Flip flopping on the beach

Written By: - Date published: 11:02 am, December 10th, 2010 - 38 comments
Categories: dpf, flip-flop, foreshore and seabed - Tags: ,

The usual suspects are accusing Labour of “flip flopping” on its position on the foreshore and seabed. You have to admire their bare-faced gall eh?

38 comments on “Flip flopping on the beach ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. burt 1
    10 December 2010 at 11:12 am

    So are you saying the Labour party hasn’t been changing it’s position with every internal poll in a desperate attempt to stay popular ?

    • lprent 1.1
      10 December 2010 at 11:17 am

      Nope – wrong again (keep trying and like a monkey at a typewriter you’ll get it right eventually)

      But National appears to change its position depending on who is screaming the loudest in the coalition.

      It appears that the continual compromises and lack of consultation have made Labour decide that it Findlayson wasn’t achieving anything. Personally I’d have dumped support many many months ago.

      • Jim Nald 1.1.1
        10 December 2010 at 11:47 am

        Personally, I thought Labour/other parties might have felt like myself, that National and Finlayson be given a go to sort it out (even though that didn’t feel particularly palatable as the Nat nuts beat the drums of division).

        But the previous months reveal they are making a more protracted mess. Finlayson’s style, to put it politely, has not helped. And the Nat nuts’ modus operandi seem to be increasingly questionable. So I won’t necessarily disagree if more of our Parliamentarians take a deep breath and reconsider.

      • felix 1.1.2
        10 December 2010 at 11:51 am

        I usually find burt gets it right twice a day.

    • bbfloyd 1.2
      10 December 2010 at 4:52 pm

      burt… no, you are… which qualifies the statement as utter bullshit.

  2. Bill 2
    10 December 2010 at 11:21 am

    Thing is, that poster was what National were saying Labour was saying. But when it came down to it labour were essentially up to fair bit of jiggery-pokery with their F&S legislation.

    I’m a bit hazy on this and welcome any correction, but…

    Now they are saying that they will legislate to give claims access to the courts? Is that right? And is that what they blocked in the initial legislation?

    If so, then they’ve flip-flopped. But it’s a good thing.

    Question is, will the apparent empowering effect of the flip flop be neutered in the ensuing fine print?

    edit Or be rendered as anti trade and open to penalty actions under any proposed free trade deals?

    • Craig Glen Eden 2.1
      10 December 2010 at 12:17 pm

      Flip flop is when you are in a interview and you say this is the situation peps its black, but then later in the day you say oh no hang on no, no it’s white.Thats a flip flop
      Policy change is done over time and the Party acknowledges we got that wrong in this area that need’s to change and our policy is now including these changes.

      Turia wont be able to handle Labour’s new position it gives her no axe to grind and no political reason to exist. Watch her cry and get very nasty!

        • Craig Glen Eden 2.1.1.1
          10 December 2010 at 1:21 pm

          As I have said in the past this woman is impossible to get a position from when talking to her. She is bitter and twisted it evens shows in the press release. She is all over the place What is it that she wants, just to spew on Labour, fine next.

          • marty mars 2.1.1.1.1
            10 December 2010 at 3:07 pm

            Tariana’s statement was in response to labour pulling its support for the repeal – therefore to mention labour, and her opinion of them and their position, in her media release is totally appropriate. You may not like her truth but she is entitled to say it isn’t she?

            • Craig Glen Eden 2.1.1.1.1.1
              10 December 2010 at 7:24 pm

              Her truth oh ok fair enough.

              So she hated Labour’s seabed and foreshore because it was insulting to Maori it was so bad for Maori, replaced it with almost exactly the same and called it a success. Now labour says yup we got it wrong we need to do more and Turia says Maori wont forget what Labour has done ( insulting Maori). The truth as I see it it suited her purpose.

              Maori might just remember that Turia was unprincipled and would enable an act that did nothing more than what Labour put up, first. While she was at it wages and income for Maori families dropped unemployment rose thats Turias legacy.

              In short Turia is a bitter and twisted sellout and I think the press release shows just how twisted.

        • Bill 2.1.1.2
          10 December 2010 at 1:24 pm

          What a strange, contradictory and incoherent press release.

          anti-spam being sentient and psychic again? DISASTER

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2
        10 December 2010 at 1:17 pm

        Turia wont be able to handle Labour’s new position it gives her no axe to grind and no political reason to exist. Watch her cry and get very nasty!

        IMO, the Maori Party ceased to have any political reason to exist when it joined the National Party.

        • pollywog 2.1.2.1
          10 December 2010 at 1:36 pm

          If the Maori party sign the current act into law they really won’t have any reason to exist.

          fait accompli…they succeeded in their ‘one trick’ party status and they’ll have to go back to the electorate for a fresh mandate on a “new” issue…

          …she’ll be hoping like hell hapu buy into Whanau Ora and they can get some good looking stats up before the election or else it’s game over

  3. tc 3
    10 December 2010 at 11:34 am

    The quicker Turia slings her hook and buggers off to her Whanau Ora gravy train bequethed to her by the Nats the better.

    Quit living in the past and look at what’s in front of you, Labour know F&S was a bad political move made with the best of intentions and in good faith have tried to stick with it for a better solution.

    But like most issues under NACT the rules change, agenda’s shuffle and their courting of the rednecks with iwi/kiwi has made it very hard for them to broker a workable political outcome….boo hoo, enjoy lying in that bed you made for yourselves.

    gee this consensus stuff alot harder than being dictatorial….funny that.

  4. prism 4
    10 December 2010 at 11:36 am

    Labour may have been wrong or could have done things better. Good on them for being prepared to think again and raise doubts. Better than having MPs turn themselves into concrete statues stuck rigidly on some plinth of foolishness.

    • Bill 4.1
      10 December 2010 at 11:51 am

      Just an observation. And slightly beyond or off topic.

      But under a system where politicians are meant to be representatives, should they be expressing any personal or party aligned opinion at all? Shouldn’t they merely ape our opinions and concerns rather than spend time and thought seeking to shape and guide debate? Isn’t that our role? As citizens?

      Jeez. I need coffee to wake me up. I forgot. We are spectators and our singular role is to cheer on this team or that team of our ‘betters’ and to never forget to fall in line behind their ‘official’ or sanctioned programmes of what is or might be.

      Apologies.

      • prism 4.1.1
        10 December 2010 at 12:09 pm

        Bill Is that a discussion on whether we have either representative or participative democracy? I don’t want everyone in the public who has a kneejerk reaction or deeply dyed prejudice deciding policy but I also don’t want a bunch of jerks who can con with well spoken words from a speech writer along with a smile and a wave making an arse of the country’s laws and values.

        • Bill 4.1.1.1
          10 December 2010 at 1:15 pm

          Hi Prism

          To answer your question as to whether I’m conducting, or seeking a discussion on systems of representative versus participatory democratic models. No, not really. There’s plenty of scope on this blog to have that discussion elsewhere.

          I was merely making an observation on our representative model of democracy. Judged by terms of reference signposted by your comment, our system of representative democracy would appear to be deeply flawed and unrepresentative. That’s all.

    • Jim Nald 4.2
      10 December 2010 at 11:55 am

      The circumstances have been shifting and changing in the course of the debate. One would not expect any decent parliamentarian to stick stupidly, stubbornly or sloganistically to an untenable or unfair position. One would expect our legislators to do the correct thing for the present and long term interest of the people – on an individual and collective basis.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1
        10 December 2010 at 1:25 pm

        One would not expect any decent parliamentarian to stick stupidly, stubbornly or sloganistically to an untenable or unfair position.

        But we would definitely expect that from the parliamentarians in National.

  5. marty mars 5
    10 December 2010 at 11:43 am

    you must admit r0b it is pretty ironic – suddenly labour is championing going to courts – no wonder many maori don’t trust them. The gnats are transparent and no one is fooled – they are pushing this because of the confidence and supply agreement with the MP. We know the gnats don’t give a fuck.

    I oppose the repeal because it does not empower maori – why do labour oppose it again – same reason as they put the shit F&S Act in in the first place IMO.

    Maori have become the political football of choice for those who love to put the boot in – sadly the red and the blue merge into a dirty gray for those who feel the tred on the back of the neck.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      10 December 2010 at 11:50 am

      Labour’s FSA allowed Maori to go to Court. Have a look at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0093/latest/DLM320263.html#DLM320263

      A positive finding then required negotiations between the crown and the affected party.

    • Jum 5.2
      10 December 2010 at 3:30 pm

      Marty Mars,

      Still the same point applies; Maori should not be treated as if they are something other than people; there are good people and there are bad people. One set of ‘owners’ will protect everyone’s rights to the foreshore and seabed; other generations may not.

      Tariana Turia was looking for an excuse to go on a mission. She found one and it was grossly misrepresented ( see Micky Savage’s post 5.10) by both media and Maori marches/hikois to hype up the public. Clark supported Turia in Parliament and taught her the ropes. Turia makes like the great Matriarch now but she is still the sovereignty activist she always was and will seek to control New Zealand; that is her party’s goal. Let’s not be coy about that. Whatever legislation goes through in New Zealand total control over land and sovereignty is the end goal and will not change. Tariana and her Party believe they are above Aotearoans/New Zealanders.

      PS. I haven’t been able to check out the Moku being prevented by National Council of Women; when I do find out from my friend I will let you know their side of the story; there are always two sides as I’m sure you will remind me!

      • marty mars 5.2.1
        10 December 2010 at 4:04 pm

        Kia ora Jum

        I don’t see it as above, for me it is about equality and the statistics tell the story – there is no equality at the moment. Plus it is about fairness – eventually people might realise that to take just about everything off an indigenous people is wrong and no matter how long it takes that wrong must be righted. When there is equality then the foundations of this country will be true instead of crooked as they are at the moment. I believe the resistance to fixing this and other issues relates to the priviledge that the power-holders have, and don’t want to lose. We all have to look in the mirror over that one.

