Water rights hui

Written By: - Date published: 8:37 am, September 6th, 2012 - 115 comments
Categories: hone harawira, john key, mana-party, maori party, national, water - Tags: , ,

Next Thursday there will be a national hui on water rights called by Maori King Tuheitia. John Key is playing divide and rule, and thus has forbidden National MPs from attending:

Key: Government won’t go to water hui

Prime Minister John key says the Government will not attend a hui called by the Maori King over water rights because it rejects calls for a national water settlement.

Key also made it clear none of his MPs should attend the hui because that would cause confusion about them representing the Crown.

That’s a huge snub to Maoridom, and I think it is petty beyond belief, but that’s the call that Key has made, and it’s easy to understand where he’s coming from. More difficult to understand is the craven position of the Maori Party:

Maori Party likely to snub water rights hui

The Maori Party looks unlikely to attend what is expected to be the biggest meeting of Maori in 30 years – next week’s water rights hui.

Prime Minister John Key says the Government is also planning to avoid the meeting at Turangawaewae Marae because it does not believe there is any need for it. “We do not want to engage in a national hui because we do not believe that there needs to be one,” he says.

…That leaves the Maori Party. Co-leader Tariana Turia says she doubts they will be attending. “Well at this point I don’t really see the point in going,” she says.

Fellow co-leader Pita Sharples agrees. “We believe this is a thing that iwi/hapu have to work out themselves,” he says.

So the Maori Party is not going to attend the biggest meeting of Maori in 30 years? A party supposedly formed to represent the interests of Maori is going to leave iwi to work things out for themselves? This is beyond pathetic, and makes the Maori Party look like complete puppets to National. Hone Harawira thinks so too, and says so in very inflammatory language:

Harawira: Maori Party are ‘house n****rs’

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira has launched a stinging attack on the Government over its decision not to attend a national hui on water rights.

Writing on Facebook last night, Mr Harawira implied the Maori Party was controlled and led by Prime Minister John Key. “Notice how John Key says none of his Maori MPs are allowed to go to the National Maori Hui on Water … and two minutes later Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples say that they’re not going,” says Mr Harawira. “Not hard to see who’s the REAL leader of the Maori Party!”

…”Time John Key realised a few home truths like (1) he can tell his little house n****rs what to do, but (2) the rest of us don’t give a shit for him or his opinions!” writes Mr Harawira.

I don’t condone the language, but it’s hard to argue with the conclusions.

115 comments on “Water rights hui ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. TheContrarian 1
    6 September 2012 at 8:51 am

    Who was it who was saying the other day that Hone is sounding more and more like a statesman? Hmmm

    • deano 1.1
      6 September 2012 at 9:49 am

      well, he’s referencing Malcolm X who was the leader of a black nationalist movement.

      The word n*gger is very strong, of course, but the term house n*gger has a very specific political meaning – it’s not about the colour of the skin, it’s about the willing subservient relationship

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      6 September 2012 at 9:58 am

      He hit a home run with this one.

      • Enough is Enough 1.2.1
        6 September 2012 at 10:10 am

        No he didn’t.

        All anyone will be talking about now is his stupid comment. Nobody cares about the historical relevance of his comments.

        Hone has a way of grabbing headlines. In this case it will deflect from the good story.

      • King Kong 1.2.2
        6 September 2012 at 11:11 am

        He certainly has though this is just what you would expect from uneducated semi literate field nigger.

        Dont worry people its not offensive because Malcom X said it.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.3
        6 September 2012 at 11:13 am

        All anyone will be talking about now is his stupid comment. Nobody cares about the historical relevance of his comments.

        of course, that’s the direction the Righties want to push it 🙂

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.3.1
          6 September 2012 at 2:41 pm

          That’s because, in their efforts to turn the clock back a few centuries, NACT don’t want people to remember just what they’re taking us back to as it will stop them becoming the masters of all they survey.

        • Balanced View 1.2.3.2
          6 September 2012 at 9:28 pm

          Yes they do – so why are the so called left playing this game?? Why would Hone chose headline hogging language? Why would Labour come out and start talking the race card as well?

          This is exactly what National want – and it almost defies belief that Labour are giving it to them.

    • fnjckg 1.3
      6 September 2012 at 4:22 pm

      touche
      very passionate people te tangata whenua

  2. tracey 2
    6 September 2012 at 9:01 am

    Key needs advice on the meaning of consultation if he is going to use it as defence to legal action. His not going isnt what will come back to haunt him, but his quoted reason, that theres no point because his mps would just be repeating that… Xyz is not consultation.

    Good win for us all and the environment, particularly rivers, at the environment court. Those farmers still polluting whether from ignorance or wilfulness cannot be protected anymore than any other industry that discharges waste. The irony is many dairy farmers are trying to access to the river for irrigation, so they understand rivers are important.

    If you choose to start a business which needs water in a drought afflicted area, such as north canterbury, tgen live or die by that decision. Dont expect us to divert rivers and sacrifice ecology for your decisions, poorly made

  3. ThinkOfTheCatapults 3
    6 September 2012 at 9:04 am

    As was mentioned on the Dim-Post (http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/that-word-again), the term “house nigger” is a perfect description of the Maori Party:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_to_the_Grass_Roots

    • TheContrarian 3.1
      6 September 2012 at 9:10 am

      Wow, defending the use of one the most reviled pejorative terms of the modern era.

      Stay classy.

      • ThinkOfTheCatapults 3.1.1
        6 September 2012 at 9:18 am

        The term, no.
        The context, yes.

        ThinkOfTheCatapults – Staying classy since 06/09/12 9:10am

      • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.1.2
        6 September 2012 at 9:28 am

        lol yes all those naughty rappers are going to get their wrists slapped.

        In my experience expressions of utter contempt are rarely expressed in polite language.

        • TheContrarian 3.1.2.1
          6 September 2012 at 9:30 am

          I always thought political discourse was different from rap song lyrics.

          • Pascal's bookie 3.1.2.1.1
            6 September 2012 at 9:35 am

            lol.

            Listened to much rap music have we?

            ‘Political discourse’ is all up in that shit.

            • TheContrarian 3.1.2.1.1.1
              6 September 2012 at 9:47 am

              Yes I listen to a lot of hip hop actually…didn’t realise an MC rapping about politics was comparable to a politician speaking about his fellow MP’s

              • Colonial Viper …
                6 September 2012 at 10:00 am

                Your PC sensitivities are quite overwhelming

                • TheContrarian …
                  6 September 2012 at 10:14 am

                  It’s not “PC sensitivities” its about the tone of our political discourse. Much like throat slitting gestures (thanks Key) don’t have a place in parliament neither does calling your opposing party terms like ‘house niggars’.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 September 2012 at 10:18 am

                    It’s not “PC sensitivities” its about the tone of our political discourse.

                    You’re more worried about tone than substance. And Hone hit the mark here. Key is the real leader of the Maori Party.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    6 September 2012 at 10:19 am

                    It’s not “PC sensitivities” its about the tone of our political discourse.

                    You’re more worried about tone than substance. Hone hit the mark here. Key is the real leader of the Maori Party.

      • Tiger Mountain 3.1.3
        6 September 2012 at 9:29 am

        Hone is quite entitled to use a term that goes back to Malcom X in terms of modern politics and way beyond to it’s original meaning in US slave society. Right wingers sometimes call Greens “watermelons”. It is all about context and track record which is why money grabbing sexist gangsta musicians using “nigga” was so offensive.

        Hone Harawira was the only NZ MP at the time who could have credibly attended Australia’s “Sorry Day”, which he did. Mana members will give the water rights hui a good rev up. The only service the Māori party has ultimately done this country is showing the paucity of identity politics in the parliamentary setting.

      • Pascal's bookie 3.1.4
        6 September 2012 at 9:30 am

        Does ‘house nigger’ mean ‘nigger’? Or are there levels of irony involved?

        Did Malcolm X feel the same way about African Americans as the Grand Wizard of the KKK?

        Deep questions. Plenty of shallow answers available to avoid them though.

        • TheContrarian 3.1.4.1
          6 September 2012 at 10:08 am

          Fine, here’s you shallow answer:

          I don’t think the term nigger has any place in political lexicon by those in parliament…and I think if any other politician had used it, say someone on the right, The Standard and its minions would be crying foul.

      • Pascal's bookie 3.1.5
        6 September 2012 at 9:33 am

        NWA are a white supremacist rap group, obvs.

      • Carol 3.1.6
        6 September 2012 at 9:36 am

        And you a lot of Kiwis, don’t get the difference between the usual perjorative use of the N-word, and why it has become regarded as unacceptable, and the way Hone has used it…. as seen here and the accompanying online poll result:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7623209/Harawira-launches-into-water-hui-debate-with-N-bomb

        As well as DimPost’s explanation, I seem too recall that it took a long time for the majority of people in the US, NZ and elsewhere, to understand why the N Word, as coined by, and as came to be used by, white people, is so offensive.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger#Etymology_and_history

        It’s guess it’s going to take just as long for about as many people to understand the degree of anger and sense of betrayal, when the word is used by brown and black people against their own as a stinging criticism.

        Some are just slow to get the point.

      • deano 3.1.7
        6 September 2012 at 9:58 am

        If he can called them niggers, that would have been one of the most “reviled pejoratives” in our language. But he called them house niggers, which isn’t the same thing because its not a race descriptor. A Pakeha can be a house nigger if they happily toe the line of their wealthy, powerful bosses. More than one of the rightwing commentators here meet that test.

        • Tiger Mountain 3.1.7.1
          6 September 2012 at 10:28 am

          hallelujah! someone gets it. I wouldn’t use the term ever but “house nigger” partly means presenting as one thing while actually being another. Hence slurs such as ‘watermelon’ and ‘potato’. Hone is a Māori nationalist with a good deal of class analysis as well which obviously many find hard to deal with.

          Tari and Pete are sell-out merchants as described.

  4. tracey 4
    6 September 2012 at 9:08 am

    What was the meeting ms turia attened with her maori nationalist beret on? Wasnt that an issue for iwi and hapu too?

  5. Carol 5
    6 September 2012 at 9:12 am

    Winston’s answer to Key’s divide and rule tactics is for all of us to claim to be Maori now:

    http://nzfirst.org.nz/news/new-zealanders-encouraged-challenge-racist-policies

    New Zealand First says if cynical backroom deals between the National and Maori parties leads to preferential treatment for Maori over water rights then all New Zealanders should claim to be Maori.

    Rt Hon Winston Peters says such a move would force the Government to declare exactly who it considers to be Maori enough to get special deals on assets already owned by all New Zealanders.

    “John Key could write to those New Zealanders he considers ineligible to let them know they’ve missed out.

    • BernyD 5.1
      6 September 2012 at 1:41 pm

      Go Winston Peters !

      • Carol 5.1.1
        6 September 2012 at 2:14 pm

        I don’t agree with most of Winston’s ethnic/’racial’ and social conservatism, but I’d never vote NZ First. However, I think he’s about the best opposition MP we’ve got. He is focused, succinct, on target, and has a catchy way of putting things. And I mostly like the way he has opposed asset sales.

  6. Raymond A Francis 6
    6 September 2012 at 9:43 am

    So, is the Labour going to attend and if not what is their stance on water rights

  7. Anne 7
    6 September 2012 at 10:46 am

    Keep at it Hone. Tell it like it is. It’s such a refreshing change from his pathetic, lickle spittling, hypocritical former colleagues. He uses the word ‘nigger’ in the correct way. I’m reminded of the same hypocrisy over another word. It’s okay to call someone a “commie” in the most derogatory way, but woe betide anyone who calls someone a “nazi”.

    I really hope that Hone is wrong though, and no-one from the Maori Party will show up. That will be the end of the road for them. What self respecting Maori would want to have anything more to do with them.

  8. redfred 8
    6 September 2012 at 11:01 am

    From Malcolm X Autobiography

    “Since slavery, the American white man has always kept some handpicked Negroes who fared much better than the black masses suffering and slaving out in the hot fields. The white man had these “house” and “yard” Negroes for his special servants. He threw them more crumbs from his rich table, he even let them eat in his kitchen. He knew that he could always count on them to keep “good massa” happy in his self-image of being so “good” and “righteous.” “Good massa” always heard just what he wanted to hear from these “house” and “yard” blacks. “

    He goes on later to describe many of the other Black leaders in the 60s as House Negroes.

    From Hone perspective probably more than appropriate.

    • TheContrarian 8.1
      6 September 2012 at 11:13 am

      You’ll note the term ‘Negro’s’ being used instead of ‘niggers’.

      If Hone wanted to make his point (a point which may very well be valid) he should have been chosen his words better.

