lives at all.

  14. gobsmacked 14
    11 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

    The trolls want “Evidence”? Hilarious!

    There was a book crammed full of evidence, quoting countless National insiders in their very own words, all well-documented, and the usual apologists for the right called it a “work of fiction”. (With, of course, no evidence for their claim).

    So there’s not much point trying to convince Nat-hacks that Key is playing the oldest game in town, i.e. 1) Stir 2) Say you didn’t (“What me, ref?”).

    Either you understand politics – and especially these politicians, Key and Joyce – or you don’t. Or you do, but in a tiresome and predictable pretence, you act like you don’t. And there’s no point debating with the dishonest.

    Evidence? It’s called life. Get one.

  15. gobsmacked 15
    11 July 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Anyone remember “mana-enhancing”? This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic …

    “Key said he is happy to talk with the [Maori] party co-leaders about his remark, but he won’t be able to meet them this week because of his travel schedule.” (Radio NZ)

    No walkies today, poodles! Next week, OK?

  16. peterlepaysan 16
    11 July 2012 at 6:42 pm

    What do you expect from a Wall Street Hawaiian who happens to have New Zealand citizenship?
    He does not know nor care about New Zealanders.

  17. Tanz 17
    11 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

    I bet even Labour agree with Key on this one. The waterways belong to everyone. Who do Sharples and Turia think they are?

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 17.1
      11 July 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Perhaps you are full of shit much and the courts will rule on the question of ownership.

    • bad12 17.2
      12 July 2012 at 12:29 am

      You are oh so wrong, the water which falls from the sky is everyone’s, where that water has gathered in a lake or river which by traditional occupation over the century’s has come to be accepted by Maori as a lake or river within the various tribal areas,(or part of),

      Then unless there is specific legislation which has removed from the various tribes the ‘ownership’ of the various lakes and rivers within their tribal boundaries such lakes and rivers must belong to those Maori tribes,

      Just ask yourself the one simple question, befor Pakeha arrived in their sailing ships, who owned those rivers and lakes???,

      There can be only one sensible answer to such a question and that is Maori owned those rivers and lakes, so, if Pakeha neither bought,stole or legislated those rivers and lakes out of the hands of the Maori owners, ‘ownership’ must still rest within the hands of the relevant Maori tribes as at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi…

      • Populuxe1 17.2.1
        12 July 2012 at 12:50 am

        Well yes Bad, and one can play “Interpret the Treaty” until the cows come home. Except of course New Zealand today is a bit different than it was in 1840, and it has yet to be established that Common Law hasn’t extinguished Customary Title in every case, and Maori pay taxes so therefore they aren’t as entirely separate from the Crown as Treaty assumes, and, oh, all sorts of things. Also I have this instinctive dislike of aristocracies and feudalism.
         

        • bad12 17.2.1.1
          12 July 2012 at 1:11 am

          Who the fuck my wordy friend, (most of them being meaningless gibberish), is playing ‘interpret the Treaty’???,

          I for one can understand the simple legal concept that if the rivers and lakes in the tribal areas of the various tribes were neither sold or removed by legislation from the ‘Rangatiratanga’ of those various tribes then those rivers and lakes must still be under the jurisdiction of that Rangatiratanga,

          For an obvious dullard who gives every appearance of also being a red-neck as well, you can take Rangatiratanga to signify ‘ownership’, although Maori would prefer a differing descriptive,

          Having already informed you that tribal aristocracies are now within most tribal structures a matter of elections to posts of influence your continual bullshit about a dislike for such is to say the least fucking irrelevant and just another pathetic attempt to sidetrack the debate…

          • Populuxe1 17.2.1.1.1
            12 July 2012 at 1:34 am

            Who the fuck my wordy friend, (most of them being meaningless gibberish), is playing ‘interpret the Treaty’???,

