Maori Party to quit Govt?

86 comments on “Maori Party to quit Govt? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Clashman 1

   31 January 2012 at 2:13 pm

   They wont quit they will come to an agreement with National and screw thier people over again,
2. ak 2

   31 January 2012 at 2:27 pm

   She’s said it. Back to a single-seat governement with a high ratio of flakes no matter what happens after this. Delectable.
3. insider 3

   31 January 2012 at 2:43 pm

   Does the clause extend to Air NZ? If not, has there been any bother over that?
4. tc 4

   31 January 2012 at 2:51 pm

   I see your MP ‘show of discontent’ and raise you;
   1. an ACT MP with more skeletons in his closet than waikumete cemetary and a loose tounge.
   2. W Peters with protection from prosecution via parliamentary priviledge ready to take aim at his least liked folk….Key and his dealing room.
   3. A continuing asleep at the wheel, deceive, plunder the public assets, treat the electorate as ignorant peasants by kay and his ministers (Watch Heatley in his new role as an example)
   4. Growing awareness by the sheeple via Euro/USA as to how serious the stakes are by seeking non MSM sources.

   It’s well setup for a cracker that may just be exploding in their faces rather than what goes under that SOE sell-off sauce for some tasty taxpayer funded nibbles they plan to devour.
5. The Voice of Reason 5

   31 January 2012 at 3:02 pm

   Well, this does get intersting. A one seat majority, which will be entirely dependent on none of Key’s MP’s being forced to resign this term. On past performance, that’s going to be a big ask.
    
   Mind you, I still think Bunji is right and the transports of delight will win out. This what I think I overheard Turia and Sharples say on the matter on the news*:
    
   “If they remove Section 9 there will be no reason for them to consult with Maori about issues such as heated seats so they would actually be denying that the BMW exists.”
   The Party had to be very clear about who they represented, Turia said.
   “It’s really in the German’s hands, the BMW people will have to stand firmly on this issue because we’re here representing their interests and our personal interests.”
   The issue would cause tension at Waitangi Day commemorations over the weekend and at least one iwi leader had suggested Maori hold a drive by in protest of the move, she said.
   Co-leader Pita Sharples said the party was not in government to ignore the real issues, such as how good it feels to have pakehas in suits clap when he enters a room.
   “This clause is about New Zealand. It’s not just about how good my arse feels in the seat. The seat is all of our seats and this clause protects us and our natural resources, particularly the hand tooled indiginous chamois deer leather industry and that’s really really important to me.”
    
   *I wasn’t listening that closely and I can’t vouch for the complete accuracy of the transcript.
    
    
    
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     31 January 2012 at 3:31 pm

     “A one seat majority, which will be entirely dependent on none of Key’s MP’s being forced to resign this term. On past performance, that’s going to be a big ask.”

     When as the last time any by-election resulted in a seat going to the opposition? I can’t remember any.

     Then again, when a government is in the balance, the public interest could be quite a lot higher, especially if it’s in a marginal blue seat.
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       31 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

       Well, technically, it was only a few months ago, Lanth, when Hone Hariwira resigned from the Government and forced a by-election in Te Tai Tokerau. The next previous example is, … wait for it … Tariana Turia resigning from Labour and winning the seat for the Maori Party.
        
       But, realistically, it requires a seat held by a couple of thousand votes or less to make it interesting. Ak Central, Chch Central? Waimak, Waitakere? Hmmmm, Waitakere. That’d be a doozy!
       • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1

         31 January 2012 at 3:46 pm

         Those are special cases as it was the same candidate that won the seat after the by-election.

         What are the chances of a National MP resigning and then standing for Labour (or any other party, for that matter)?
         • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2012 at 3:47 pm

           Damn broken edit function.

