Brash’s mea culpa

17 comments on “Brash’s mea culpa ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gitmo 1

   2 November 2009 at 12:11 pm

   It will be interesting what the courts will say when the first claims start coming in in relation to the foreshore and seabed – I suspect there’ll be continued bleating from one side or the other regardless of the outcome.
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     2 November 2009 at 12:51 pm

     I’ll be surprised if it goes to the courts. I’m guessing some sort of political deal where each side can tell their supporters their worst fears have been avoided. the courts can’t really do that I suspect.
     • gitmo 1.1.1

       2 November 2009 at 12:56 pm

       I dunno – I’d like to see people open to test a claim in court…. while that will no doubt be cause for gnashing of teeth and wailing I think it’s the only thing that will deliver satisfaction and closure over the longer term.

       T’will be fascinating.
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

         2 November 2009 at 1:10 pm

         I was just saying what I think is likely. If the mP can get a deal they are happy with, and can sell that deal to their supporters then good on them.

         I’m not going to kvetch that millions upon millions be spent in the courts and then more on appeals, probably over decades, for an uncertain result.
2. toad 2

   2 November 2009 at 12:14 pm

   Quite right Eddie. Neither National or Labour come out of that sorry exercise with any credit whatsoever. It was cynical, racist manipulation of public opinion by both major parties – the appeal to the lowest common denominator.

   As for Brash, even though he now says National got it wrong on the foreshore and seabed, he’s still proud of those despicable Iwi-Kiwi billboards it seems.
   • Pascal's bookie 2.1

     2 November 2009 at 12:54 pm

     re brash. Yeah, it looks like he’s saying they got their policy wrong (bc the crown would have won in the courts) but their politics right.
3. Red Rosa 3

   2 November 2009 at 1:08 pm

   The Nats have to deliver on this one, or the Maori Party will be left wallowing in the back seat of the limo, until turfed out by their people at the next election. So far they have lost at every turn, or the MPwill go ballistic. Or should. .

   So the Nats need to find a form of words to justify handing over freehold title to the F&S – which no-one else has – to Maori. Precisely what Brash was on about.

   Just how this will go down with the average Pakeha Nat will be interesting to watch.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1

     2 November 2009 at 1:17 pm

     Not just that but how Maori will respond to any negotiated deal. If the MP are involved in some sort of legislating away some customary rights I suspect they will be the ones in the gun from their supporters.

     During the interview on Radio NZ the representative of the Marlborough iwi (sorry can’t recall his name) said that the onus should be on the applicants to prove that customary rights DON’T exist, do the MP support this position? I would hope so.
     • Lew 3.1.1

       2 November 2009 at 2:43 pm

       ZB,

       During the interview on Radio NZ the representative of the Marlborough iwi (sorry can’t recall his name)

       John Mitchell.

       said that the onus should be on the applicants to prove that customary rights DON’T exist, do the MP support this position? I would hope so.

       You’re goddamned right they do. This is how it was with all other land: it was assumed to be held in customary title unless proven otherwise. I can’t locate the reference now, but there was a reversal of the legal interpretation in the 1960s which (I believe) gave rise to the change as regards the foreshore and seabed; this was reversed by the Waitangi Tribunal later.

       I’ll try to dig out the references when I get home this evening.

       L
       • BLiP 3.1.1.1

         2 November 2009 at 2:56 pm

         yes please.
4. gobsmacked 4

   2 November 2009 at 1:28 pm

   If anyone wonders why Brash did what he did with Orewa/Iwi/Kiwi, here’s a collection of comments that give a pretty good (sad) indication:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3020179/Seabed-law-set-to-be-dumped/

   Luckily, those 2005 nasty Nats are long gone, replaced by enlightened progressive Ministers like McCully, Joyce, Brownlee … oh.
5. the sprout 5

   2 November 2009 at 1:48 pm

   who is that smarmy self-satisfied prick in the vid? he looks vaguely familiar.
   • BLiP 5.1

     2 November 2009 at 3:00 pm

     You might have seen him on a late night talk show mumbling his way through a weak comedy schtick? He’s also a well known lonely veggie sniffer
     • the sprout 5.1.1

       2 November 2009 at 4:33 pm

       hehe that is a classic, although i feel a little uncomfortable on behalf of my rellies and all. for us it’s like he’s doing a John Safran
6. gobsmacked 6

   2 November 2009 at 5:30 pm

   Latest:

   “Mr Key told this afternoon’s post-Cabinet news conference that it’s important first to work out what to replace it with and that process could take months.”

   The Fan Club (previously known as journalists) will probably call this statesmanship. I call it kicking for touch, again. The review panel was set up to provide options, and did so, back in July.

   If Key is waiting for a solution that pleases everybody, he’ll be waiting a long time.
   • Lew 6.1

     2 November 2009 at 5:34 pm

     Concur. This announcement could and should have been made antime since the first week of July, when the panel reported back. What will happen now is a summer of honkey hysteria about beach access, and all the ugliness that brings.

     L
7. millsy 7

   2 November 2009 at 11:59 pm

   I thought that it would be more leftie to support universal public ownership of the beach front area, with public access for all (within reasonable limits), regardless of color and creed..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS