Return of the living dead

Written By: - Date published: 8:41 am, April 12th, 2016 - 37 comments
Categories: act, discrimination, Maori Issues, national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

don brash creepy

Just when you thought it was safe to turn off the lights …

There is a crisis brewing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Allegedly a group wants to have exclusive rights to water and this will affect the rest of us. Not this company that has a sweetheart deal in Ashburton to bottle and sell 40 billion litres of water at an undisclosed cost.  But Maori apparently want exclusive rights to water, or so it is said.

There is an entity called the New Zealand Centre for Political Research that makes this claim.  The first two words of its title are appropriate, the third clearly not as it is anything but centrist and the last two are ridiculous given that the entity exists to scratch redneck prejudices.

And Don Brash, the man who lost the 2005 election for National has reappeared.

From Radio New Zealand:

Former ACT and National Party leader Don Brash, the man who delivered the controversial Orewa speech in 2004, arguing against special status for Māori, is back.

This time, through the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, he is telling New Zealanders to be fearful of iwi and their plans for water.

“Every New Zealander no matter when their ancestors arrived in New Zealand have a strong interest in the quality of water and we totally support that, there shouldn’t be any involvement in that decision making for people who have one particular ethnicity.”

The group, led by former ACT MP Muriel Newman, claims the government is planning to give away control of lakes and rivers to Iwi.

The campaign warns readers that it is only a matter of time before iwi begin demanding a royalty each time the tap is turned on.

The “iwi vs Kiwi” slogan has previously been slammed for being divisive, but Dr Brash said it was not his group that was dividing people.

“It’s the government perpetuating this; it’s the government saying people with Māori ancestry should have some special right to control the decision-making about water, and all we’re saying is it’s totally contrary to everything New Zealand stands for.”

So corporates are fine but Iwi should be feared.  This is an unusual proposition as corporates are full of blood sucking leeches whose reason for being is to maximise private wealth whereas Maori have always thought about the collective and have been very generous and have allowed others to enjoy their Taonga.

I think Brash’s despair is misplaced. He has made the mistake of presuming that Maori will behave the same was as right wingers would in similar circumstances. I have thought for a while that these events and this rhetoric become flashpoints because the right and the rednecks think that Maori will behave like them and get all possessive over anything they have rights to.  Certainly the rhetoric of the right suggests that everyone will behave in the same venal selfish way as them if given a chance.  My experience of Maori however is that they are more socialist in nature and the right and the rednecks and everyone else have nothing to worry about. We just need to be respectful.

And besides the Treaty of Waitangi promised Maori that they would retain their Taonga.  Rivers and lakes have to be considered Taonga and therefore preserved to Maori under the terms of the treaty.

Of course National has the perfect answer to Maori’s claim, that no one owns water.  This claim was reiterated recently.

Someone should tell Brash and Newman that Iwi rights to lakes and rivers have already been recognised.  For instance Tainui has co-governance of the Waikato River.

This issue will present problems to National.  Already ACT and Peter Dunne have said they will not support RMA changes.  National is sandwiched between the Maori Party who want Iwi rights recognised and ACT who does not want a bar of them.

They are clearly in an awkward position where getting the changes through Parliament will require deft handling of the other parties.  And judging by the NZCPS’s response the base will not be pleased.

37 comments on “Return of the living dead ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    12 April 2016 at 9:02 am

    This is so thinly veiled racism, I despair at a future where by our nation can come together.

    How much longer must we suffer these wreckers?

  2. roy cartland 2
    12 April 2016 at 9:06 am

    Does this graphic say it?

    https://imagebin.ca/v/2dQgYFHIs7fU

  3. Lucy 3
    12 April 2016 at 9:06 am

    Maori couldn’t do worse than successive Governments. I am mid 50’s and when I grow up almost every river, lake and stream was swimmable and drinkable. In one generation we have gone from that to 1/4 being wade able. Actually the first hint we had was having to boil river water in the eighties and then didymo in the nineties.
    Now even boiling is not enough for most river water,

    So we need guardianship by someone with enough sense to know that cows can’t shit in the water we drink obviously not the government or councils!

  4. McFlock 4
    12 April 2016 at 9:44 am

    Apparently Louis Crimp is dead, so they needed to defrost some other old rich racist.

  5. weka 5
    12 April 2016 at 9:46 am

    I don’t get it. What are they referring to specifically when they say the govt is going to give water to Māori?

  6. wyndham 6
    12 April 2016 at 10:02 am

    Key and co. will now face added difficulties with Maori Party support as a result of the Kermadecs fishing brouhaha.

  7. Bill 7
    12 April 2016 at 10:11 am

    Is this connected in any way to the full page ad in (I think) ‘The Herald’. It came through as a photo on my facebook feed – utterly racist shite headed SHOULD ONE RACE CONTROL NEW ZEALAND’S FRESH WATER?

    By the way, the ‘one race’ segment was highlighted or given prominence by being printed in a different colour from the rest of the headed.