           The only ones who would have the political clout and charisma to resign and create a new party that was then against the government (at least on asset sales) are senior nats who would never do it.
           • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.1.1.1

             31 January 2012 at 3:55 pm

             Just looked up the list of NZ by-elections. Interesting stuff. The last upset looks to be Labour losing Timaru in 1985. But under MMP, the default option for pissed off maori MP’s seems to be quitting and setting up your own party (Hone, Tariana and Winston). None of the other by-elections seem to be in marginals and most appear to be as a result of senior MP’s moving on (eg. Mt Albert, Mana).
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.2

           31 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

           Doesn’t need to be a National MP. If Peter Dunne resigns for any reason and the MP no longer supports NAct then the government will collapse as the seat will go to Labour. Of course, that’s the Pie in the Sky scenario as I can’t imagine PD resigning for any reason. He may be a toady little brown-noser but I doubt if he’s done anything that would force him to resign.
           • Hami Shearlie 5.1.1.1.2.1

             31 January 2012 at 7:35 pm

             Pete ain’t no toady -Toads have more spine than Dunnie-Brush! But wouldn’t it be great if Peter Dunne did have a skeleton in the closet – or, way better than a skeleton , a whole lot of frou-frou dresses with high heels to match? LOL
       • Hami Shearlie 5.1.1.2

         31 January 2012 at 7:28 pm

         Waitakere – I’m salivating at the very thought!!
   • Hami Shearlie 5.2

     31 January 2012 at 7:27 pm

     We mustn’t be ungenerous!! Pita NEEDS his limo – he gave his self-drive car to his whanau, and he needs to stay being a minister – he has a big mortgage so I’ve heard. And Auntie T was quoted as saying “I’m a big spender!” So ditto for her!!
6. randal 6

   31 January 2012 at 3:04 pm

   its a funny thing but Iwi never got to bid on the crafar farms.
   why not?
   • insider 6.1

     31 January 2012 at 3:05 pm

     Yes they did
   • Hateatea 6.2

     31 January 2012 at 7:12 pm

     They were part of a consortium that Korda Mentha did not accept
7. Matthew Hooton 7

   31 January 2012 at 3:05 pm

   VERY early indication is that they will leave government (but those interested in trading, please read fine print – any change of the Confidence & Supply Agreement pays $1): https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=MAORI.NAT.1MAR12
   • The Voice of Reason 7.1

     31 January 2012 at 3:20 pm

     Is there a book on which Nat electorate MP will caught with their hand in the till or trousers at half mast this term, Matthew? Because either one of those things will gift NZ a referendum on asset sales, by way of a by-election, which could be terrific fun!
      
     Actually, a few bucks on Key not lasting till Xmas could be a nice little earner. Are there odds on that?
     • Lanthanide 7.1.1

       31 January 2012 at 3:33 pm

       Any by-elections were going to be about asset sales anyway, because the MP were against asset sales already.
     • Frank Macskasy 7.1.2

       31 January 2012 at 3:45 pm

       Spot on, VoR.

       There were four by-elections in the 2008-11 term. Key must be holding his breath that any by-election either doesn’t happen, or if it does, it’s in a blue-ribbon seat.

       Otherwise, there goes Dear Leader’s one-seat majority. *sound of toilet flushing*
   • Frank Macskasy 7.2

     31 January 2012 at 3:23 pm

     I’m not surprised, Mathew.

     The public backlas against farm sales to overseas investors (regardless of nationality) and partial asset sales is going to taint-by-association any Party in coalition with National. The streesess and frictions of public pressure and differing policies is going to result in coalition stresses similar to the National-NZ First Coalition in the late 1990s.

     Those stresses (which were sparked by asset sales as well, if I recall correctly) ripped NZ First in half.

     If the Maori Party remembers that part of our history, then they’ll be looking very warily at their relationship with National.

     By the way; interesting comments from you and Josie Pagani, yesterday on Radio NZ.
     • Pete George 7.2.1

       31 January 2012 at 3:33 pm

       It will be hard to rip Act or UF in half.

       You’re presuming that the general public feel as strongly about asset sales and farm sales to overseas investors as a few bloggers and bloggees. The election result suggested that the feeling out there is being overestimated by some, or else they hope they can still manage to talk up a storm of protest if they keep trying.
       • Lanthanide 7.2.1.1

         31 January 2012 at 3:38 pm

         “It will be hard to rip Act or UF in half.”

         Is that because they only have 1 seat each?
       • Frank Macskasy 7.2.1.2

         31 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

         It will be hard to rip Act or UF in half.

         ???

         I wasn’t referring to ACT or UF. I was referring to the Maori Party.

         You’re presuming that the general public feel as strongly about asset sales and farm sales to overseas investors as a few bloggers and bloggees.

         I think that several reputable polls last year all pointed to the general public being opposed to state asset sales.

         If you have information pointing to something else, feel free to share.
         • Pete George 7.2.1.2.1

           31 January 2012 at 3:53 pm

           There was a reputable election that suggested that people didn’t feel strongly about asset sales as National campaigned on. The lack of strong opposition outside a few losing political parties also suggests most people saw other things as more important.

           I guess unless many were strongly opposed but they were even more strongly opposed to CGT and putting the Super age up and strongly thought the 2×100,000 policies lacked credibility.
           • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.2.1.1

             31 January 2012 at 4:10 pm

             There was a reputable election…

             Actually, there wasn’t. When only ~67% of the voters vote then the result is, at best, indeterminate.
             • Pete George …

               31 January 2012 at 4:22 pm

               Try NZ Democracy 101.

               Based on your logic we would never have voted in a functioning government.
               • Frank Macskasy …

                 31 January 2012 at 4:35 pm

                 Is democracy fully functioning when few and fewer people are bothering to vote?

                 Personally, I think not. The alienation of people from the voting process suggests serious problems with our system.

                 Mind you, if the reduction of voting favours the incumbent government, I guess that’s not a problem for them…
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 31 January 2012 at 4:39 pm

                 You do realise that we can have a functioning government without the equivalent support of their policies don’t you? Polls show about ~70% of the population oppose partial asset sales which means that a lot of people voted for NAct despite that opposition.

                 If we had democracy they wouldn’t be able to pass those policies but we’re still in an elected dictatorship rather than a democracy.
8. ianmac 8

   31 January 2012 at 3:18 pm

   Hone was pretty clear on Morning Report today about the implications for the Treaty of pushing through the asset Sales.
   Mind you the Maori Party would “consider” withdrawing. Not bluddy likely mate
   • Jim Nald 8.1

     31 January 2012 at 3:28 pm

     Quite.
     One bullshit artiste holding another bullshit artiste to account.
     Replace your popcorns with bullshit. And smile.
9. Maui 9

   31 January 2012 at 3:24 pm

   I will believe it when I see it.

   OTOH, Turia and Sharples must be considering the legacy they leave – both in the eyes of
   whanau and party supporters as well as NZ political history.

   “.. this could be an attempt by Iwi interests to simply up the ante in the bidding war. The Nats could even conclude a deal (independently of the Maori Party) with some iwi to ensure that they get first option on any share floats. But this won’t sit well with many National supporters, even those who favour privatisation, on the grounds of the racist ‘one law for all’ mantra.”

   http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/chris-ford-if-maori-party-walks-government-then-act-becomes-powerful/1273/113602

   In short, more brinkmanship.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     31 January 2012 at 3:43 pm

     Hence ACT, if its nemesis the Maori Party departs government, will have more influence over the government. And that won’t mean just partial asset sales – the Nats (at ACT’s behest) will flog off all of its shareholding in Air New Zealand and the power companies. National, in doing so, will break its central election promise not to sell more than 50 percent of each of these enterprises.

     Um, no. That’s just ridiculous. The only reason National won in 2008 was promising not to sell any state assets in their first term. The only reason they won in 2011 was promising to only sell 49% and not touch Kiwibank.