            Well you are Bad, let’s start with “Rangatiratanga” (accusing me of being a red-neck is a pathetic way to win an argument) – which is itself problematic as most historians of the Treaty will be glad to point out – seeing how it’s why we’re where we are now. Words have a funny way of meaning what we want them to mean if we think they’re going to benefit us
            Rangatiratanga can mean “sovereignty”, which is not quite the same thing as “ownership” at all, especially in the context of a modern democracy – the Queen is sovereign over Britain, for example, but her authority to actually enforce anything is extinguished by constitutional and common law. In this case it’s the Government burning the ahi ka, not local Iwi – a matter of historical fact if not ethical desirability.
            Your little hand-wringing episode over the vulgarity of applying the word “ownership” to tikanga pretty much underscores the difficulty of using it in any sort of legal sense where precision of rights and responsibilities is required. One can have spiritual authority without physical ownership, after all. I don’t want anyone to have private ownership of state assets and I don’t care what colour their skin is or who they’re related to.
            I’ll concede the point about modern tribal structures, but they are still riddled with cronyism, unanswerable outside of themselves, devoted to their own interests, and you can still fuck yourself.

            • bad12 17.2.1.1.1.1
              12 July 2012 at 2:07 am

              Obviously fucked you dickhead, but at least i have managed to disabuse you of your stupid notions of tribal structures and the fact that most of these are made up elected representatives,(while i will concede that a fair smattering of Ariki are to be found as representatives within such tribal structures),

              And pray tell me please, which structure, consisting of humans is not filled with cronyism and worse, are you perhaps expectant of the natives to not exhibit the political traits inherent in all humanity, perhaps your world view of Maori is at fault here not the personalities and politics that are and have been for 100s of years intertwined within Maori society,

              Aha, there you go old boy, exhibiting the perfect colonial gentleman’s attitude to the natives, stooping low to give your wee sermon of ”now we have forced upon you by force of arms and legislation destroying your social norm’s a modern democracy such terms as ‘Rangatiratanga’ must be interpreted by US, (meaning Pakeha),as how ‘we’ see Rangatiratanga in terms of that democracy ‘we have forced upon you”,

              Really nice,not, putting aside Rangatiratanga for the moment,lets have a wee peek at the Whakapapa of the individual, when asked most will recite quite clearly Maunga, Moana/Roto, Awa, Hapu and Iwi,

              Such Whakapapa has been Maori for 100s of years, what it says Mr shove your ‘modern democracy’ up your arse is this,

              This is my Mountain, this is my Sea/Lake, this is my River, this is my Family, and, this is my Tribe,

              Most Maori are able to elucidate that Whakapapa and tribal Rangatiratanga allows them to know this and do so,

              i see no mention by Maori of ”this would be my River if it wasn’t for ‘modern democracy’…

              • Populuxe1 …
                12 July 2012 at 7:07 pm

                Well Bad, if “the perfect colonial gentleman’s attitude to the natives” includes believing that the Government should support and promote the advancement of Maori language and culture, and supporting wholeheartedly one-off financial settlements and defined land returns, then I’ll happily admit to exhibiting it.
                Actually I am a big fan of Kai Tahu’s management of their assets, but then again they manage their business most transparently of all Iwi and haven’t cried dibs on essential resources and infrastructure – things which Maori own anyway along with all other tax-paying and voting New Zealand citizens. To suggest ownership should be made exclusive based on race is far more bigoted than anything I’ve said. I mean, what’s next? The sky’s the limit – oh wait, Ngati Uenukukopako already tried that.

                 
                 
                 

                • Populuxe1 …
                  12 July 2012 at 7:09 pm

                  Of course the other example of Iwi management style are those infamous fishing vessels – part of a Treaty settlement. Rather than using this as an opportunity to create jobs for their people and other New Zealanders, they appointed a Korean company and failed to monitor (I’ll be charitable and not say “ignored”) that this company was using Indonesians effectively as little more than slaves. When even our Parliament of Whores was forced to raise an eyebrow at this, those Iwi threatened to demand compensation for loss of business. Not exactly the sort of management I’d want for the essential resources of this country.
                  And no, I’m not saying Rangatiratanga must be defined by Pakeha, I’m saying it must be a mutually agreed upon and understood definition applicable and pragmatic in a real world context as Treaty partners. Pakeha are here, we’ve been here a while, we aren’t going anywhere. Let’s make this work for everyone rather than fight over the crumbs.

