Two interesting comments in another post deserve to be a post of their own:
gobsmacked: Looks like last night’s piece of paper is going to be even more short-lived than the one Neville Chamberlain waved at the airport. No peace in our time …
From Newstalk ZB’s Felix Marwick:
The Government is qualifying a promise it’s making on Maori water rights.
The Maori Party says it’s been promised the Government won’t legislate on water rights apply even if the Courts should establish that Maori have a proprietary interest in water.
John Key says the position is right, but it would depend on all the factors involved.
“I think it’s a big difference between the recognition of a right or interest to ownership because ownership complies ownership to the whole resource and payment for use of that resource, there’s quite a big difference.”
(translation – “it all means whatever I want it to mean, depending on the latest polls” …)
(also – yet more mangling of the English language – comply is not imply, you dunce).
Carol: And Blingish was wriggling around and avoiding a direct answer on behalf of JK today in Question Time:
Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that it is his Government’s intention that no matter what the outcome of the Waitangi Tribunal and subsequent court action—whatever rights it may decide Māori have in terms of water—his Government will not legislate in that regard?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by the statement in the statement that was released last night. It is the Government’s expectation that—well, put it this way: the member is probably not correctly connecting any outcome from the Waitangi Tribunal with any outcome from the court action, because the court action is much more likely to be focused on preventing the sale of assets going ahead, rather than any particular aspect of Māori rights and interests.
So does anyone know what Key’s promise actually means?