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.1
        6 September 2012 at 11:27 am

        Semantics. Hone scored the point with a bullseye. Maori Party full of House Negroes. (Does that meet with your approval better bro)

      • Tiger Mountain 8.1.2
        6 September 2012 at 11:32 am

        Get over it TC, Pascal’s Bookie put it in perspective upthread, you are not meant to be impressed.

        People use, abuse, mangle and reclaim language regularly, e.g. “queer”, “coconut”, “slut walk”.
        On FB Hone is getting the thumbs up from supporters “tells it like it is” etc.

        • TheContrarian 8.1.2.1
          6 September 2012 at 11:34 am

          I don’t have to ‘get over it’.
          I have an opinion and if you don’t agree, fine. 

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.1
            6 September 2012 at 1:53 pm

            Maori Party = House Negroes

            John Key = House Master

          • mike 8.1.2.1.2
            7 September 2012 at 12:49 am

            Contrarian, Tiger Mountain didn’t say that you ‘had to’ get over it, he was simply expressing his opinion that you should. But of course erecting straw man after straw man is basically your whole argumentative style. (N.B. it’s getting old.)

            8.1 – You’re claiming that Hone didn’t make his point? I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m thinking it’s a nonsensical claim in light of the messages of support he’s got in social media, the exposure he achieved in mainstream media, the fact that the Maori Party has done a u-turn and is now attending the hui. “House negros” just wouldn’t have had the same impact, coverage, nor result. He made his point big time.

            Language is about context. If I call you a ‘c*nt’, that’s highly offensive. But if I call you a ‘good c*nt’, that’s a compliment (crude maybe, but that’s true in kiwi culture). Hone didn’t use the term ‘n*gger’, he used the term ‘house n*gger’. Google it if you’re not sure about the difference.

            Tiger Mountain is right, language is malleable, and the rules of how words are used changes over time. I don’t like people getting precious over ‘the n-word’. As I said it’s about context, no one owns language. It can be used in a powerfully racist way, witness Seinfeld star Michael Richards’s famous onstage meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtU6EjHjoY But it’s used proudly in hip hop, and as a term of endearment in the urban black community.

            He shouldn’t have used it because he’s an MP? Says who? You? To use your own words you’re a powerless nobody on a blog, so I’m just gonna go ahead and throw that self-righteous opinion in the toilet.

            I also think you should get over it.

            All I ever see you doing on this site is disagreeing with people, I suspect, for the sake of disagreeing. (And no I didn’t miss your handle, I just don’t see the point.) It’s annoying, lame, and most of all, boring. It distracts from a potentially meaningful conversation. Now I’ve got nothing against someone wanting to play Devil’s advocate, but the thing is you’re just not very good at it. Weak. Surely you can find something better to do with your time.

      • Adele 8.1.3
        6 September 2012 at 10:00 pm

        The Contrarian

        African Americans would prefer to be called nigga (amongst themselves and definitely not by white folk) than to be referred to as a negro. Negro is viewed as a pejorative term whereas the other has become an affectionate endearment, of sorts.

        • Populuxe1 8.1.3.1
          6 September 2012 at 10:42 pm

          I suppose you’ve asked them then? All of them? Or are you operating under the conviction that the whole US is one big Spike Jones movie?

          • Adele 8.1.3.1.1
            6 September 2012 at 11:52 pm

            Populuxe

            Why don’t you ask Māori if they like being called a savage by you.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.3.1.1.1
              7 September 2012 at 12:08 am

              according to populuxe’s reasoning some of them will be just fine with it.

              • Populuxe1 …
                7 September 2012 at 3:20 pm

                By slandering me like that, CV, it’s patently obvious you wouldn’t know reasoning if it bit you in the arse so well padded by your wife’s father’s money.
                 
                [lprent: It isn’t legal defamation. It is an opinion and rather carefully worded by comparison to the usual stuff around here. Please don’t waste my tired eyes explaining the obvious. ]

            • Populuxe1 8.1.3.1.1.2
              7 September 2012 at 3:14 pm

              Given that I would in no circumstances whatsoever say something like that, that would be slander. Mind you, it wouldn’t matter what I said anyway – obviously I’m just a two dimensional bogeyman to you anyway, so debate would be pointless.
               
              [lprent: see previous note. That wasn’t even an opinion. It was more of a leading question. If you want to use technical terms then perhaps you should learn what they apply to. For a starter it’d be more likely to be libel than slander – this is a permanent record. And in any case the distinction in NZ is pretty well completely subsumed inside of defamation. ]

  9. Sunny 9
    6 September 2012 at 11:34 am

    Most peoples as sorely robbed, affronted, marginalised, jailed, ignored and mocked as Maori have been since Europeans arrived here would not be organising talks and seeking negotiated agreements under the law of this land.

    They’d be picking up guns.

    All honour then to Maori and to the Treaty, a living document in every sense of the word.

    So what if Hone uses strong honest language? He says what he thinks and I agree, in exactly the same words.

    Rather Hone’s honest outrage than the PR-coached suit speaking smooth faced liars and crooks out to steal our assets, our public health system, our public education system, our no fault ACC system…anything they can get their thieving hands on.

    • North 9.1
      6 September 2012 at 6:42 pm

      Sunny at 9 above; right on with your last paragraph………”Rather Hone’s honest outrage than the PR coached……liars and crooks…….”

      Must say it disgusts me when I hear howls of outrage at HoneSpeak from the Oh-So-Earnest who are nothing more than poachers desperately trying to be seen as gamekeepers in the matter of racist pejorative.

      Hone and all Maori remain the victims of subliminal racism on a vast and sickening scale in this darling little “One Nation” of ours. The PR bullshit and the occasional vain-glorious donning of someone else’s korowai doesn’t alter that reality one jot.

      To hell with them Johnny-Come-Lately gamekeepers and their clutching of their pearls. To me “statesman” connotes mana, honour – not smooth crap talk advisedly and disingenuously put about to make the “right” impression and accrue personal advantage.

      Think back on JokeyHen commandeering the little girl from McGechan Close why don’t ya ? Having earlier “pejoratived” her parents and every other resident of her very street.

  10. gobsmacked 10
    6 September 2012 at 12:14 pm

    So, how should we describe the Maori Party?

    How?

    *sniggers*

  11. Dr Terry 11
    6 September 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Members of the Maori Party like us all, are citizens of Aotearoa/New Zealand who are aligned with the National Party. By no means do they represent the voice of all Maori, and presently are in a bit of a cleft stick; in other words National use them in order to divide and rule.

  12. Carol 12
    6 September 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Harawira says he was referring to Maori Nat MMs with his H-N jibe:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7623209/Harawiras-N-bomb-directed-at-National-MPs

    He said he was referring to National’s own Maori MPs; such as Paula Bennett, Tau Henare, Simon Bridges, Hekia Parata.

    “You’ve got to be careful about trying to draw dots here… I made a very clear statement about John Key and the way that he treats his MPs.”

    National’s Maori MPs were strong and intelligent leaders within Maoridom.

    “They should be able to make up their own minds as to whether or not they will accept an invitation to attend a national Maori hui on water.

    “If people want me to stop using language from Alabama in the 1950s, maybe they should go back to John Key and tell him to stop treating his Maori MPs like he’s a plantation owner from Alabama in the 1950s.”

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      6 September 2012 at 5:58 pm

      “If people want me to stop using language from Alabama in the 1950s, maybe they should go back to John Key and tell him to stop treating his Maori MPs like he’s a plantation owner from Alabama in the 1950s.”

      Just gold.

      • Populuxe1 12.1.1
        6 September 2012 at 8:02 pm

        That comparison just cheapens the horrible history of black people in the US. Maori were never enslaved, had more self-determination at their most oppressed than American blacks did until the 1960s, and Maori never had to fight for the right to vote.o make that sort of comparison is crass easy point scoring.

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 12.1.1.1
          6 September 2012 at 8:14 pm

          Ah, but Hone wasn’t comparing National Party Māori MPs to slaves – he’s saying Key has a slave-owner’s attitude.

        • Adele 12.1.1.2
          6 September 2012 at 9:02 pm

          Populuxe

          Your dry retching attempt to use black people to point score against brown people is a miserable attempt to deflect. Black and Brown people can’t stand hypocritical and nasty little fuckers like you. There is a common bond found in oppression and suppression and the continued struggle against prejudice, racism and colonialism motivated by greed.

          I have been host to a few African-Americans and I am fairly sure they would have a few things to say about your advocacy on their behalf, one being…’get the fuck outta here cracka.’

          • Populuxe1 12.1.1.2.1
            6 September 2012 at 10:34 pm

            Oh dear Christ spare me. It might come as a newsflash Adele, but within every community there is a diversity of opinion. There are many Maori activists who see the struggle for Tino rangatiratanga as being a completely unprecedented in the world and not to be compared with other histories. There are also a number of African-American academics who don’t like what they see as the uniqueness of their historical enslavement being hijacked by other movements (nor, I might add, do all black people talk ghetto like some sort of cliche). You’re as ridiculously reactionary as a National supporter bitching about “greedy bloody Maoris”. I suggest you crack a book or two on the subject and try to get over the idea that your limited experience set represents the whole fucking world before you start hurling abuse.

    • Jim Nald 12.2
      8 September 2012 at 7:43 pm

      National has got “Maori” MPs! Wow.

  13. fnjckg 13
    6 September 2012 at 4:30 pm

    wot about ‘tomato’?

  14. Pascal's bookie 14
    6 September 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Sharples likely to attend water hui http://t.co/lxPC7EHp

    Hone’s rhetoric is totally counterproductive and oh wait what now?

    • TheContrarian 14.1
      6 September 2012 at 6:45 pm

      Hmm I don’t read anything about Hone’s remarks being responsible for Sharples agreeing to attend. Maybe you linked to the wrong article?

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1
        6 September 2012 at 6:48 pm

        Hone’s effective, that much is certain.

      • Pascal's bookie 14.1.2
        6 September 2012 at 6:59 pm

        Yeah totally unrelated. He about faced because he just changed his mind that’s all. wasn’t afraid of looking bad. Wasn’t called out. He just changed his mind. Not to prove Hone wrong, nope. No pressure there at all. Totally confident that in his absence, his absence would not be discussed.

        Yep. Changed. his. mind. for. no. reason.

        Obvs.

        • gobsmacked 14.1.2.1
          6 September 2012 at 7:15 pm

          Yes, Hone’s been smart one way or the other.

          If Sharples made the decision independent of Hone’s pressure, then Hone’s logic was …

          1) Pita (or the Maori Party) will have to go to the hui
          2) I’ll attack him for not going
          3) He’ll then look like he’s following me. As opposed to following Key.

          Going public ahead of a decision is clever politics – whether you’ve actually influenced that decision or not.

    • North 14.2
      6 September 2012 at 6:48 pm

      “……oh wait what now ?” what ???

  15. Tiger Mountain 15
    6 September 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Some of you bonehead commenters here don’t seem to be able to acknowledge that Te Mana Movement is a bonafide hybrid parliamentary party slash political movement of a new type. Māori nationalism tinged with a class analysis is not popular in some circles and f*****g good job.

  16. marty mars 16
    7 September 2012 at 3:33 pm

    I don’t agree with Hone using that term – as i’ve said in a post on it

    “Everything is going okay and the Mana movement is building – cut the bullshit Hone and get on with the job e hoa.”

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/saying-less.html

  17. Hammer 17
    7 September 2012 at 11:35 pm

    The good news from this;
    In November 2014 the line from the Nats will be…..

    “A vote for Labour is a vote for [that MotherF….ker & N…..er] Hone ”

    He is shooting Labour in the foot; meanwhile his mates up North will be proud of him

    Keep it up Hone – National appreciates your support in moving the centre vote over to them.

  18. millsy 18
    8 September 2012 at 7:23 pm

    The left is totally on the wrong side of this issue.

    Handing ownership of water to a private group (in this case, iwi) totally flies in the face of socialist/social democratic principles — you know, something about the public (by that I mean the state) and common ownership of all natural resources including our water, with avalibilty to all.

    Ngai Tahu’s support of the extension of the ECan regime underlines the fact that big business, big iwi and big agriculture have a desire to take all the water for themselves and freeze out the domestic users.

    I dare to say it, but the principles embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi are incompatible with principles of socialism, especially the one about common ownership of the means of production distrubution and exchange.

    Too bad that we let the likes of Crimp and Ansell pick up that ball and run to the other side of the paddock.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      8 September 2012 at 7:27 pm

      Handing ownership of water to a private group (in this case, iwi) totally flies in the face of socialist/social democratic principles

      If it stops the Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanleys and Deutsche Banks from owning our power generators, so be it.

      • millsy 18.1.1
        8 September 2012 at 7:35 pm

        And you think that having the bro-ocracy owning our power generators would make everything so gosh darn peachy? I thought you were better than that CV. Privatisation is OK when its sold to a brown person.

        I find that capitalist values combined with 150-odd years of grievances lead to some very heavy utu.

        • weka 18.1.1.1
          8 September 2012 at 8:55 pm

          Iwi aren’t ‘private’ groups, although I can see that if you are white it might feel like that.

          • millsy 18.1.1.1.1
            9 September 2012 at 12:33 am

            Yes they are. And it is not racist to suggest that.

            • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1.1
              9 September 2012 at 12:48 am

              They are communal/tribal groups which control associated westernised organisational structures including trusts, not for profits, and company structures.

  20. Adele 20
    8 September 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Millsy

    Your constant gripe against Māori appears to be that once we get our greedy hands on stuff, we won’t share, or if we do, we will make you pay dearly. Where is the evidence to support such views or the view that Māori would even want to put up the ‘keep out’ sign?

    • millsy 20.1
      9 September 2012 at 12:31 am

      In Wellington, some recreational users are finding that they cannot access certain lakes have been closed off since they were passed to iwi as part of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement

      Mt Tawawera has been completely blocked off by its Maori owners, as has Mt Hikurangi.

      The Te Horo stock tunnel in North Taranaki has been blocked off for 14 years because the Maori owners of the land refuse to let DOC contractors come in and do it up

      Since the land that the Kaingaroa Forest was returned to the central North Island collective public access has been restricted

      The list is endless…

      Maori are no different to Pakeha private owners when it comes to public access. That is why we have things like reserves and national parks, so the public are able to enjoy this great country without imginging on private property rights.

      • Adele 20.1.1
        9 September 2012 at 12:58 pm

        Millsy

        In Wellington, some recreational users are finding that they cannot access certain lakes have been closed off since they were passed to iwi as part of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement

        In 2010, The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST) stopped duck-shooting on the Pencarrow lakes (Lake Kohangatera and Lake Kohangapiripiri). Duck shooting had been a feature of the lakes public usage for over 80 years. The decision was reversed in the same month. The original prohibition was put in place to ensure that PNBST upheld “onerous” conditions of the conservation covenant it had agreed to as part of its settlement package.

        After discussions with government, PNBST agreed it would be able to address those obligations over a longer time frame, so the hunters could continue shooting. From my understanding both lakes are pristine waterways with only one introduced fish species (brown trout) and fishing has never been allowed.

        Mt Tarawera has been completely blocked off by its Maori owners, as has Mt Hikurangi

        Tarawera Maunga is private land. In 2000, Ngāti Rangitihi, the owners, awarded a contract to a local Rotorua business Mt Tarawera New Zealand Ltd to control entry by tourists onto the maunga. The company provides guided 4WD tours and walking access is prohibited. Whakaari (White Island) is also private land owned by Pākehā and it too charges tourists for access to the island.

        Certainly there are perceptual difficulties with the commercialisation of Tarawera especially in contrast to Ruapehu, Ngauruhoe and Tongariro which were established as reserves by Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the 1860s and then conveyed to the Crown in the 1880s on condition that they became protected areas.

        Access to Hikurangi is available either by car or trek. It is closed occasionally for farming or cultural reasons and those closures are publically notified beforehand.

        The Te Horo stock tunnel in North Taranaki has been blocked off for 14 years because the Maori owners of the land refuse to let DOC contractors come in and do it up

        The Te Horo Stock Tunnel is classified as a public road, but cliff erosion along the coast (the reason for it being blocked off) means the only way to get to it is over land belonging to the Gibbs whanau of Nga Hapū o Poutama. The New Plymouth District Council, lines company Vector and oil exploration company Maui Development all want access to their land. In a recent Court judgement against the Gibbs, under the Public Works Act, Russell Gibbs said “This isn’t about preserving the Te Horo tunnel, it’s about the council taking land.”

        Since the land that the Kaingaroa Forest was returned to the central North Island collective public access has been restricted

        Access to Kaingaroa Forest has always been restricted as it’s a commercial enterprise (radiata pine plantation). Access to the forests are controlled and managed by Timberlands Ltd (forest management company not owned by Māori). Access requires a permit but can be restricted because of fire risk etc.

        Māori would like their property rights respected so in that respect they are similar to Pākehā.

        • millsy 20.1.1.1
          10 September 2012 at 7:46 pm

          That is why we need things like national parks, lakes, rivers etc in full PUBLIC OWNERSHIP for ALL NEW ZEALANDERS to enjoy.

          more than 17000 hectares of conservation land has been transferred to iwi as a result of treaty settlements, the biggest privatisation and upward weath transfer in history.

          I do not want parents to take their kids to the local swimming hole, only to find it blocked off by its Maori owners.

          • RedLogix 20.1.1.1.1
            10 September 2012 at 8:06 pm

            That is why we need things like national parks, lakes, rivers etc in full PUBLIC OWNERSHIP for ALL NEW ZEALANDERS to enjoy.

            No no millsy. The Treaty of Waitangi and international law is quite clear. All of New Zealand properly belongs to iwi. That is every square mm of land, every asset and resource right out to the boundary of the continental shelf. No if’s no buts … no exceptions.

            The rest of the people who live here have only temporary squatter rights to any of this and ultimately must either pay a proper market rent, or surrender it back to it’s legal owners and leave.

            • Populuxe1 20.1.1.1.1.1
              10 September 2012 at 9:27 pm

              Well, not really:

              Article the First
              The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

              And international law also recognises the right of occupation, not only as codified in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences and later modified by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, but also in the form of Uti possidetis. Colonialism is against international law, but not retrospectively, and in any case you probably wouldn’t have a case that we are a current colony by legal definition.

              • Adele …
                10 September 2012 at 11:32 pm

                Populuxe

                There are two texts to the Treaty. An English text and a Māori text. It is important to appreciate that the Maori text is not a translation of the English text nor is the English version a translation of the Maori

                That the English text was signed by only 39 Rangatira whereas the Māori text was signed by over 500 Rangatira also speaks to the difference in versions..

                Article 1 in the Māori text does not cede sovereignty:

                Ko te tuatahi
                Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

                Kawangatanga is a transliteration of the word ‘governance’, which was in current use at the time and was a term understood by Māori. The expectation created by its use would appear to be that the Crown would establish governance over its own people – especially when read in conjunction with Article 2:

                Ko te tuarua
                Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

                In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it.

                At the time of the Treaty signing, Mäori outnumbered Päkehä by an estimated 40 to one, and the tribes were a powerful military force. Therefore it seems unlikely that Mäori would have agreed to the unqualified transfer of their authority to the new arrivals. It is much more likely that they understood that the Treaty guaranteed the continuation of tribal jurisdiction over tribal affairs.

                Notwithstanding the various arguments about the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Internationa Law, the approach by the Courts has strong parallels with International Law on treaty interpretations. For example the doctrine of good faith which establishes the rule that parties to a treaty must perform their obligations in good faith.

                Significantly too, the Waitangi Tribunal has also referred to the rule of contra proferentem applied by some international tribunals to bilingual treaties, which dictates that in cases of ambiguity, a treaty is to be interpreted against the party drafting it. Courts in North American jurisdictions have applied an adaptation of this international law rule to treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and North American governments, and these authorities have been cited with approval by the Waitangi Tribunal.

                As for the rest of your waffle on occupation…supprime tuum stultiloquium!

                • Populuxe1 …
                  10 September 2012 at 11:47 pm

                  I merely point out that there is no definitive answer in International Law and it would have to be tested.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 September 2012 at 11:53 pm

                    Why would it have to be tested in international law? NZ has worked out its own mechanisms for dealing with these issues.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      10 September 2012 at 11:57 pm

                      Because it was international law being discussed, not national – though of course you are correct that national law indeed has systems in place as befits our national sovereignty.

                    • Peter …
                      12 September 2012 at 2:55 pm

                      Contra preferentum. The indigenous version of any international text takes precedent.

                • blue leopard …
                  10 September 2012 at 11:49 pm

                  @Adele

                  Hey! Nice summary of NZ History 101!!
                  Oh dear…I wonder how many times you have to relay that information to people…
                  Amazing we are not taught it in school…would save a lot of…well….ignorance and unnecesary strife really now wouldn’t it?

            • millsy 20.1.1.1.1.2
              10 September 2012 at 10:29 pm

              Never a truer word spoken in jest….

  21. Jenny 21
    8 September 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Harawira got it wrong when he said Key was behaving like a plantation owner in the 1950s. What he should have said is Key is acting like a plantation owner in the 1850s.