                • bad12 …
                  13 July 2012 at 12:52 am

                  A landholder, say for arguments sake a large dairy farm with the correct consent builds a water catchment upon that holding,

                  Does the landholder then ‘own’ the water that falls from the sky and fills such a water catchment???,

                  In any logical persons mind the water in the catchment built by the landholder is now ‘owned’ by that landholder,

                  Lakes and rivers provide us a slightly different scenario but the same question(s),

                  If Maori ‘own’ the rivers and lakes then they must also ‘own’ whatever water is in those rivers and lakes at any given time…

                • bad12 …
                  13 July 2012 at 1:13 am

                  Oh jolly good of you your lordship to deign to brush a few crumbs the way of the natives by way of settlement of acts of treachery and theft by the Crown which allowed for the continued impoverishment of the now landless natives for 160 odd years while the ‘brushers of the crumbs’ enriched themselves via the use of the stolen property,

                  Whats fucking bigoted about it dickwad?, If at the point the Treaty of Waitangi was signed Maori to all extents and purposes had Rangatiratanga over the rivers and lakes in their tribal Rohe and no legislation or later act of theft has removed from them that Rangatiratanga then it is obvious to even the most dullest of wits that such Rangatiratanga must still be in place,

                  As you have translated such to mean Maori have sovereignty then it is not for YOU to say what such sovereignty via Rangatiratanga encompasses,

                  What a fool you are, and, that puts it mildly, Yes it is ‘ownership’ based upon race, or more to the point tribal ownership, that is not to say that Maori are being given anything extra based upon race,

                  The fact is YOU cannot give them what they already ‘own’, the fact is government can only give them back what the Government and the colonial oppressors assumed (wrongly) wasn’t their’s…

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    13 July 2012 at 6:51 pm

                    Oooh name calling – that’ll make people take you seriously.

                    Oh jolly good of you your lordship to deign to brush a few crumbs the way of the natives by way of settlement of acts of treachery and theft by the Crown which allowed for the continued impoverishment of the now landless natives for 160 odd years while the ‘brushers of the crumbs’ enriched themselves via the use of the stolen property,

                    I do not consent to be blamed and shamed for something I personally didn’t do. I am not the Crown and your so called “landless natives” own more land than I do seeing as I don’t own any land. I can also claim whakapapa – not enough to make you happy, but enough to say that I don’t consider it makes me more special than anyone else.

                    Whats fucking bigoted about it dickwad?, If at the point the Treaty of Waitangi was signed Maori to all extents and purposes had Rangatiratanga over the rivers and lakes in their tribal Rohe and no legislation or later act of theft has removed from them that Rangatiratanga then it is obvious to even the most dullest of wits that such Rangatiratanga must still be in place,

                    And yet as we have no concrete legalistic definition of the terms and extent of Rangatiratanga it remains impossible to say that something being in state or private ownership in any way impacts on it so long as customary use isn’t prevented. At least within that annoying international law thing the rest of the world uses to sort out these things.

                    As you have translated such to mean Maori have sovereignty then it is not for YOU to say what such sovereignty via Rangatiratanga encompasses,

                    I did that to illustrate the point that there is an issue of semantics and ambiguous definitions involved. Without clarity a formal and meaningful agreement is impossible.

                    What a fool you are, and, that puts it mildly, Yes it is ‘ownership’ based upon race, or more to the point tribal ownership, that is not to say that Maori are being given anything extra based upon race,

                    That’s blatantly incorrect if you think that awarding “‘ownership’ based upon race, or more to the point tribal ownership” (which is the same thing by the way) of things on which all New Zealanders depend for existence is not someone “being given anything extra based upon race,”.

                    The fact is YOU cannot give them what they already ‘own’, the fact is government can only give them back what the Government and the colonial oppressors assumed (wrongly) wasn’t their’s…

                    How’s that working out for Israel/Palestine?

