Kiwi Treason

Written By: - Date published: 8:08 am, August 4th, 2016 - 181 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, foreshore and seabed, helen clark, humour, International, Maori Issues, maori party, twitter - Tags: , , , ,

So. Helen Clark wants to be Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Māori Party came out this week and said they didn’t support her because of her actions against Māori and Indigenous peoples while she was Prime Minister of New Zealand. All hell broke loose, with the Māori Party being accused of treachery and treason.

Then Mr Dutton Peabody created the hashtag #KiwiTreason to poke the borax at the people accusing the Māori Party of treason. He started with the perfidious declaration that he doesn’t like feijoa, and away it went. Stuff picked it up, thought it was about Kiwiana, and now #KiwiTreason is trending. All the usual twitter fun.

#KiwiTreason

On a more serious note, Graham Cameron at First We Take Manhattan wrote a blog post on not expecting Māori to fall in behind Clark’s bid, given how serious her abuse of Māori was during her time as PM. The whole post is an essential piece of reading for those who have forgotten what the Foreshore and Seabed Act did, or why it was so important to Māori.

In case you are not sure what all the fuss was about, in 1997 Māori in the Marlborough Sounds applied to the Māori Land Court for determination as to whether their foreshore and seabed was Māori customary land. Before that court could rule, the High Court ruled that all that land was in Crown ownership. But at the Court of Appeal, this was overturned and referred back to the Māori Land Court. The Labour led government lost the plot and created the Foreshore and Seabed Act which vested all the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership and restricted Māori rights to test their ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Māori Land Court. Simply put, the Crown instituted the largest land grab in the last 160 years and removed the rights to go to the courts on the basis of our ethnicity.

Morgan Godfery at Overland explains the ‘sinister edge’ and historical context of accusing Marama Fox of being a traitor. Again, read the whole thing if you want to understand how this has played out for Māori.

At this point, we’re in the twilight zone and the looking glass is in a thousand pieces. Accusing a Māori woman of treason isn’t neutral. The subtext here is clear: Indigenous people should put the national interest (and the national ego) before their own. This trick functions in two parts. On one level, it’s an invitation to assimilation – ‘Indigenous people should just identify with the national interest and back Clark’ – but it also works as a tool of exclusion, implying that Indigenous interests aren’t part of the national interest (‘there they go special pleading again’).

But let’s reframe that: what is Clark doing to earn Indigenous support? Labour leftists find the question offensive. This is, after all, the prime minister responsible for establishing a state-owned bank and a national superannuation fund, lifting the minimum wage and introducing tax credits and paid parental leave for working people. At one point, the governor-general, the PM, the speaker of the house and the chief justice were all women.

This is what progress looks like, apparently, and means leftists should support Clark as a matter of course, or something like that. But while Clark and her government were shattering gender norms and tinkering with neoliberalism at its edges, they were also responsible for enacting the most dramatic land confiscation in more than a century. I’ll concede that Clark’s an effective social democrat, even, perhaps, a prime minister who left the country in better shape than she found it, but she isn’t a champion for human rights.

I don’t really have an opinion about whether Clark should get the job or not, but I do think that Māori in particular have the right to their own politics on this, and that the rest of us, especially within the progressive left, should be listening when Māori say there is a problem here. Is not one of the basic premises of enlightened politics that people have a right to define what is important to them?

Cameron ends with,

She has a few apologies to make and some work to do before we can start talking about being a family again.

Where others might hear treachery, I see a pathway to forgiveness.

181 comments on “Kiwi Treason”

  1. Many Māori are still hurt by what Clark did when she was leader. The Māori party are ununderstandable for quite a few.

    I’ve found the commentary in here on this to be pretty weak. Thanks for your post providing a counter to that.

  2. save nz 3

    All this aside it still does not really explain why the Maori Party is so Pro National government – they never got the Natz to over turn the Foreshore and Seabed Act and have done far worse to Maori under TPP and Unitary plan (where are Maori rights in both of these?), but even worse, poverty outcomes and climate change in the last 8 years. We did not used to have working families living out of cars. To have the Maori party supporting and enabling privatising state assets like Power and State houses under National is appalling. Soon it will be water, etc

    One day Maori will wake up and find that all their rights under the treaty of Waitangi are irrelevant because the assets were hocked off overseas years ago. Try fighting in international court, with business lawyers and systems designed for the rich and powerful. $50 million court costs and penalties for loss is not the same as a local court.

    I would be more forgiving of the Maori party if they consistently worked for Maori rather than enabling and supporting some of the worst legalisation for the marginalised to be put through under urgency and without normal consultation with the Natz.

    As for Helen Clark, who knows. She’s smart and efficient. She is a neoliberal but not the worst sort. She is a product of the times and now it is time to move on. The best thing about Helen Clark is she is honest and not corruptible, so if she gets the job, at least she will not be funnelling funds into her own overseas tax havens – like most of the other politicians, and will fairly ruthlessly carry out her duties to the letter of the law. If they just want a figure head to do nothing and give the UN more reason to be disbanded, then she is clearly not the right woman for the job.

    • adam 3.1

      No offence savenz but you just reworded “Māori should shut up, and that they should be grateful for what labour did line.”

      But first you took the opportunity to have a go at the the Māori party, without addressing the issue. with an “Oh look they didn’t do that well with national” forgetting they actually got somthing from national, which was a hell of a lot more than they got from labour. Love em or hate them, national have not instituted a land grab.

      “Honest and not corruptible” – and yet she stole the most land in 160 years. Then took away the right to take it to court. “Not the worst sort”, and yet we had the Tuhoe raids.

      Don’t mix up the fact the Māori party have been close to diabolical for urban Māori, with the fact Helen Clark and her government was a epic fail on indigenous rights. It’s dishonest, and does no one any favours.

      • save nz 3.1.1

        Not what I said Adam. My point is, that if the Maori party have every right to complain about Helen Clark, BUT, WTF are they doing with National. If anyone can share how Maori have benefited from the arrangement with National over the last 8 years apart from a few short term baubles….. They even ‘were at the table’ when Maori in prison lost their votes – a fundamental human right – the Maori party also helped National with their polluting ETS and many other terrible things (too many to list).

        The Maori party do not represent all Maori – they are just a political party and a dying one at that if they continue down the same path with National. Mana got more party and overall votes in the last election.

        Due to National’s aggressive immigration strategy, soon Maori will not even be the 2nd largest demographic in this country and under TPP and believing the weasel words of National that their rights are protected if they get more consultation. If the Maori Party are against the TPPA then it is even more a luke warm protest than the Labour party.