     Going back on those promises will be electoral suicide and would result in huge calls for a snap election from the general public and media.

     More likely the MP leaving will give more power to the Greens on any left-leaning policy that National need to pick up votes for if Act votes against. They’re highly likely to end up with cabinet positions in whatever government forms after 2014, the question is whether it’ll be blue-green or red-green.
     • Pete George 9.1.1

       31 January 2012 at 3:58 pm

       Not just National’s election promises (and there’s no good reason to doubt them sticking to them) – but they are also bound by the United Future Confidence and Supply agreement which rules those out as well. Those claiming National will go much further with asset sales this term are either scaremongering or they are ignorant.
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

         31 January 2012 at 4:04 pm

         Those claiming National will go much further with asset sales this term are either scaremongering or they are ignorant.

         National won’t go further because of their razor thin majority, but will wish every second that they could.
       • McFlock 9.1.1.2

         31 January 2012 at 4:11 pm

         Regardless of whether the Maori Party leave or not, the only reason we will have any asset sales this term is because United Fiefdom have no policy of their own, so they do whatever the boss of the day says.
            
         The United Fucktard isn’t preventing asset sales, pete – he’s enabling them.
             
         • Pete George 9.1.1.2.1

           31 January 2012 at 4:20 pm

           Wrong. The UF position before the election was clear and the C&S is clear.

           If people wanted UF to have a bigger say they could have voted for us. Even just one more seat would have made quite a diference.

           Those who instead voted for Winston Peters’ Labour, Mana and Greens, seem to have chosen whining on the sideline, so it’s not suprising there is so much whining from the sideline.
           • Frank Macskasy 9.1.1.2.1.1

             31 January 2012 at 4:31 pm

             Policy on asset sales, Pete?
           • McFlock 9.1.1.2.1.2

             31 January 2012 at 4:32 pm

             Funnily enough, what passes for UF “policy” is simply
              “We need a conversation that is more detailed and drills down into what New Zealanders really think are acceptable bottom lines.” Oh and not seppling RNZ, kiwibank or water companies (which is dither, because most water supplies aren’t up to central govt).
              
             You are so full of shit, your boss is going to let the NACTs remove government-instructed disctretion from SOE directors and you’re sitting there pretending he’s not doing anything. 
               
             All it takes for sociopaths to triumph is for hairstyles to do nothing. 
           • fender 9.1.1.2.1.3

             31 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

             Welcome back PG, hope you have learnt your lesson and will refrain from your whining from the sidelines.
             Read your kiwiblog sad sack whining y’day regarding comments on thestandard, and how people don’t swollow your dribble as gospel but take you to task on it. Perhaps you could make that your home where the sympathy vote may be more forthcoming.
           • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.1.4

             31 January 2012 at 4:42 pm

             The UF position before the election was clear and the C&S is clear.

             Apparently not
           • Frank Macskasy 9.1.1.2.1.5

             31 January 2012 at 5:23 pm

             If people wanted UF to have a bigger say they could have voted for us. Even just one more seat would have made quite a diference.

             What difference might that be?

             Peter Dunne has stated his support for the part-privatisation of Solid Energy, Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power, and further sell-down of Air New Zealand.

             Dunne has stated he “gained concesssions” of not privatising Kiwibank or Radio NZ.

             Yet… National never campaigned on selling either Kiwibank or Radio NZ. In fact, Key categorically stated that KB would “never be sold” whilst he was PM. (Which, I guess, is problematic considering his penchant to change his mind when it suits him.)

             So the “concession” of stopping KB or RNZ from being privatised was a bit of a red herring.

             So, what, precisely, would an “extra seat” for UF have gained us?
             • Pete George …

               31 January 2012 at 6:43 pm

               One more seat would have taken a deciding vote away from Act. That would have had more actual moderating influence on government than 8 NZF seats.
               • Matt …

                 31 January 2012 at 6:53 pm

                 What a fairy tale.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 31 January 2012 at 6:56 pm

                 Yeah, like we’d really be better off with the Hair calling the shots. That’s not even the tail wagging the dog, its the dag clinging to the tail wagging the dog.
               • McFlock …

                 31 January 2012 at 7:53 pm

                 Bull. ACT are not the socially liberal economic liberals they once were – Banksie will follow the national playbook. Dunne will set firm lines of principle as long as it’s okay by national.
                  
                 NZ1 and in particular winston, on the other hand, are going to have tremendous fun eviscerating nact and the hair all through the next parliament. Which is far more productive than limply agreeing with key at every turn.
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.2.1.6

             31 January 2012 at 9:48 pm

             If people wanted UF to have a bigger say they could have voted for us. Even just one more seat would have made quite a diference.

             Exactly. More people need to appreciate the value of additional Quislings in Parliament.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.3

         31 January 2012 at 4:15 pm

         Not just National’s election promises (and there’s no good reason to doubt them sticking to them)

         You mean beside them being a bunch of lying psychopaths?
10. John Dalley 10

    31 January 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I feel a Tui’s slogan coming on.
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    31 January 2012 at 3:53 pm

    I suppose the question is: Will this government survive a year in power?
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      31 January 2012 at 4:05 pm

      Is it on iPredict?
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Don’t ask me as I don’t go there, ask Hooton as he runs the show.
        • Matthew Hooton 11.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:34 pm

          I don run the show. I do a bit of PR for it.
          But to answer your question, this one is probably a good proxy for whether the govt will run for the remainder of the year and seems to be saying strongly “yes”: https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=KEY.DEPART.2012
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:47 pm

            No, I don’t think that’s a valid proxy. After all, if Key goes the NAct government would still be there as Helensville will vote in whichever sock-puppet that National puts up as a candidate in the by-election.
          • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.2

            31 January 2012 at 5:11 pm

            “I don run the show. I do a bit of PR for it.”

            And yet you have the power to get stocks put up ASAP whenever you like. Seems like a bit more than “a bit of PR for it” to me.
12. randal 12

    31 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

    well hootons in bed with the nashnil gubmint so you can bet he will fudge the figures on this one.
    • Matthew Hooton 12.1

      31 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

      Your comment betrays how myopic you are – its not possible for anyone to “fudge the figures” which is why it is always so accurate.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 9:46 pm

        Sorry mate, applying numerical values to peoples opinion does not make them any more scientific than the original opinions themselves. Collective forecasting is barely more accurate than individual forecasting.
13. randal 13

    31 January 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Wow!
14. rod 14

    31 January 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Maori Party to quit Govt? If you believe that load of old bollocks, you’ll believe anything
    • McFlock 14.1

      31 January 2012 at 5:45 pm

      I tend to agree – nothing like a bit of loud sabre–rattling to pretend you’re something other than a lapdog. 
       
      The interesting thing is that they might find themselves backed into a corner, given Keyster doesn’t play well. Between what I suspect is his inclination to do nothing so there is no palpable effect from their bluster, and folk like winston trying to goad them into saying something stronger, the MP might end up actually having to act on principle.
        
      I’m sure they’ll get the hang of it. 
15. randal 15

    31 January 2012 at 5:47 pm

    so tell us all hooters old chap just how do you “fix’ the results of ipredict?
    • Matthew Hooton 15.1

      31 January 2012 at 5:48 pm

      I don’t understand your question. I’m not sure it has any meaning. Do you have any understanding at all of how it works?
    • felix 15.2

      31 January 2012 at 5:55 pm

      I can help, Matthew.

      Randal, it’s called a Pump & Dump, and it doesn’t take much effort to shift the price in a relatively small market like iPredict with a couple of well placed bloggers/PR people.
      • Matthew Hooton 15.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 6:58 pm

        That must the reason that, for all of election year, iPredict was reporting (as was I through the weekly update) that National would get only 47% of the vote (compared with the polls saying National would get well over 50%) and that Labour would get in the high rather than middish 20s. Whoever was “pumping and dumping” was doing so in the interests of accurate forecasts. You dick.
        • McFlock 15.2.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 7:40 pm

          News Flash: Hooten announces that election campaigns, horse-race polls and cups of tea don’t affect elections. The exact percentage is predetermined 11 months before the election.
           