                    • bad12 …
                      13 July 2012 at 8:13 pm

                      New Zealand Maori Council 1,

                      National, Slippery and populuxe1 ZERO,

                      Sorry to bust ya bubble but Counsel for the Crown today conceded that Maori have rights to water, (in rivers and lakes),

                      How does that work for you???,

                      Still arguing from the perspective of the colonial oppressor i see, YOU cannot give to someone, in this case Maori, something which they already own,

                      At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori were the ‘owners’ of all the lakes and rivers within their tribal boundries,

                      Can you cite the New Zealand statute that removes from Maori possession of those rivers and lakes???,

                      When you do,(if ever), manage to remove your colonial oppressors blinkers for more than a mere second you will ‘see’ that Maori have always ‘owned’ those lakes and rivers, it is only a question of race because you choose to focus on the fact that the ‘legal owners’ in this particular tort happen to be Maori…

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      13 July 2012 at 8:45 pm

                      As I can’t reply to your comment directly Bad,

                      Can you cite the New Zealand statute that removes from Maori possession of those rivers and lakes???,

                      Yes I can. Uti possidetis

                    • bad12 …
                      13 July 2012 at 11:29 pm

                      Uti Possidetis!!! Ha ha ha, your thin ice gets ever thinner, claiming that the colonial oppressors took the rivers and lakes from Maori using force of arms and therefor the colonials have the option of keeping these rivers and lakes would be likely if used by the present Government be an open invitation to have those so dispossessed use the same means to repatriate them,

                      Except of course for the fact that YOUR pathetic and childish citing of ‘Uti Possidetis’ is mute as such ancient Roman ‘norm’ is nullified in the face of the existence of any treaty between the protagonists,

                      Said treaty being the Waitangi one gives to Maori undisturbed possession of such toanga as lakes and rivers, so perhaps you should have answered the question as i intended the question to be read,

                      Which law passed by the New Zealand Parliament removed the lakes and rivers from the ‘ownership’ of Maori???…

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      13 July 2012 at 11:44 pm

                      Uti possidetis is a recognised principle of international law. It is therefore applicable and and don’t have to point to anything in New Zealand legislation as New Zealand subscribes to international law.
                      Actually Bad, I don’t really believe in half of this, it’s just you’re such an obnoxious entitled arsehole I wanted to wind you up. It has been most enjoyable. Thanks.

                    • bad12 …
                      14 July 2012 at 1:08 am

                      Gee populuxe1, you didn’t have to admit your only commenting on this site as a means of showing the readers that you are a wanker, your comments provide proof enough,

                      Uti Possidetis ,ponces words for whoever is in possession of the stolen goods after the shooting stops gets to keep them is some olde euro shit used between nations and hardly applies in New Zealand,(us being one and all that),

                      You failed to provide any New Zealand Government Legislation which expressly removes relevant rivers and lakes from the ‘ownership’ of Iwi, just as you fail to address the failure of ‘Uti Possidetis’ where a treaty between 2 sides of a dispute exsists,

                      3 failures of argument and logic in one evening,small wonder you then retreat in a headlong rush into proving the nature of your inner wanker-ness….

                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2012 at 1:22 am

                      + 1 That was nicely done bad

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 July 2012 at 1:28 am

                      Oooooh – so much theatrical anger. Very weekend activist – maybe Tariana will let you borrow her beret. Get it all out of your system – you’ll feel better for it, but I don’t think “Wanker-ness” is a word… Perchance you mean “wankery” – which isn’t a real word either, but sounds better I think.

                      My logic has at no point failed, it’s just very difficult to argue rationally against a system of thought that thinks taniwhas take precedence over motorways. Your “logic” is that of a three year old – share the toys, little Bad. No! Smine!.
                      Have a pleasant evening.

                    • bad12 …
                      14 July 2012 at 7:57 am

                      A lesson from Populuxe1 in how to admit defeat without actually putting it into words= spend 99% of a reply sniveling insipid abuse at what, how, and, who populuxe1 thinks goes on within the cranial cavity of those ‘it’ debates with,

                      You are far from perceptive, since the Crown Counsel at the Waitangi Tribunal made the public admission that the Crown does see Maori having rights to water, in effect telling Slippery,(like you),that He is a wanker and effectively sidelined from the debate even being thrashed at ‘Scrabble’ hasn’t been able to alter the cheerful mood i’ve been in,

                      The fact is that you have failed to make any further point in the debate other than to half heartedly agree that you are in fact a wanker and to wrongly accuse me of having more support for ‘Taniwha’ than i do for motorways when at no time have i ever stated such,

                      Do Maori have rights to the lakes and rivers and the waters in them, they sure as hell do, so say i and the Crown,

                      The debate now can turn to one of what do such rights encompass…

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

                      Really, Bad? But you haven’t even told me to go home yet.
                      Your insistence on conflating ‘The State/Crown’ with ‘Pakeha’ clearly shows your big blind spot – you don’t get the full implications of citizenship and universal suffrage.
                      Only State ownership of important assets benefits all Maori, not just a handful of Iwi who got lucky geographically. Even partial Iwi ownership will see rising costs transmitted down the line, and it is largely Maori who are most vulnerable to higher charges. What’s your answer to that?
                      About now you’ll probably accuse me of paternalism, but actually it’s just a social conscience.

            • Pete George 17.2.1.1.1.2
              12 July 2012 at 6:41 am

              Rangatiratanga can mean “sovereignty”, which is not quite the same thing as “ownership” at all…

              One can have spiritual authority without physical ownership, after all.

              Peter Sharples talked about this on Firstline yesterday, in relation to water.

              “In one sense Maori own the water because of our whakapapa, our relationship with the environment, the forests, the mountains […] it’s part of our genealogy to be connected and our concept of ownership is not exclusive, it does not cut anyone else of ownership, it’s an obligation to use and look after”

              That suggests it’s not an exclusive ‘ownership’, it can be a universal right and responsibility.

              I don’t want anyone to have private ownership of water and I don’t care what colour their skin is or who they’re related to. And I think there will be an overwhelming number of New Zealanders who think similarly.

              Including Sharples and other party leaders: http://yournz.org/2012/07/11/2109/

              • bad12 …
                12 July 2012 at 9:36 am

                With all due respect to Sharples, (and in my opinion Pita ain’t due a hell of a lot of it), He can happily play touchy feely with the water within His Rohe, but, His viewpoint is that of the Government and not that of Maori in general, and, Sharples knows that TODAY there is no exclusitivity in ‘use’ between various tribes, ie, we all fish in each others rivers, but, that has not always been the case,

                That you don’t want anyone to have ‘private ownership’ of water is a mere spit in the wind, a moot point, private ownership of water already exists in various guises and private ownership of water also exists on every privately owned piece of land and farm in this country that has a dam or reservoir set up to provide a body of water for the exclusive use of the property owner,

                It is obvious that Maori believe that the water in the rivers and lakes belongs to them as do the actual lake beds, Waikato and Tuwharetoa have been quietly pointing this out to the colonizing thieves for far too many years,

                Such ‘ownership’ of rivers and lakes is not a question of democracy, it is a question of legality, if Maori in any particular Rohe had possession of any river or lake at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and there has been no sale or legislation to remove those lakes or rivers from their possession then in any legal sense Maori still possess them and have the legitimate authority to administer them in any way they see fit including seeking a fee for the use of the actual rivers and lakes and/or the waters in them…

              • marty mars …
                12 July 2012 at 9:59 am

                it doesn’t suggest that at all pete – sounds like you are race baiting again – your snide insult to Pita is also noted

                “I don’t want anyone to have private ownership of water and I don’t care what colour their skin is or who they’re related to.” from you

                http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-fight-with-maori-no-accident/comment-page-1/#comment-492351