    Are there no laws in NZ about stirring up ethnic division?

  8. framu 8
    12 April 2016 at 10:20 am

    look out for the deliberate semantic shuffle where a “water right” turns into “owning water”

    ACT/ brash et-all have a problem with brown property rights it seems

  9. Bill 9
    12 April 2016 at 10:34 am

    Will anyone in NZ fall for this shite? (please don’t answer that 🙁 )

    The only reason these fucks don’t want water rights is because the same said fucks want to pump out water for free, so they can then sell it abroad in wee plastic bottles for maximum profit…an infinite profit margin on contents is a nice wee number if you can scam it.

    • weka 9.1
      12 April 2016 at 10:46 am

      In the case of the likes of Crimp and Ansell, I think the racism is genuine. So not the only reason, although obviously the connections with ACT suggest greed is a big motivator too.

  10. TC 10
    12 April 2016 at 10:43 am

    Yet another distraction dog whistle from nact using dodgy don the kiwisaver rorter.

  11. joe90 11
    12 April 2016 at 10:43 am

    Allegedly a group wants to have exclusive rights to water and this will affect the rest of us.

    Here’s a thought – call it the commons, collect royalties in a Sovereign Fund to generate a modest UBI communist hellscape.

    The Alaska communist story gets more interesting than that though. The way Alaska builds the principal of the fund is in line with another of Myerson’s proposals: take back the land. You see, the oil wealth in Alaska happened to reside underneath public land. Instead of doing the red-blooded American thing and just giving all of that natural wealth that nobody creates away to oil companies, Alaska held on to its ownership and collects royalties from the oil. Those royalties are plowed into its SWF. So what you have in Alaska is a state that is leveraging publicly-owned natural resources to build a SWF that pays out a UBI. Or as conservatives on twitter call it: a communist hellscape.

    http://www.demos.org/blog/1/5/14/spectre-haunting-alaska%E2%80%94-spectre-communism

  12. International Rescue 12
    12 April 2016 at 11:16 am

    “Rivers and lakes have to be considered Taonga and therefore preserved to Maori under the terms of the treaty.”

    Says who?

  13. saveNZ 13
    12 April 2016 at 11:25 am

    We all know who the Natz want to get and control the water and it is certainly not indigenous people!

    For those who are confused how the Natz are still in power and polling well, this is my theory (in addition to MSM and massive donations and political interference).

    Natz are increasing our migrant population approx 1.5% per year, most of them into Auckland which controls 1/3 of the vote.

    Between each 3 year election just by migration the Natz can increase their vote share 4.5%. Over 3 election cycles that is 13.5% increase in migrant voters.

    It’s happening in plain sight. In under 10 years National can change our population by 13.5% with new voters and then start really choosing a government to suit them. Remember Maori are only about 15% of the NZ population. But with the National party having the Maori party as political partners they are getting those votes too!

    I have zero problem with migrants themselves, as most Kiwis are descendants from migrants, but I am VERY concerned at how migration is being used to keep National in power and the flow of money and donations to the Natz and cronies and the flow of assets out of Kiwi ownership. We are not just becoming tenants in our own country, we are becoming second class citizens by wealth.

    In countries like Fiji, Yugoslavia, Israel and so forth there is huge social issues (even Europe now) that arise from a fast change of input of a different culture. Do we really want NZ to move in that direction? A direction where our history of social equality is gone and instead we have an underclass and super rich class that own most of the assets while being a small percentage of the population (who may not even reside here).

    At the same time, those who are most downtrodden in society like prisoners are not able to vote under National and refugees who probably don’t vote National are kept at embarrassing levels.

    In Iceland the population waved bananas at parliament to signify their PM was turning them into a banana republic until he resigned. I think we are already there.

    Maori have rights under our current treaty (as you would assume all Kiwi citizens), but soon the government will have sold off these assets by various means of trickery and weasel words, leaving the cupboard bare.

    Now the farce of the resuscitation from the cryogenic chamber of Brash (because Natz don’t want to be seen to be doing it themselves having Maori as partners and all) to keep the roadshow going.

    Nothing to see here people! It’s Maori and Bene’s fault! Keep it on race and not on what is really going on, grand theft larceny of an entire country to neoliberal and the sell out of the current Kiwi population!

  14. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 14
    12 April 2016 at 1:02 pm

    My experience of Maori however is that they are more socialist in nature and the right and the rednecks and everyone else have nothing to worry about.

    Tell that to a moa.

  15. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15
    12 April 2016 at 1:20 pm

    But Maori apparently want exclusive rights to water, or so it is said.

    So it is said by Maori.

    The Waitangi Tribunal has held in a number of decisions relating to Maori claims of Treaty breach in relation to waters that the claims of Treaty breach are well-founded and that Maori rights in relation of waters of significance, such as the Waikato River, are in the nature of ownership.

    NZ Maori Council and others v The Attorney-General and others [2013] NZSC 6 (27 February 2013)

    • framu 15.1
      12 April 2016 at 3:19 pm

      nope

      ” Maori rights in relation of waters of significance, such as the Waikato River, are in the nature of ownership.”

      ie: water that is in, or flowing through, a defined area

      theres a difference between exercising a right relating to water in a fixed location and claiming to own all water

      and im willing to bet all treaty issues re: water are of this exact nature – tied to a specific location

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.1.1
        13 April 2016 at 8:48 am

        How does it make a difference that the water they claim to own in a specific location? Anything anyone owns is usually somewhere.

        • framu 15.1.1.1
          13 April 2016 at 12:31 pm

          they dont claim to own the water! – the have an ownership of water rights at a specific location

          so any water currently in that location is under their control – once it leaves that location it isnt

          how can you claim ownership of something which is an amorphous substance that flows always into the sea, then evaporates, then falls again somewhere else?

          you cant – but you can claim an ownership right while its under your control

          do you really not understand the difference here?

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2016 at 12:39 pm

            Who cares? They are claiming ownership of water. That it’s in a specific location seems unimportant to me.

            • framu 15.1.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2016 at 1:02 pm

              you should care because your getting it utterly wrong, and its you inability to grasp the difference that lets people like brash fool you with semantics

              eg1: a farmer has a water right to take “x” litres of water from location “y”

              does it matter where the farmer takes the water from?
              does he “own” the water he takes?
              does he own the water he didnt take?

              eg2: “waters of significance, such as the Waikato River” – (this is your own quote by the way)

              is the waikato river …
              a) all water?
              b) the water currently in the river?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                13 April 2016 at 1:15 pm

                I give you: they claim ownership of water in a specific location.

                So what?

                • framu …
                  13 April 2016 at 3:14 pm

                  so what?

                  thats not the same as people saying that maori are trying to claim ALL water

                  “But Maori apparently want exclusive rights to water, or so it is said.”
                  – rephrase that to –
                  “But Maori apparently want exclusive rights to water within a location they have ownership of, or so it is said.”
                  – and it has an utterly different meaning

                  yes the two terms and ideas sound and feel very similar – but they are miles apart in reality

                  which is kind of the whole point on this topic

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                    14 April 2016 at 7:55 am

                    No. I get it. They are not claiming all the water. Just all of it in the main bodies of water. Nothing to worry about.

  16. Anno1701 16
    12 April 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Brash really is a nasty piece of work isnt he ……

  17. millsy 17
    12 April 2016 at 6:47 pm

    “So corporates are fine but Iwi should be feared. This is an unusual proposition as corporates are full of blood sucking leeches whose reason for being is to maximise private wealth whereas Maori have always thought about the collective and have been very generous and have allowed others to enjoy their Taonga.”

    I dont trust iwi with my water more than I trust corporates. The only entity I trust with my water is the Crown. That is the reality.

    The iwi elite just want to pay lipservice while they make a killing from water, and use the proceeds to put their princelings through private school.

    The only way forward is Crown ownership and control of water on behalf of the people of NZ (including Maori), public ownership and control of all water irrigation and reticulation schemes, plus a royalty for all water bottling, to go into building social services for New Zealanders (like in the oil-rich Arab nations).

    • weka 17.1
      12 April 2016 at 6:55 pm

      The Crown that currently says NZ rivers and lakes don’t need to be of a swimmable standard let alone a potable standard?

      We can do much much better.

  18. Jenny Kirk 18
    13 April 2016 at 9:25 am

    Millsy at 17 suggests :

    The only way forward is Crown ownership and control of water on behalf of the people of NZ (including Maori), public ownership and control of all water irrigation and reticulation schemes, plus a royalty for all water bottling, to go into building social services for New Zealanders (like in the oil-rich Arab nations).

    I would suggest instead that the current Government (Crown ) control of water rights via its sycophantic servants, regional councils and ECAN, are currently depriving NZers of their rightful share of fresh water, and have allowed it to be contaminated and polluted to such an extent that they have been totally irresponsible in their so-called guardianship of those waters

    In addition to which, from what I have seen up here in the north, one Maori man has taken it upon himself over recent years to paddle all the local rivers and record all the dead cattle and other farming rubbish that he has found in these rivers. It has taken him a few years but finally the publicity he has brought to this issue is starting to embarrass both farmers and the local regional council.

    At the same time, the regional council has allowed Nestles in to build a large bottling factory of pure spring water (Poroti Springs) which will diminish both the volume of that water which locals use, and the watercress and other herbs which grow in it, and which locals also use. This resource consent was not publicly notified and nor were iwi or hapu informed about it until after it was approved.

    To my mind, both the Crown and its agents – regional councils – have been derelict in their duties and responsibilities towards the rest of us when it comes to dealing with fresh water matters. So – No – Millsy, I cannot agree that the Crown nor its agents are the best people to look after our fresh water interests.