        Look at the current legislation being pushed through under National, all fine print is designed to undermine anyone vulnerable and support those with money, power and connections. Politicians have learnt nothing from the Treaty of Waitangi, – language can be reinterpreted and concepts are culturally different. Not sure I would put my faith in a business tribunal run by international business crony lawyers under TPP. Have a listen to the http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/06/waatea-5th-estate-who-owns-the-water/
        The views of Canterbury University David Round and Don Brash are particularly enlightening of what will go down if NZ loses it’s sovereignty and actually is already happening – something John Key has on his agenda and being enabled by The Maori party, to do so.

        And your own link about Equador Adam has it’s own warnings about the free trade schemes and wider issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfPBy6oIgA0

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          “If anyone can share how Maori have benefited from the arrangement with National over the last 8 years apart from a few short term baubles…..”

          From what I can tell you are not interested in understanding this, nor in what Māori themselves might see as important.

        • Bob 3.1.1.2

          The Maori Party are there to represent Maori (primarily). As all Maori do no fall directly along political lines, the Maori Party have taken the stance of working with the party that is in power at the time.

          ” If anyone can share how Maori have benefited from the arrangement with National over the last 8 years apart from a few short term baubles”
          11 treaty claims settled and negotiations opened with Nagpuhi
          Implementation of Whanai Ora
          Free healthcare for under 13’s
          Repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act
          Implementation of the Ture Whenua Māori Network
          Implemented Smokefree Aotearoa 2025

          Now your turn, other the the Foreshore and Seabed Act and the Tuhoe Raids, how else did Maori benefit from the Fifth Labour Government?

    • Bearded Git 3.2

      Yes you always got the impression that Helen was fiercely intelligent as PM, with a wider view of the world and she ran an administration that seemed to give straight answers and ran the economy well and funded DOC and RNZ properly and had a TV charter and didn’t sell state houses off and introduced Kiwisaver and Kiwibank and the superannuation fund………I’m raving now but compare this with the lying mob we have in power at the moment.

      • Jenny Kirk 3.2.1

        And when she was Minister for Housing in earlier years, Bearded Git, Helen Clark helped bring in papakainga housing on to multiple Maoir-owned land – which had not been available before then.

        So – she made a mistake over the Foreshore & Seabed legislation – but its not all one-sided. Some in the Maori Party are suggesting HC apologise, but I would also like to ask : who among Maori apologised to the then PM when Mrs Harawira disallowed that PM her speaking rights on the Waitangi maarae.

        • weka 3.2.1.1

          Hmm, Māori don’t owe anyone an apology for their own customs on their own marae.

          There are lots of good things Clark has done, I don’t think this issue over Māori not supporting her to the UN is about her not having done anything good. It’s about the specific things she did that were and still are a huge problem for Māori, and have never been rectified or even acknowledged.

    • weka 3.3

      “One day Maori will wake up and find that all their rights under the treaty of Waitangi are irrelevant because the assets were hocked off overseas years ago.”

      And yet Māori have been at the forefront of the TPPA protest movement, and demonstrabley understand land confiscation more deeply and for longer than most non-Māori (did you read the post and links?). How do you reconcile that with what you have said?

      As I’ve said to Observer Tokoroa below, if non-Māori want to understand the Māori Party we need to listen to Māori on their terms. This doesn’t mean we accept everything the Māori Party does, it just means that our critiques come from an informed rather than reactionary place and that we are discerning in our critiques rather than writing off an important part of Māori politics.

    • Chooky 3.4

      +100 save nz…the Maori Party and its upholding and collusion with jonkey Nact is an utter ongoing disgrace which is betraying their own people and their future rights in New Zealand

      …the Maori Party has lost any credibility imo…(the Mana Party which I voted for …and which Labour spoiled…represents Maori far better than the Maori Party)

      …as for Helen Clark …she did lose the plot at the end and took bad advice on certain issues which were understandable given the political pressures of the time ie Foreshore and Seabed and Tuhoi raids

      …however earlier on in her career she stood up to the bully boys and bully countries over the immoral invasion of Iraq…we were oneof the few countries not to support the war invasion of Iraq…so on this alone she deserves to be head of the UN

      • Anne 3.4.1

        Good summation Chooky. I agree Labour were given bad advice especially in relation to the F&S Bill. My understanding: they were advised – presumably by the Crown Law office – that if they didn’t introduce the Bill, it would open the floodgates to mass confiscation of coastal areas and beaches. That was just plain wrong and bordered on paranoia on the part of the CLO – or someone in it at the time.

        • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.1

          Going for the right leaning pakeha vote is what it was, and discarding the opinions of the core Labour Maori vote.

          • Anne 3.4.1.1.1

            Oh yes of course CV. You were there. You know everything that happened.

            I was in a conversation at the time with a Labour MP who took a very active interest in the matter but of course she knew nothing – nothing at all. (sarc.) Btw, she was a person with strong Union and Maori connections. 🙂

            • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.1.1.1

              Read weka’s comment below. This isn’t about how contorted Labour’s Maori caucus had to become to bend over and accept Helen Clark’s and Heather Simpson’s directions for the sake of their own political careers.

          • weka 3.4.1.1.2

            Yes, and there was also the dumping of the closing the gaps programmes, as well as the Tūhoe raids. Looks like a problem beyond the F and S issue, and over time.

            • Colonial Viper 3.4.1.1.2.1

              if you read Anne’s comment you can see how internally Labour can still justify and rationalise its actions.

              • Anne

                So being rational and trying to explain some of “the context” around an issue is now a political crime CV?

                I don’t know what was done to you by someone/some persons, but don’t keep venting your spleen at some of us because we happen to be Labour supporters and dare to disagree with you. Because that is what I’m experiencing from you these days. I’m starting to wonder if your aim is to hound me – and maybe others – from this site.

                • Colonial Viper

                  To tell us that Helen Clark and Heather Simpson followed “bad advice” is not context; it barely rates as an excuse and a side step to justify what in the end was a political, not a legal, decision.

                  As for hounding you off this site: there’s one prominent commentator who has hounded multiple previously frequent commentators off this site and it ain’t me.

                  Basically I got tired off forgiving Labour’s trespasses while others are still making excuses.

                  • weka

                    Can the two of you please take the personalised Labour argument to Open Mike, it’s not relevant to the post. The politics of what Labour did/didn’t do is fine.

                    • Anne

                      @weka
                      If you had taken the time to check, you would see my comments of recent times have been reasonable and relevant and I have not sought any engagement with CV. But if he chooses to respond with cheap shots aimed at me or misrepresents something I have said, then I will respond regardless of whether it is relevant to the actual post or not. And the same goes for anyone else who tries on that trick.

                      [Anne, when I am moderating I am looking at what is happening in the thread in that moment, not the site-wide context. So what I looked at yesterday was how that subthread was evolving, and I saw a need to nip the aggro in the bid so it didn’t derail the thread and affect the rest of the debate. My request as an author was that you and CV (both) take the personal stuff to Open Mike. I’m now reiterating that as a moderator.

                      My suggestion is that next time there is an issue that you do the work yourself of shifting that aspect of the conversation to OM, e.g. cut and paste, and then link from and to the original conversation. I am also open to requests for threads to be moved, although in this case it’s tricky because the personal stuff is mixed in with the political. If I end up having to do the work myself, it puts me much more quickly into moderation mode, it takes up my time, and I’m more likely to start issuing warnings and then banning simply because I don’t have the time to do all that.

                      Just to be really clear, I have no problem with people needing to correct things said about their arguments that aren’t right, but once the conversation gets to the point of being an old ongoing argument that is off topic and personal, it needs to go somewhere else. Thanks. – weka]

                • Jenny Kirk

                  + 100% Anne. I’m getting fed up with CV’s sourness too.

                  • Anne

                    Thanks Jenny Kirk. It’s been going on for a while now and his targets seem to be anyone who defends Labour when they are being unfairly characterised in some way. Just because he’s had an altercation with them (I presume that’s what happened) doesn’t give him the right to take it out on others.

      • Chuck 3.4.2

        “the Maori Party has lost any credibility imo…(the Mana Party which I voted for …and which Labour spoiled…represents Maori far better than the Maori Party)”

        I trust then that you are also of the opinion that the Mana party also lost any credibility when Hone took the money and hopped in bed with Kim Dotcom.

        And for the record, the Maori Party has achieved more for Maori, than the Mana party ever has.

  3. Colonial Viper 4

    If Bill English or john Key came out publicly against Helen Clark’s UN bid, would it be considered “kiwi-treason”?

    • Leftie 4.1

      Given that he has given Helen Clark his government’s backing, I’m wondering what’s in it for John key.

  4. Declaring things “treason” is a currently-popular right-wing meme, if blog comments threads are anything to go by. I assume the people peddling it have never bothered to look up what it means.

    • billmurray 5.1

      It was not a right wing meme, it was stated by Winston.
      FFS this current load of Maori leaders and I include Hone Harawiria, would sell their mothers for a few bob.
      Ask John Key and the fat German.
      Stop pandering to these greedy arseholes.

      • weka 5.1.1

        I think Milt means it’s a RW meme in general use outside of this situation.

        See if you can make an actual political argument from now on (and if you are going to make accusations be prepared to back them up).

      • adam 5.1.2

        weka, as the remarks by billmurry are out and out slander towards Hone Harawira with no proof.

        I think he better cough up or bugger off.

        • Chuck 5.1.2.1

          Example 1: Hone Harawira accepting millions from Kim Dotcom.

          Adam, I would like to see you explain how Harawira thought teaming up with someone like Dotcom (who represents all that Mana campaigns against) was nothing more than as billmurray says “sell their mothers for a few bob.”

          Most of NZ saw it for what it was…and punished the “players” for it.

          • adam 5.1.2.1.1

            Oh come on Chucky that just a rewording of the same slander.

            So you saying that political donations to parties, that are then recorded that donation, are not in fact not donations to political parties, but selling their mothers?

            By your logic JK is the worst of them all and you should go around to his house tonight and have him up about it!

            You and I know that the term “sell their mothers for a few bob.” is not about political funding, that term was deliberately used as slander. So simply I’ll ask you to prove Hone Harawira took millions from Kim Dotcom.

      • weston 5.1.3

        Is there anyone you DO like bill ?

  5. Observer Tokoroa 6

    .
    .To Save NZ
    . Well written SN!

    ….”We did not used to have working families living out of cars. To have the Maori party supporting and enabling privatising state assets like Power and State houses under National is appalling. Soon it will be water”.

    . It is difficult for me to understand why anybody would be a member of the current Government. They have demolished decency, equality; and fairness. They have created gettos galore. All of which they set out to do.

    . The degradation of principles and assets – and the policy of favourites – and the extraordinary donations of $millions of dollars to their friends appalls me. Never has there been a more destructive or corrupting mob installed in the New Zealand Parliament. They have one thing that bonds them – the gaining of their personal wealth, which they pursue like gangsmen.

    The Government is composed of :
    The National Party; The Act Party; The Maori Party; The United Future.

    The Gang of Four. All of them guilty of massive destruction of New Zealand. Never ever to be trusted. Not any of them.

    • weka 6.1

      “It is difficult for me to understand why anybody would be a member of the current Government.”

      The point of the post was to suggest to people who don’t understand why the Māori Party do what they do, that those people stop and go and listen to what Māori have to say. Much of what we get in the MSM and even with the left wing blogosphere is either Pākehā perspectives or reactionary responses to Māori, although it is changing. I’m suggesting that Māori have their own, legitimate, political and cultural perspectives, and that non-Māori spend more time making an effort to get their heads around that and what it means on Māori terms.

      I’m also suggesting that there is a left wing imperative to do this, otherwise we are saying that left wing ideas should take precedence over Māori affairs.

      • Observer Tokoroa 6.1.1

        .
        . Weka

        . My opinion is that any ethnicity within New Zealand deserves to be treated equally.

        No ethnicity is a member of a different species. Even though they may wish to be.

        The dignity of Maori is rightfully to be honoured. The constant blaming of other ethnicities is not helpful.

        Let’s work together against corruption; inequality; lack of opportunity; crime and poverty.

        We are of one species Weka.

      • Karen 6.1.2

        Good post Weka.

        I read the Cameron and the Godfrey pieces yesterday and both are very strong so it is great you have shared them here.

        I don’t buy the reasons the Māori Party give for going with National and as a Pākehā I still think I can be critical what is essentially a political decision. The Māori Party do not represent all Māori by any means. Their decision not to back Helen Clark based on the basis of the wishes of their membership is fair. I had thought Helen Clark had apologised for the Seabed and Foreshore a couple of years ago but have been unable to find any reference to it. She definitely should have.

        Certainly Pākehā telling Māori they should just get over the Seabed and Foreshore issue is not acceptable, and the calls of treason are truly offensive.

        • weka 6.1.2.1

          I feel similarly Karen. I have my own critiques of the Māori Party, and I agree they’re not representing all Māori. Māori can have their own political spectrum, I just think non-Māori, esp on the left, need to get over their need for that spectrum to look like the Pākehā one, or even be something that Pākehā can recognise. I think the reasons that the Mp went into government with National are complex, and while I can recognise some of them I still think I’m too outside of those cultures to fully get it. I suppose I am arguing for more depth to the debate rather than just writing the Mp off as Tories. I think we are on the same page there.

      • weston 6.1.3

        Yeah but Weka your talking as if’ {MAORI} “had one voice and its blindingly obvious they dont apart from tribal differences theres urban and rural AND rich and poor !! Why are you endevouring to make it sound like theres only ONE entity ??Idont get it

        • weka 6.1.3.1

          I assume that people can tell I am talking about Māori as a class of people with a variety of perspectives, because that is self-evident. eg I said, “I’m suggesting that Māori have their own, legitimate, political and cultural perspectives”. That’s not saying that Māori all think the same.

          But Māori do have perspectives that they share with each other but not usually with a lot of other people. This doesn’t mean that all Māori agree with each other, or that all think the one thing. It means that there is such a thing as culture. For instance I think most Māori would have a shared understanding of what mana is, that is different than how most Pākehā understand it. This doesn’t mean that all Māori think the same thing about mana, or that there aren’t differences in understanding between iwi, hapū and whānau, or individuals. But it does acknowledge that Māori have a shared understanding that they don’t necessarily share with others. This general dynamic can be applied to other groups too.

    • Chooky 6.2

      +100 Observer Tokoroa…well said!

  6. Anne 7

    Tim Watkin has written a well balanced and thoughtful post over at Pundit.

    He makes the following point:

    … you can’t judge history and people’s acts without acknowledging context. Issues are never as black and white in the moment, as they appear years later. And we risk forgetting the detail as years go by.

    He passes no definitive judgement, but he proceeds to fill in that context which some experts have chosen to publicly ignore.

    My argument against the Maori Party and Marama Fox is: it is all very well to make claims based on past experiences, but it is also incumbent upon them to acknowledge the special context that may exist around those claims. My beef with Marama Fox is that she chose to ignore the ‘context’ and that is dishonest.

    It behoves everyone interested in this matter to read Tim’s post in it’s entirety.

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/context-is-king-why-clarks-race-record-is-so-complex

    • weka 7.1

      Watkin’s argument appears to be that Labour were boxed into a corner politically with the electorate. I’d have some (not a huge amount) of sympathy for that if it weren’t for the ‘haters and wreckers’ commment. It was nasty, vindictive, and an abuse of power. I also think that Labour had more leeway than Watkins is presenting eg after teh Tūhoe raids, if they were shocked by the police brutality then do something about it.

      The other argument, that Māori are better off after 3 terms of a Clark government, doesn’t wash. It’s akin to a someone hitting their spouse and that being ok because they also feed them. See Cameron’s post for more on the abuse dynamics.

  7. Observer Tokoroa 8

    . Hi Karen

    . I have no difficulty with anyone wishing to blackguard Helen Clarke. After all It is what the National Elites have done to her so viciously throughout her career. Accused her of dirty sexual practices. All sorts of demonising.

    One feels that National Elites would burn her to death – like Joan of Arc.

    • BM 8.1

      dirty sexual practices
      WTF?

      • Rosemary McDonald 8.1.1

        “dirty sexual practices
        WTF?”

        wtf…you missed that?

        Clark, being a local lass, a Labourite in a staunchly National environment, copped a shitload of ‘she’s a traitor’ crap from RWNJ in the area. Much of the diatribe centred around her sexuality.

        I personally fought against this (while personally not a Clark supporter!) with the more outspoken of the mob…but to no avail.

        They really, really hated her….largely because she was female.

        • weka 8.1.1.1

          Being accused of being a lesbian isn’t an accusation of dirty sexual practices. Or was there more? Wouldn’t surprise me.

          • Rosemary McDonald 8.1.1.1.1

            “…being a lesbian isn’t an accusation of dirty sexual practices.”

            With that particular mob it is. (eye rolling emoticon here)

            A little more…but very fanciful and not worth repeating.(ditto)

          • Anne 8.1.1.1.2

            Yes there was… the worst was never repeated in public. It was spread by way of word of mouth.

          • Leftie 8.1.1.1.3

            Really surprised at your attitude Weka.

        • adam 8.1.1.2

          Then should the line from Observer Tokoroa be “dirty sexual politics” Rosemary McDonald?

          Because correct me if I’m wrong, practices seems to suggest it was either around her sex life, i.e Clark is a lesbian. Which if you are a person on the left sexuality really is a non-starter. It’s not dirty who is your partner is, as long as they are human, it is consensual, and they are of age.

          it just seems odd phrasing by Observer Tokoroa. Maybe you can help Observer Tokoroa?

    • Accused her of dirty sexual practices.

      “Is sex dirty? Only when it’s being done right.”

      Still, I take your point. Back when she was PM I had to invite commenters on my blog to stop referring to her as a “carpet-muncher,” and also to stop insinuating that her husband was involved in some kind of sex crime that the diplomatic protection squad had hushed up. The same commenters can now be seen declaring anyone who opposes the current government to be suffering from something called “Key Derangement Syndrome.” Oh, the irony.

  8. Anne 9

    Accused her of dirty sexual practices. All sorts of demonising.

    Actually quite a lot of it originated from former members of the Labour Party. They were all Douglas acolytes and they left Labour in the late 80s and joined ACT in the 90s. Labour was thankful to be rid of them.

  9. infused 10

    Actually agree with the Maori party taking that stance. I don’t actually agree with their view.

  10. Tautoko Mangō Mata 11

    There is a difference between not supporting and opposing.
    “Not supporting” implies a lack of endorsement rather than outright opposition.

  11. Stuart Munro 12

    I liked Rudd better than Clark – and the knives are out for him from the VRWC too. Fox the Key accomplice has no credibility whatsoever – but the foreshore thing was a great wrong. My guess is Key found the person with a legit grievance to nobble her. Man could not play a straight game to save himself.

  12. adam 13

    Into the breach, time to look down the barrel once more…

    I’m wondering if some of the nasty stuff coming from labour and their acolytes is becasue of the growing détente between the Māori Party and Mana party?

    Would make a sick sort of sense…

    • Leftie 13.1

      Is the Maori party relevant anymore? Hone Harawira left the Maori party over it’s support of National’s Marine and Coastal Act 2011 that repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Greens accused the Maori party of betraying it’s people and those that had supported them over the F & S. Neither Flavell or John key will ever embrace Hone Harawira with open arms, and I don’t think people are worried over it either.

      • adam 13.1.1

        Flavell is standing down.

        As per Key and co, take the détente for what it is then.

        • Leftie 13.1.1.1

          Flavell is standing down?

          • adam 13.1.1.1.1

            Funny little thing, what have the base of the Mana and the Māori party demand of each? Any answers? That they work out their differences. Yeap both parties, one of the reasons Hone has got the band back together, as he did.

            • Leftie 13.1.1.1.1.1

              You said Flavell is standing down. Where did you read or hear that? Can you post a link please? Hone Harawira said he was coming back to give representation to Maori because he felt they were not being represented in parliament, and that critique included the Maori party too.
              I’m not sure if they can work out their differences, the Maori party is wedded to National and won’t leave it.

              • Chris

                The Maori Party isn’t “wedded” to the nats. The Maori Party is wedded to being in government. But hopefully even that won’t be the case after their dead wood clears off and a strong, united and effective voice for Maori emerges.

                • weka

                  Great succinct explanation Chris. People seem suprised when I suggest that the Mp might be part of the next left wing government, they tend to silo them into this RW slot and miss the point.

                  • Leftie

                    The Maori Party are in the RW slot though. Why should the Maori party be part of the next government, when other parties, like Mana for example, would do a far better job at representing Maori than what the Maori party have done over the 8 years of being in government with National?

                    • weka

                      Mana aren’t in parliament, Labour don’t want them there and will actively work against them, and Māori on the Māori roll will vote for who they want. It has nothing to do with ‘should’.

                      Myself, I hope that Mana will be in the next parliament, but I also hope that people don’t give them their party vote at the expense of forming a left wing govt.

                      would do a far better job at representing Maori than what the Maori party have done over the 8 years of being in government with National?

                      Please provide some credible examples that this is what Māori want and think.

                      “The Maori Party are in the RW slot though.”

                      You do get that the Mp hasn’t had an opportunity to be part of a left wing government since it formed right?

                    • Leftie

                      Dotcom being in the picture made a number of parties tetchy with Mana. And a lot of Maori certainly didn’t appear to support the Maori party in the last election, and I don’t think they have done anything to win back support since. The Maori party are only in parliament because National wanted them there, and feel their actions speak for themselves.
                      We have been through this before, and I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

                • Leftie

                  Or you can put it that the Maori party is wedded to the National government Chris. You’re right that the tory Maori party has not been an effective voice for Maori.

  13. Rosemary McDonald 14

    “Support from an unusual place for Helen Clark’s bid to become secretary general of the United Nations.

    The former prime minister has confirmed she’s after the top job.

    Her creation of the Foreshore and Seabed Act as a response to Maori customary rights claims led to widespread protests and the creation of the Maori Party.

    But Maori party co-leader Marama Fox says that’s what happens when politicians have to choose between what’s right and what’s popular.

    She says as the head of the United Nations Development Programme for the past seven years, Ms Clark has been advocating for the rights of indigenous people, women, equity and fairness.

    “Having been removed from the burden of prime ministership and party political policy, she is able to advocate for the rights of people, for the human rights of human existence, so I have seen a change in the way she has conducted herself in the UN and I support her as someone who would be credible in the top job,” Ms Fox says.

    She says with her experience on the world stage, Helen Clark would probably respond differently now to a foreshore and seabed type situation.”

    05 Apr 2016 14:12 PM

    http://www.waateanews.com/Waatea+News.html?story_id=MTMyNjY=&v=605

    “Māori Party view on UN Secretary General role

    Māori Party Co-leaders Marama Fox and Te Ururoa Flavell are highly supportive of having a New Zealander as UN Secretary General but say they cannot at this time support the bid by former Labour Party Leader Helen Clark.

    “We’d love to support our own but we can’t in good conscience take the populist route of backing her bid. Helen Clark has many qualities that would help with being an effective Secretary General but her actions against Māori as the Labour Prime Minister cause us to doubt her attitude toward indigenous peoples,” Mrs Fox says.

    Mr Flavell says that as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister Helen Clark supervised a law that removed the right of Māori to go to court to test a property right.

    “In doing so she took away a fundamental human right. Further to that, she supervised the biggest modern day confiscation of land from Māori and she refused to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document sponsored by the United Nations which she now wishes to head,” he says.

    “She also supervised the invasion of Māori communities in Taneatua and Ruatoki in the false belief that terrorism was rife. However, that has since proven to be a wild made-up dream. She as yet hasn’t acknowledged these mistakes so, as a matter of principle, we cannot support her nomination,” he says.

    Mrs Fox says the Māori Party aren’t the only ones to have concerns.

    “The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples found the Labour Party’s Foreshore and Seabed Act to be discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of Māori,” she says.

    “The world’s leading diplomat needs to have the right attitude toward the most vulnerable and in need. And that’s usually indigenous populations,” she says.

    Mr Flavell says: “This isn’t just about an apology, it’s about a candidate for the world’s top diplomatic posting displaying that she has the necessary respect and understanding of indigenous communities. We simply can’t pretend history didn’t happen,” he says.

    “We all make mistakes but if she has learnt from hers and is prepared to acknowledge them, we would review our position,” he says.”

    Aug 02, 2016

    http://www.maoriparty.org/maori_party_view_on_unsecretary_general_role

    flip/flop

    ?

    • Can’t see it myself. I agree with them, and their position seems to me to have quite wide support from other Māori at least the ones I read.

    • Anne 14.2

      @ R McD
      I suspect their email Inboxes and text messages may have been running on overload.

    • Rosemary McDonald 14.3

      I maybe didn’t format that well.

      There are TWO separate articles.

      3 months ago Fox said along the lines of… ‘she did a bad bad thing but has done better since then and I understand politics is complicated and I support her bid for the top job at the UN’.

      2 days ago….’she’s evil, she stole our land, she invaded Tuhoi and shown no signs of regret at what she did so she can just go crawl for our support.’

      Was Marama speaking without checking with brain and the the rest of the team back in April…or has something fundamentally changed since then.

      • weka 14.3.1

        Generally better to do small cut and pastes and link and refer to bits in the comment. If I log in later, I’ll tidy it up.

        • Rosemary McDonald 14.3.1.1

          Thanks for the reformatting weka…I haven’t got the hang of TS’
          HTML thingy yet.

          Also, it’s a little difficult to participate in a conversation when the ‘replies’ tab isn’t functioning.

          But never mind, I think I’ve said all I needed to on behalf of those of us who are still feeling betrayed by the one Party we thought would find removing vulnerable people’s rights to take a significant issue to the Courts philosophically, ideologically and morally repugnant.

          • weka 14.3.1.1.1

            I’m really missing the replies list too! And the search. Fingers crossed for Lynn.

      • marty mars 14.3.2

        Maybe she is representing the views of the people who elected her – it wouldn’t be unheard of.

        • Leftie 14.3.2.1

          Who was Marama Fox representing in April then when she said she supported Helen Clark?

          • weka 14.3.2.1.1

            maybe it’s the feedback between the two dates that has led to the change.

            • marty mars 14.3.2.1.1.1

              Yes that would be likely imo. This opposition to Helen is a not a new thing, it was there just after she presided over the things that offended and affected Māori. And of course not all Māori agree. The story really seems like a out and out beat up.

              • Leftie

                Then Marama Fox would have known of the opposition to Helen Clark even in April, yes?

                • Sure but youve got to remember the relationship between information and the nuances of reading constituent feelings about things are not linear they are much more complicated than that. So she said what she said and said something else and during the whole time she was representing her people. This is not news it is the way humans work.

                  • Leftie

                    Well that’s confusing. So she knew and didn’t know what the electorate felt? Is that what you mean? So that’s why there were two completely contradictory responses.

                    You are assuming that’s the case. Could there be other reasons?

                    • weka

                      Parties get things wrong and then change in response to understanding that eg Labour on the retirement age.

                    • Leftie

                      Sure, but that was an election policy, this flip flop by the Maori party isn’t that.

                    • You can call it a flip flop and I’ll call it a change of mind – for whatever reason. Why do you even care?

                    • weka

                      “Sure, but that was an election policy, this flip flop by the Maori party isn’t that.”

                      What difference does that make?

                    • miravox

                      “Could there be other reasons?”

                      I dunno Leftie, I thought it was the done thing to change your mind if evidence suggests that is the correct thing to do.

                      If every attempt to correct a position was called a ‘flip flop’, as if the new position was achieved thoughtlessly, we wouldn’t get very far.

                    • Leftie

                      Why do you even care Marty? Would have thought that was obvious Weka.

                    • weka

                      It’s not obvious to me, and I’m not a mind reader leftie. If you have an argument to make, why not make it?

                    • weka

                      If every attempt to correct a position was called a ‘flip flop’, as if the new position was achieved thoughtlessly, we wouldn’t get very far.

                      It’s a core problem in how we do politics IMO. The contortions politicians have to go through to protect themselves from not being allowed to make mistakes, or to spin mistakes that happen, are largely a result of the way we punish them when they change their minds.

                      So in this instance, let the Māori Party change their mind. We might want to know why they’ve changed, and someone should be asking, but it’s interesting to see the conclusions that people make based on where their politics are in relation to the Mp.

                    • Leftie

                      Miravox, flip flop is what msm calls it every time the opposition changes it’s mind over something.

                    • Leftie

                      I thought an election policy is different from an opinion.

                      +1 on the comment you made at 8.25 am Weka.

          • Rosemary McDonald 14.3.2.1.2

            Thanks Leftie…I was thinking perhaps it was me that was reading my own comment wrong.

            Something Changed between April and August….

            No treason here folks.

            Just plain old boring politics.

            • marty mars 14.3.2.1.2.1

              Have any of your opinions changed over the same timeframe? Its life.

              • Rosemary McDonald

                @ marty mars “Its life.”

                It is politics.

                And politicians care nothing for the people whose interests they are supposed to be representing.

                The Maori Party voting with National on the Part 4 amendment to the Public Health and Disability Act in 2013 was, to my mind, an absolute betrayal.

                Agree or disagree with Maori Party policies, here was a party that was founded on the justifiable outrage caused by the removal of the right for maori to take an issue of huge importance to them to the Courts.

                ” Mrs Fox says the Māori Party aren’t the only ones to have concerns.

                “The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples found the Labour Party’s Foreshore and Seabed Act to be discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of Māori,” she says.

                “The world’s leading diplomat needs to have the right attitude toward the most vulnerable and in need. And that’s usually indigenous populations,” she says.”

                (August statement)

                The Maori Party voted with the government in 2013 to

                a) retrospectively make discrimination that had been proven through the judicial system to exist towards disabled adults with high and very high supports needs and their chosen family carers legal.

                b)Institute a new Family Care Policy that was equally discriminatory and effectively locked the family carer into minimum wage poverty, breached employment law and treated the disabled person like, quite frankly, shit.

                c) Prevented these people from EVER taking this issue back to the Human Rights Tribunal or ANY Court.

                The UN Monitoring Committee( for the rights of People with Disabilities) told the NZ Government in their last Report that this (paraphrasing here) was a pretty shitty thing to do and sort it toot sweet. (This happened happened, and won’t, and NZ has not signed the Optional Protocol to the UNCROPD)

                Is that quite clear….marty mars?

                The Maori Party, formed on the back of outrage at Maori (“the most vulnerable and in need”) being shut out from the Courts on a particular issue turns around a few years later and votes to do the exact same thing to disabled people with high and very high support needs and their chosen family carers….

                Who are the “most vulnerable” ?

                Who are most “in need?’

                The Maori Party quite happily, and casually, threw the cripples under the bus.

                And despite pleading ignorance, there were obviously deals done to secure the Maori Party vote to shaft the disabled as evidenced by the $1.2 billion in funding for Maori Initiatives in the 2013 Budget that was boasted about on the Maori Party website…(don’t bother, it’s gone now)…three times the funding from 2012.

                So this is my personal beef marty mars….it makes me sick hearing politicians take the moral bloody high ground on an issue of human rights and basic human decency when their own track record is so appalling.

                I have no problem with folk changing their mind….but I’d like to see their reasoning.

                Clearly there are machinations going on behind the scenes which may or may not become visible to us mere mortals, this is politics.

                Who cares?

                • Yep – well I’m no Māori Party fan personally – I’m Mana Movement. And I also am under no illusions about the truth of politics. For instance I like Hone – but I don’t like everything he says, maybe not even quite a few things he says and I don’t always agree with what Mana says.

                  The Māori Party have voted with the gnats on a number of votes that absolutely disgust me and I will also have to struggle to ever forgive – so I can understand you having the feelings and thoughts you describe in your comment.

                  A politician changing their views can be frustrating especially when the reasons are not apparent and may never really become known – same as it always was.

                  As for you ,”Is that clear…” personal barbs to me – don’t bother – I am in a good place at the moment and I don’t feel like playing that game – ok?

                  • Rosemary McDonald

                    “You can call it a flip flop and I’ll call it a change of mind – for whatever reason. Why do you even care?”

                    Kiwi Treason

                    I read that as a personal barb…that’s why I felt the need to explain why I care….

                    And I don’t play games….

                    • you may note that question was to leftie not you

                    • Leftie

                      I took Marty Mars response as a personal barb, that’s why I fired it back. Sometimes the links to comments gets messed up when the reply button stops functioning after a certain amounts of posts have already been made. (I think it’s 10). I like your posts and responses very much Rosemary McDonald, and I liked Marty Mars response at 9.18 am too.

            • weka 14.3.2.1.2.2

              I can think of a number of reasons why a political party might change its position on things. As marty already said, listening to its members/voters might be one. Or maybe they did a deal with Key. For me personally I think the former is way more likely. The latter strikes me as ideologically fanciful.

              • Leftie

                But surely Marama Fox would have already known how the membership felt in April.

                • weka

                  Why surely? The Greens do things all the time that I as a member don’t know about until they do them. If they did something that the membership didn’t agree with I’m sure it would take some time for that to become apparent.

                  • Leftie

                    Yeah sure, but it’s not just everyday stuff though is it? When it comes to Helen Clark and the F & S being such a contentious issue, one would have thought the Maori party already knew how it’s membership felt beforehand.

                  • Leftie

                    Sure, I remember, I also remember why Hone Harawira left the Maori Party for the same reason.

            • Leftie 14.3.2.1.2.3

              Your links are clear, people just need to click on them. I would like to know what changed. Have msm asked her?

  14. Observer Tokoroa 15

    .
    hello Adam

    . You in denial of the abuse our private school Nationals poured on Helen Clarke ?

    I will leave my words as I wrote them Adam. She was dirt to all the he – men of National.

    Have you ever been through the cowardly abuse that Helen went through from your National low life.?.

    And may i ask when you are going to assign the foreshore over to those seeking it.?

    • BM 15.1

      It’s Helen Clark

      And use the reply button for fucks sake, it’s not that difficult.

    • Leftie 15.2

      +1 Observer Tokoroa

    • adam 15.3

      Have you not seen BM and I argue Observer Tokoroa?

      Do you understand what a socialist is? Do you know what an anarchist is? As for your attempt to call me a national supporter, you spineless labour party hack, grow up.

      Do you get I’m not going to let you or any wishy washy labour supporters dump all over Marama Fox, just because some Tory tards decided it was OK to dump all over Helen Clark. And you think it’s OK to pick on a women who disagrees with you, because in the past Tory tards from a.c.t. and national treated her like kaka?

      Now the enlightened path would be to treat Marama with respectful disagreement, rather than call her a traitor, or attack he record – when the labour party record is equally full of bull-kaka.

      I asked politely Observer Tokoroa what you meant, and that still stands. As what you wrote now I’m gonna need a diviner, and/or hard liquor to comprehend it.

  15. Observer Tokoroa 16

    .
    ..To Rosemary McDonald

    . Thankyou for drawing attention to the lugubrious dirty words and actions sprayed from dirty filthy male mouths year after year, upon Helen Clark.

    The fact that although you were not a supporter of Helen, you defended her against the shocking abuse to which she was subjected.

    I regret that Weka thinks it is alright to call anybody a lesbian any old time. As if it is his right as a man. See above. But then it is also alright in New Zealand to do despicable sexual violence to women and girls. Even in front of their children. So that they will learn.
    .

  16. Tim 17

    Haha, it just sounds like they’re angry they lost so many votes to Labour last election. I’m on Helen Clark’s side here – she copped a lot of flak from a few crazies up at Waitangi.

  17. Can’t say I was thrilled to have my tweets on the matter taken out of context! Especially in the current media climate where people who use Twitter to have conversations and spread news are regularly derided, right up until they need to use our jokes and discussions without permission to fill the pages …

    • adam 18.1

      What you said was funny Stephanie Rodgers, in or out of context – it’s still funny, and well, it makes me giggle every time I read it.

      No consolation for the muppetry that is stuff, but funny is funny.

  18. Observer Tokoroa 19

    .
    . Hi Weka

    . i need to say you do good work. I also need to say that besmirching a female publicly is not on.

    . I also need someone to say that Foreshore, Seabed are not easy issues when turned into ownership.

    . But these issues are a good way of getting instant fame Weka. And i suppose I should accept that fame is the name of the game.

    .

    • weka 19.1

      “. i need to say you do good work.”

      Thanks 🙂

      “I also need to say that besmirching a female publicly is not on.”

      I completely agree. The treatment of Clark was appalling and an early example of what Dirty Politics would become. (we just disagree that calling someone a lesbian is besmirching).

      “. I also need someone to say that Foreshore, Seabed are not easy issues when turned into ownership.”

      Agreed, it’s a very complex issue. But even on that ownership level the Act said these people on the basis of race don’t have rights, but allowed these other people over there to retain rights (see the second article linked in the post).

      “. But these issues are a good way of getting instant fame Weka. And i suppose I should accept that fame is the name of the game.”

      I don’t know what you are referring to there, OT.

  19. Gerald 20

    Clark got the foreshore debate very wrong and her government failed to turn back most of Nationals draconion labour laws but compared to the the JK party labour did a lot of good and helped NZ to weather the storm. Also this was 14 years ago and views change, ask JK what is or isn’t a housing crisis. The Maori party are seen as Nationals lap dog whose leaders have supported National without question.
    The term indigenous as now changed its meaning, no race of people is indigenous if it is to fit the definationof the word (maybe the people of Central Africa). Therefore the word carries no special meaning or entitlement.

  20. Erik Bloodaxe 21

    Without going into the history between Maori and Pakeha in Aotearoa New Zealand (and it is not a good look for Pakeha, but that is another issue altogether) I think it is pretty duplicitous for the Maori Party (not picking on any individual) to be ciritcal of Helen Clark when they are working in collaboration with the National Party. Of course there will be those that carp on about giving Maori a voice in government but the whole thing is pure tokenism and it is surprising that it is not seen as such by the Maori Party themselves. Up until their decision to work with National I thought the Maori party were pretty progressive but now I see they are just like John Key and his pragmatist approach to politics. Maybe I am niave but what they have compromised to achieve a sense of power is disappointing and the subsequent criticisms of Helen Clark (do they really think Key or the Nats would have been any different?!!) is a sad and misguided attempt at grandstanding.

    • weka 21.1

      A couple of thoughts. Why do we (on the left in particular) expect Māori to be left-wing?

      And why do we assume that centrists or RWers are always in it for the power or the money? Is it not conceivable that the Mp genuinely believe in what they are doing?

      I see the marginalisation of the Mp by some on the left as similar to what the right do to the Greens and Mana. We need more representation, not consolidation of power into the left/right power holders. To that end, we also need to consider what it will be like if the L/G government needs to work with the Mp to form government, and we’ve spend all these years slagging off the Mp and throwing around comfy limo memes.

      • Leftie 21.1.1

        Governments like John key’s has shown without a doubt that they are only in it for personal gain and power. There have been a number of instances when the Maori party should have walked away from National but didn’t, they stayed silent, even thought they walked away from Labour for less. Personally, I would like to see the Maori party gone at the next election. A vote for the Maori party is a vote for National as far as I am concerned.

        • weka 21.1.1.1

          I’d like you to read the post again and think about the point of it, which is that Māori have a right to their own politics. If you disagree with that by all means make the argument, I’d love to hear it.

          • Leftie 21.1.1.1.1

            I didn’t say the Maori party didn’t have a right to their own politics, and I think I have made my disagreements known on this thread and others we have have debated on.

            • weka 21.1.1.1.1.1

              I think it’s implicit in your comments. The MP are X, according to you, and should be Y, but I don’t hear you offering understanding of what Māori want and think.

              • Leftie

                That’s your assumption, I never said they should be something else, its you who can’t accept what the Maori Party are. What has the Maori party offered over the last 8 years whilst propping up a corrupt National government?

        • Chris 21.1.1.2

          Would like it the Maori Party made a public statement that instead of focusing on being in government they will look to increasing the mana and wellbeing of all Maori in the areas of health, education, income levels, prison statistics and so on, and that they renounce and regret all support previously given to nasty neo-liberal policies espoused by National and their mates, and if this means uniting with Labour, the Greens, Mana and remaining on the opposition benches then so be it? Would you prefer this? Or would you prefer the Maori Party “gone at the next election”?

          • Leftie 21.1.1.2.1

            What have the Maori party done in over 8 years of being in government with National? What are the Maori party offering the people that another party, (like Mana for example), can’t?
            Are you assuming National are going to remain in power next year?

            • weka 21.1.1.2.1.1

              “What are the Maori party offering the people that another party, (like Mana for example), can’t?”

              Actual representation in parliament.

              I’d like to know what you think about the Mp bein in government with L/G.

              • Leftie

                Even thought the Maori party has been in government, the last 8 years have shown a lack of representation though. What has “sitting at the table” with National done for average Maori over the last 8 years?

                I don’t trust the Maori Party, as I have said I hope they are kicked out next year, if not, well, I can’t make assumptions on what may or may not happen.

                • Chris

                  Would you trust the Maori Party if they said once and for all “we’re sorry, we got it wrong. We’ll never support or vote with National again because John Key and his party are neo-liberal trash that represent only the rich and must be turfed out of government as soon as possible” and then followed that up with positive change for all Maori and all other marginalised groups?

        • Chuck 21.1.1.3

          “Governments like John key’s has shown without a doubt that they are only in it for personal gain and power.”

          If this is true Leftie…then why has National increased its voter % in each of the last 3 elections?

          As for the Maori Party they know in order to progress there polices, they need to be part of the Government of the day.

    • Leftie 21.2

      Agreed. Well said Erik Bloodaxe.

  21. NZJester 22

    The Maori party have been mad at what Labour did while in power over the seabed and foreshore, yet have propped up a National government that have done far worse things to the Maori people than any thing Labour has ever done.

    • Leftie 22.1

      That’s true NZJester

    • adam 22.2

      Revisionist claptrap NZJester.

      I loath what national have done to the poor, and I think this is a hard right ideological government teether to a bankrupt set of ideas. But worse than labour on issue around Maori – ummm you do know the F&S was the largest land grab in a 160 years?

      The raids on Tuhoe were at gunpoint, this harked to the worst days of the New Zealand wars.

      Lets leave aside the fact that the 5th labour government, only tinkerd, and at best barely alleviated some of the worst aspects of this neoliberal hell we all live under. At worst they cemented the system into place, and laid the groundwork for a more brutal version of it under national.

      I think you underestimate how bad it was, and are desperate to not acknowledge Maori grievance at any cost. Or are you teether to your ideological purity as well, and have those blinkers firmly in place?

      • Chris 22.2.1

        And Leftie’s hypocrisy is indicative of a widespread attitude among the so-called left that’s had such an insidious effect on the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable. On the one hand Leftie defends Labour at every opportunity despite the unbelievably nasty things they did between 1999 and 2008, that there’s no evidence of Labour having changed its spots and every bit of evidence it’ll be more of the same. At the same time any hint that the Maori Party may be moving in a more progressive direction and looking to shift from giving support to Key and his mates is dismissed as meaningless and that nothing can change a belief that the Maori Party being “gone at the next election” is a good thing. Leftie is a shill for the Labour Party who doesn’t read and has no idea of the history of the damage Labour’s done to the poorest of our poor. Leftie even moaned because I didn’t provide a “link” to the last lot of government “war on the poor” legislation that Labour supported. Read, Leftie, just read, you pathetic little Labour toady, and if you can’t do that then please fuck off. You have not one ounce of critical faculty and represent everything that’s wrong with the so-called left in New Zealand.

        • Leftie 22.2.1.1

          I think you need to get a grip on yourself and your hate Chris, you’re losing it. No one is twisting your arm to read anything I post, you can ignore it. I have a right to express my opinions as you and every one else does, so what if you and others don’t agree? but it doesn’t give you the right to continually stalk & troll and be abusive.

    • Anne 22.3

      @ NZ Jester
      Exactly. Which is why I don’t trust the Maori Party. Labour does bad – never forgiven. National does ten times worse – not only forgiven but they give them their vote. I call it for what it is… hypocrisy.

  22. Chris 23

    Address your hypocrisy. I wouldn’t care if it were just you, but your attitude is symptomatic of a wider view that has too negative an effect on the lives of too many people. But I don’t expect you to understand that.

  23. Stuart Munro 24

    Those who like/don’t like Clark – the best is the enemy of the good.

  24. Macro 25

    I have just returned from over the ditch where their history of the abuse of indigenous people continues to this day. The Sea bed ad foreshore legislation is very similar in content as to what might be legislated in Australia. Seemingly to give rights to the indigenous people but in reality stripping away their rights even more. The fact seems to be that many people of european origin find it very difficult to understand the significance and importance of indigenous rights. Everyone should subscribe to the dominant culture. The colonial imperialist arrogance of yesteryear is still with us. “Why should I apologise for the land grabs of the past?” you hear…
    Well the fact remains the Crown still is in the process of land grabs – that is the reason for the Bill proposed by the Greens this year. “Not One More Acre”
    Has National supported this?
    Of course not.
    The Foreshore and Seabed Act as has been outlined above was extremely hurtful to Maori and was a disgrace, and yes it was a land grab that had no bearing in substance. In other words Clark bent to the political pressure of the day and over ran the rights of the indigenous population because it was politically convenient to do so. The UN must deal and uphold the rights of indigenous people foremost, for who else can speak for them?

    • weka 25.1

      One of the arguments in support of Clark is that they had no choice politically and if they didn’t do what they did then they’d lose the next election. I’m not convinced about that, but even were it true, what it says is that Labour would throw Māori under a bus in order to keep power. That’s unconscionable, and I don’t find it too hard to understand Māori who don’t support Labour.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Growth in Police deployments
    The first Police graduation for 2019 creates a new total of 1,101 frontline officers deployed around the country since the Coalition Government took office. Police Minister Stuart Nash today presented awards to the top recruits of Wing 322, whose Patron ...
    4 days ago
  • Andrew Little to lead delegation to UN Human Rights Review
    Justice Minister, Andrew Little, lead a delegation to New Zealand’s third Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 21 January. ...
    5 days ago