        I am sorry for being a bit of a smartarse during our last exchange but I only did it because I care 🙂

  6. deemac 6
    10 December 2010 at 12:32 pm

    political parties change all the time, otherwise we’d never get anywhere. Few do such complete about-turns as the Nats between opposing the original F&S Act as too soft on Maori and their position now, but apparently that isn’t a flip flop! Presumably because the MSM’s paymasters like the Nats and give them an easy ride.
    By the way, Turia’s comments show she is much more concerned with her ancient feud with the Labour Party than with actually finding a solution that might work for everyone – petty and unworthy of a minister of the Crown, I’d have thought. And I do wonder why no interviewer ever calls her on her “I speak for all Maori” attitude when their support is around 3%…

  7. Bill 7
    10 December 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Putting aside what seems to be a red herring concerning public access for a moment.

    Anybody care to enlighten me on the respective positions re: the right to commercially exploit mineral or other resources deemed to be in or on the area designated as foreshore and seabed?

    Am I right in saying that Labour invested any rights to exploitation with the crown? Did the Nats shift this to allow for private exploitation? If that’s the case, do Maori elites get ‘an in’ that didn’t previously exist under the Labour legislation?

    What I’m asking is, when it’s ‘done and dusted’, is all this too-ing and fro-ing going to transpire to be nothing much more than the playing out of a three way competition (with shifting alliances) over legislation that will institutionalise market advantage?

  8. RobertM 8
    10 December 2010 at 1:45 pm

    If you want NZ to be a sophisticated multi cultural nation, I judge Helen Clark got this issue right. Customary rights are an archaic archeological right, dredged up jurists to give another opening to idigenous peoples rights. On the face of it, customary rights are a relatively weak claim in no way the power of the Treaty of Waitangi treated literally. A claim and a right would have to be used and exploited since the start of European settlement to the present day. But the definition of continuous use is open to legal interpretation. Was it not the now chief judge of the Supreme Court, Sian Elias who in an earlier ruling in a lower court held that a claim for customary rights by a tribe in the low populated ‘maori’ area of the Marlborough Sounds had enough weight to be tested legally. If the final court of appeal for NZ was still the Privy Council you could have even less confidence on the jurists there to rule sensibly on these matters given their attitude to NZ and pronounced liberal sentiments on issues of race and pacific islanders. It is the very reason why appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. Because without wanting to appear in any way racist to a British or Australian court it is quite likely that it would be held that the rights of the idigneous are equal or superior to the settlers.
    In summary I think Clark was very wise on this issue – if you want NZ to survive long term. This issue should not be a matter for consideration for any court-in part because of the wedge likely to be driven by the jurists and because customary rights are archaic and aren’t the way these issues should be considered and weighted.

    • insider 8.1
      10 December 2010 at 2:54 pm

      That’s ignorant and wrong. Customary rights have been around in many mainly commonwealth jurisdictions for a 150 years or so. They are a sign of a very just system and the balances that the law can bring to policy. They are a recognition that a ‘change of ownership’ of a country through colonisation does not extinguish all the previous owners’ rights. Recognition of customary rights is the sign of a very sophisticated system.

      The PC would have been a perfect place to review these issues because they are the result of the common law, judge made law, and not only would the PC judges have fine minds they would have the experience of dealing with or observing similar issues from other jurisdictions. I’d be more nervous leaving it to Elias as I think she is an agenda driven judge and poor choice as head of the SC.

      The saddest part of this issue is the delusion by Maori that this process would lead to a lower level of proof for CT. Not sure who has been the cause of that. Might just be wishful thinking by Harawira and co or a deliberate strategy to try and shift the bar.

    • pollywog 8.2
      10 December 2010 at 3:05 pm

      Here where i live theres an island owned by a german industrialist, an urupa, a tidal estuary ‘owned’ by Maori, farmland ‘bought’ under dubious circumstances, a fierecly guarded private access beach road, a boat jetty used by anyone and all bordering on each other with no policing as the whole thing is tied up in a no mans land of contentious rights and ownership until the foreshore seabed debacle get settled…

      …meanwhile i’m out there swimming, paddling around and collecting shellfish like it’s christmas

      can’t complain really 🙂

      captcha : locations (locations locations)

      • ak 8.2.1
        10 December 2010 at 10:34 pm

        And here where I live Poll, there’s a whanau with at least four distinctly discrete and fiercely-maintained cultural backgrounds doing exactly the same thing in a similarly legislative no-man’s-land; united solely – but profoundly – by a common acceptance that some places should never be tamed. Or owned.

        Go, Goffy. Universal, total, circumferential access (yeah, yeah, ports, sanctuaries etc): let us all go to the beach – and let the clowns dispute the circus wherever the frock they will.

  9. Swampy 9
    11 December 2010 at 12:17 am

    Reeally? I thought it was in the NZ Herald article which listed the different positions Labour has taken on this matter.

Links to post