           
          • Colonial Viper 15.2.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 9:41 pm

            Actually the news suggests that is exactly what happens
            • McFlock 15.2.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 10:05 pm

              lol
        • felix 15.2.1.2

          31 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

          So what? Who said anything about that particular stock? Who said anything about your weekly update? Who said anything about you for that matter?

          Oops, think I touched a nerve.
        • Lanthanide 15.2.1.3

          31 January 2012 at 9:38 pm

          Matthew, you’d be wise not to talk about manipulation of the stocks on iPredict, given what happened around NZFirst with trades up over 5% being deemed to be “manipulations” and somehow resulting in the traders being suspended, while simultaneously greatly overstating the share that Act would win.
16. MrSmith 16

    31 January 2012 at 6:50 pm

    You have to wonder how much research Key and Co did before they decided to sell off Our assets, “Oh shit we forgot the treaty” and it gets worse we signed an agreement with the party that represent a far chunk of the people that treaty represents.
     
    These guys are loose, they just come up with an idea then throw it around over the BBQ, now there running our country or should that read sitting around waiting for the next fire to start, they are a laughingstock and parliament hasn’t even sat yet, roll on Waitangi day that should be fun.
    • yeshe 16.1

      1 February 2012 at 12:04 am

      Um .. doesn’t the Treaty represent us all ?
      • MrSmith 16.1.1

        1 February 2012 at 6:30 pm

        As I understand it the Treaty is between the Crown and Maori so no it doesn’t represent all of us, but it might just save the sale of Our assets. The more coverage this gets the better we will see if they crack.
17. randal 17

    31 January 2012 at 7:35 pm

    ooooh.
    hooters is blowin goff a bit of steam.
    ipredict that he has a very short temper and if you met him in real life he would pop his cork in less than 47% of five minutes.
18. Hateatea 18

    31 January 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Actually, I think that there may be a very real chance that this could be the deal breaker for the Maori Party. There are only a handful of the current members of parliament who were in the House during the successful challenge by the NZ Maori Council against the State Owned Enterprise legislation but both Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia know very well that this has been an important piece of legislation in treaty settlement processes and in relationships with a succession of governments of both stripes.

    Of course, given that our current Prime Minister has been in Parliament for a relatively short period of time (2004), he may profess to be unaware of the strategic importance to Maori of that legislation but I am cynical enough to think that he may feel that he can take a chance that the Maori Party will stick with him in the long run. I personally hope he is wrong
19. Mark 19

    31 January 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Here’s an idea to reconnect people with the voting process.. we could spend taxpayer money on KFC and buy their votes, then retroactively change the law to make that legal.
    Or.. we could stand up and campaign on a policy..partial float of SOE’s, that the  voting electorate on the whole sees as a pragmatic, viable and intelligent solution to the woes foisted upon us by the GFC, an out of control State Sector, and an entrenched gimme culture with good people convinced they are oppressed and downtrodden.
    We could also send a few of our best troughers over to the UN, they don’t pay tax over there and I am sure they will be paying off some of their debt to NZ society voluntarily –  CGT anyone? give up the taxpayer funded perks anyone?
    What should we do if UN Personnel on the ground (workers aren’t they?) get killed on duty.. jail Mr Klark or Ms Carter? surely if good enough for Whittal..
    Cue howls of outrage and vitriol from anonymous cowards on this site, who never fess up to their own occupations, circumstances or good deeds.  
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      1 February 2012 at 2:16 pm

      Cue howls of outrage and vitriol from anonymous cowards on this site, who never fess up to their own occupations, circumstances or good deeds.

      Cue howls of laughter more like. Didn’t your momma ever teach you? It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.
20. marty mars 20

    31 January 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Unfortunately we have heard this, Māori Party consultion with Māori and do what the people say, spin before over the Foreshore and Seabed and they didn’t listen then and didn’t do what the people wanted then and this will go the same way.

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/heard-it-all-before-and-didnt-believe.html

    key has said he is extremely confident they won’t walk and that is telling.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782403
    • ak 20.1

      31 January 2012 at 10:30 pm

      Ae Marty, and he was extremely confident that we’d be “coming aggresively out of recession in 2010” and that Winnie didn’t have a dog’s show.

      But you’re right – this time the relaxation looks almost genuine for once (as it did with “I’d be stunned if they don’t support the govt” post-election) which means either a) he holds serious dirt on individuals; b) the promises this time were even bigger than the 08 billions that never came; or c) the election hurt bad, he sees his fate and really doesn’t give a squirt any more; or d) bits of all of the above.

      Either which way, we can finally see a brighter future. And glorious entertainment in the interim.
      • marty mars 20.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 11:29 pm

        Yep good point ak I have probably overestimated the slippery tea-sipping snake.
    • Hateatea 20.2

      1 February 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Personally, I am f****ing sick of being consulted but I will, if at all possible, go to the consultation hui and tell Hekia’s husband just what I think of the proposals. I will also be writing to all the Maori Party mp’s as well as Rino Tirikatene, the Tai Tonga mp.

      Consultation is too often lip service. For it to be meaningful, non-Maori need to stand up and be counted too. 
21. Jenny 21

    31 January 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Is history repeating?

    The Maori Party was formed over exactly the same issue.

    The Labour Government wished to sell prospecting rights to parts of the seabed and foreshore to foreign mining interests.

    Just as putting these mineral rights into private hands required legislation for the removal of Maori treaty rights as regard to the Seabed and Foreshore.

    The Nats privatisations requires legislation for the removal of treaty rights as regards SOEs.

    Since this was the raison d’etre for the Maori Party’s formation, it is highly unlikely that they would let it repeated.

    I see Tariana Turia is calling for another Hikoi to parliament.

    I think that would be something that the whole country would get behind.

    Who knew?

    I remember at the time of the first Hikoi that Maori tried to argue that their treaty rights were a last protection for the seabed and fore shore for everyone. They failed to win that argument that time.

    I imagine that they would get a much better hearing this time round.

    However it all just talk at the moment. Let’s see if Tariana Turia follows through.

    Interesting times, interesting times.
22. Jenny 22

    1 February 2012 at 12:01 am

    I think if Turia did follow through and called for another Hikoi,….. and we all got behind it. It would dwarf the schedule 4 protest that forced the government to backdown then.
    • Drongo 22.1

      2 February 2012 at 3:33 pm

      Be great if you were right. Only problem is that the Maori Party are too gutless and naive. They should realise not only what Key’s doing to them (abolishing the Maori seats is a priority on the agenda) but that their survival as a party doesn’t sit with staying in government. The Maori Party are way too gutless to walk away from National. They’ll be there till the end, signing off on everything Key dupes them with, all the while sell-out Pita telling us all “we’ve made real gains for Maori”. Watch him sign off on the Maori seats. I’ll put money on it. Pathetic lap-dog Pita – you sold your own people out a long long time ago.
23. millsy 23

    1 February 2012 at 12:21 pm

    The Maori party wont leave this government. Turia wants to be be bracketed alongside Maui Pomare and Apriana Ngata (who both opposed things like public healthcare, education, welfare and state housing — apparently they thought that Maori children growing up in one bedroom shacks with dirt floor is some how ‘good’).

    Anyway, buried in the C and S agreement with National and the MP is a plan to hand over large amounts of state housing to the iwi elites. The thought of iwi aristocrats getting state houses and kicking the tenants out on the street is very tempting..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS