ACT – one law for all?

19 comments on “ACT – one law for all? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. comedy 1

   15 October 2010 at 11:07 am

   Can’t see why anyone would have a problem with the owner of the land charging for access if they so choose.

   Perhaps Rodney H.Troughicus is going after Winston’s grey rinse vote ?
2. nzfp 2

   15 October 2010 at 11:16 am

   I love the way Rodney uses the “appeal to ridicule” fallacy by purposefully mispronouncing Dr Pita Sharples name. Pita is pronounced “Pee’tah” almost like Peter. However Hide calls Sharples “Pita” as in Pity without the “Y” and replaced with an “ah” as in Pit-Ah.

   The word “Fallacy” is derived from the Latin word Fallere which means “to deceive”.

   Anybody who purposefully and consciously uses logical fallacies in a debate – is actively engaging in deceit – what we lay people call “LIES”. That means they are actively lying to win their argument – this is called sophistry.

   This begs the question – why does Hide have to use deceit and lies in a debate?

   Hide is such a bigoted liar!
   • Bright Red 2.1

     15 October 2010 at 11:18 am

     He’s a total arsehole the way he mispronounces peoples’ names to subtley insult them. Like how he calls Phil Twyford ‘Twifford’
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     15 October 2010 at 11:55 am

     Because telling the truth would show his entire socio-economic belief system to be delusional.
3. mickysavage 3

   15 October 2010 at 11:18 am

   I seem to recall that Act opposed Labour’s FSBA on the grounds that it was interference with potential property rights. That opposition was, according to Act’s beliefs, principled and entirely consistent and it was certainly in conformity with their beliefs.

   This current proposal is, well, totally unprincipled according to their standards. After all a property right is a property right, no matter what the skin colour of the owner.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   15 October 2010 at 11:47 am

   They have no intention of charging access to beaches, …

   I’m pretty sure I saw one on the news (probably 3news) the other day saying that that was exactly what they were going to do.
5. ianmac 5

   15 October 2010 at 11:54 am

   The recent example of Maori wanting to charge a commercial operator was not the seabed and foreshore but for driving along a private road to the beach -for commercial gain. It is easy to see how the blurring would cloud the issue.
   Most disturbing is the apparent conniving between Hide and Finlayson aimed at misleading the House and us. It was arranged weeks ago but had Finlayson apparently “conceding” to Acts demand. Disgraceful if not unlawful!
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     15 October 2010 at 11:56 am

     The recent example of Maori wanting to charge a commercial operator…

     Ah, that’s what it was. Thanx.
6. Jum 6

   15 October 2010 at 11:56 am

   Labour – policy for 2011:

   Remove the right for any private owner to be able to charge for beach access. There should be a right to land on or walk to any beach to have a picnic on or to seek help. The Queen’s chain needs to be total on all New Zealand foreshore, seabed and 200mile extension.
   ————————————————————————————————-
   Act is always on the side of greed and will happily renege on any sort of principle that gets in the way of that greed. JKeyll and Hide however have no principles so that won’t be a problem!
7. grumpy 7

   15 October 2010 at 12:01 pm

   We are only talking about the bit between high tide and 12 miles out to sea. If you own the land leading up to that, you can still charge – either Maori or not!
8. Lanthanide 8

   15 October 2010 at 12:01 pm

   On Wednesday on the morning report news bulletins they said that Act had described this as a “stunning policy win”. Seriously, an amendment that achieves nothing to an act that achieves nothing is called a “stunning policy win”. They must be desperate.
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     15 October 2010 at 12:23 pm

     Also, the very term “stunning policy win” sounds childish in the extreme to me. It’s like they have to boast to the public about doing their job or something, to try to convince the public that they’re still relevant and can get the job done.
9. Jum 9

   15 October 2010 at 12:03 pm

   The one major point that has to be made is that Maori are people; there are good and there are bad; there are rich and poor, greedy and powerhungry, generous and genuine, intent on taking away the rights of co-New Zealanders and eager to ensure assets are saved from foreign or destructive private ownership…

   If they get private ownership on land they will use it as a cash resource and will use their power to control access for their own purposes; just like any other private landowner has the chance to – Spencer on Waiheke being a perfect example of a vindictive, greedy, selfish autocrat. Like I said, Maori are just people, with all the frailties humans have.
   • marsman 9.1

     15 October 2010 at 12:53 pm

     Read somewhere ( book review on free beach camping in NZ ? ) that most property blocking public beach access is owned by Pakeha and a fair proportion of them are foreigners,especially in Coromandel and Northland.
     • KJT 9.1.1

       15 October 2010 at 1:06 pm

       The owner of a certain Island of the Coromandel set the dogs onto us for landing on their beach.
       Also had a farmer try and prevent me rowing up a creek. Both Pakeha.

       Rights to roam are continually vetoed by farming interests.

       Commercial interests in the Coromandel blocked camping years ago to increase their profits.

       On the other hand we routinely use a road over Maori land to access a beach front reserve with no problems whatsoever. If they levied a small charge for road maintenance they would be quit within their rights.

       However I believe that laws should be applied equally and their should be no private foreshore and seabed. We will have to act fast though before NACT sell all the port company land.

       http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/search/label/Foreshore%20and%20seabed
     • grumpy 9.1.2

       15 October 2010 at 1:29 pm

       This is not about “property blocking public beach access”, although it should be. It’s about from high tide to 12 miles out. Anyone can be on a beach below high tide mark.
10. gobsmacked 10

    15 October 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Familiar, predictable pattern here:

    ACT get a “win”, Maori Party complain, Key backs ACT, Maori Party back Key.

    I’ll bother watching, when Pita Sharples appears on Close-Up to argue with the guy who really decides these things. He’s not called Rodney Hide.

    I think I was about 17 when I first heard about the “good cop, bad cop” ploy.

    How old is Pita Sharples?
11. millsy 11

    16 October 2010 at 10:16 am

    Of course, public ownership of the beaches with their gaurantee of access to all kiwi’s regardless of background, race, colour or creed, from the single mum on the DPB treating her kid to an afternoon of swimming and sandcastle building, to the wealthy childless lawyer couple relaxing with a chardonnay as the sun goes down, would be the epitome of the egalitarian society that the left fights to achieve. But as per usual, you take the side of the Maori elite, and hand over this valuble policy plank to a party that fights to destroy that egalitarian society.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 14 October 2010 at 9:10 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS