Anyone notice that the Right’s arguments against ownership of water – apart from being a willful confusion of ownership in rights to water, which is what iwi are actually inserting and which are clearly enjoyed by a range of people under our law at present, and ownership of water itself (something, apparently, limited to bottled water sellers) – would apply equally to land?
For example, today’s Dom editorial says iwi can’t own water because it was here before Maori and will be here long after we’re all gone. I look forward to their next editorial on how all land should be held communally by the same logic.
Then, there was Key on Q+A last weekend:
I think you have to accept that elements like water and wind and the sun and air and fire and all these things, and the sea, along with natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another.
Apart from the fact that I don’t think my neighbour would be happy if I came over and told him to make space by the hearth because all fire is for the benefit of all New Zealanders, isn’t Key also saying that all land ought to be owned collectively for the good of all of us?
Forget the water, Key’s radical agenda is to nationalise all the land.
Or is it, maybe, just maybe, that the Right will pull out whatever bullshit arguments they like to defend existing privileges and avoid honouring the Treaty, and they have no attention of applying those principles at all?