                “I don’t want anyone to have private ownership of state assets and I don’t care what colour their skin is or who they’re related to.” from pops

                http://thestandard.org.nz/keys-fight-with-maori-no-accident/comment-page-1/#comment-492341

                Hmmmm I hope we aren’t having a repeat of your previous experiments – you know the ones where you made a complete fool of yourself by lying about multiple identities and so forth.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  12 July 2012 at 7:12 pm

                  I would stab myself repeatedly in the leg with a fork than have anything to do with The Quiff and his minions. It’s a fairly common speech pattern, Marty – don’t get too excited. I used to be Labour and dissapointed at their leadership am now experimenting with New Zealand First.

  18. Georgecom 18
    11 July 2012 at 7:25 pm

    What I found remarkable today were comments from Tariana Turia today, reported on Radio NZ news after 5 pm. Commenting on the early dismissal by Key of any Waitangi Tribunal finding, she had this to say:

    “The very sad thing about it is, that whenever any politicians make comments that basically give permission, that’s what the foreshore did, that’s what Labour did, they gave everybody permission to actually say the most damaging comments about us as Tangata Whenua and of course the same thing has happened this time round.”

    I frankly thought Turia was over it. Seems not. Despite her calm voice the bitterness still showed through.

    Accepting her point about “granting permission”, she needs to stay on point. It is the National Party which is providing tacit permission for criticism of the Tangata Whenua Tariana. Moreover, if you remember clearly it was the National Party which gave tacit permission a few years back.

    Remember the bald guy who crossed combed, you know, the guy who had great trouble telling the truth about exclusive Christians funding his election campaign. He was the one who cynically rode the issue of Maori privelige for his own political gain. He led the same party that you are in coalition Government with. Many of the MPs who benefitted from the balding ‘truth forgetting’ leader are now your government partners.

    So accepting Turia’s point, she needs to get some grasp of reality.

    • bad12 18.1
      12 July 2012 at 12:56 am

      Turia looked a sad sight arriving at the Waitangi Tribunal hearing today, the Beamer may have been a comfortable ride to get there, but, for Tariana to-day there was no Powhiri, neither Karanga nor Haka to mark the arrival of someone at the Marae of standing within Maori-dom,

      Nothing about Turia’s arrival at the Marae to-day spoke of the arrival of a Maori Minister of the Crown with Mana to move the people gathered there,

      In fact, the welcome was so Un that Tariana was forced to enter by the back door, no seat of importance was found for Her, she got to sit in the back,

      That old lady looked to me a tragic sight in Her beret of the revolution sporting it’s Maori Party flag, the real tragedy is that she is now the only person in Wellington flying that particular ensign, after 3 years of the Maori Party propping up the depressive economics of National all the Maori Party flags around this town came down and went in the trash,

      Both Turia and Slippery, our Prime Minister are on the road and air-waves using the issue of rivers and lakes to attempt to squeeze some political capital,

      For Key, there’s a whole red-neck under-belly to be mined for votes and National in their own polling have slid so far since the election that He is likely to attempt to swing the discussion around to Brash’s Iwi V Kiwi brand of racism, they all know, Key, Turia, and, Sharples, that to keep their tiro’s firmly planted on the leather of the Beamer’s and in the seats of power after the 2014 election they are all mutually dependent upon each other being in the Parliament,

      To that end Key will quite happily cull any votes He can get by dragging the issue out for all it’s worth hoping for a red-neck voting backlash, just as Turia will try and ride the issue for all it’s worth, issuing meaningless threats against National that She knows are just hot air,mere gestures designed to get her face on the TV news in the hope of getting the Maori Party a bit of dead cats bounce in terms of votes at the 2014 election…

      • Jim Nald 18.1.1
        12 July 2012 at 8:30 am

        Quite frankly, the sudden appearance of the beret with the flag that she put on ironically conveys her dire need to rediscover the authenticity and integrity that she divorced from when she wedded her party to John Key.

  19. North 19
    12 July 2012 at 3:25 am

    Mana owns that flag now. She looked like an overdressed girl guide frankly.