Seabed and foreshore. Remember back when smile and wave had it sorted?
“It is quite possible for us to come up with an elegant solution that meets the needs of both groups of people“ Key 5/2/10
And what has happened since?
Seabed and foreshore. Remember back when smile and wave had it sorted?
“It is quite possible for us to come up with an elegant solution that meets the needs of both groups of people“ Key 5/2/10
And what has happened since?
This entry was posted on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 4:07 pm and is filed under coalition management. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
When you guys proposed it, they voted against because they didnt want to acknowledge Maori rights at all… be interesting to see how that plays against M’s posiiton…
The tide might come in with a big wave to erase the smile?
off thread deleted Trevor
Forest & Bird intervened, damned environmentalists
Argh, I forgot about the F&S shudder
I’m not quite sure of the purpose of this post Trevor – how is Labour’s concern if National have yet to pursue dismantling a policy that Labour fought tooth and nail to implement?
Shouldn’t you be glad that they are keeping this issue on the back-burner as if they did manage to “come up with an elegant solution that meets the needs of both groups of people“ that did not trash the customary rights of Maori then wouldn’t that make Labour look incompetent?
Labour needs to front up to say they got this wrong. If people have got the nerve or guts to listen to what Hone Harawiri says about what should happen and agree it’s the right way to go they’ll realise the sky ain’t going to fall if it does happen. The filthiness of the Key / English agenda means Maori will get nothing (again) from the F & S changes and the sooner the Maori Party realises this the better. And Labour – don’t just sit back and watch this happen – take your cue by realising your traditional and natural alliance with Maori, instead of chasing the populist vote. Sadly though, I won’t be holding my breath.
Lets have a look at the elegant solution. Maybe it is fair.
Still waiting … Hope won’t be an elephant solution.
Trevor
Did you not learn anything last time legislation was rushed for political expediency?
Again….such an odd post Trevor.
Anton – well said. If Labour had any sense they would take personal responsibility for where the S & F has gone wrong and be preemptive and come up with an “elegant solution” themselves.
This post to me implies that Labour acknowledges what they implemented was in fact wrong and rather than be accountable, are standing back in the hope that National comes up with an alternative that is worse than the status quo, so that they have something to attack them on.
Not really an approach I would respect and definitely not one that would motivate me to vote Labour again.
Michael Cullen did a submission to the review in which he proposed a new approach on behalf of the Labour caucus – in about May last year. The resolution wasn’t our first option but as you may remember Rebecca at the time we were relying on NZ First to get a bill through because the Nats wanted the courts to be left to sort the issue.
Not sure if that is the elegant solution Key is currently proposing.
What are the odds of anything Cullen had a hand in being elegant?
Maybe Key considers any elegant solution as something to be saved till the end of term and to be implemented in 2012, if his government is returned – thus he binds the MP to following their lead in the hope of a result they are dependent on. Then they have to go to the electorate with a pro National return to government position.
If they lose their seats, National can break a promise. If they win, then it happens in return for “3 more years”. One suspects “funding decisions” for whanaiu ora would manage the next term. The end game is to exploit the Maori electorate party as partners against Labour until Labour agree to join them in dumping the seats.
Just an observation of how they operate.
When it comes to the F & S, the Crown should have it so that it’s for the benefit of all people. I’m against the Maori owning it because I’m against any individual or group owning it – it’s a State asset not a private one.
Labour should however stand up and apologise for not letting the Maori go to court on this. Justice is everyone’s right.
When it comes to the crunch the National Government will keep things the way it is. They won’t want to lose the next election because “they sold the foreshore and seabed to the Maoris”.
I hope you’ll be voting to repeal Labour’s act, Trevor.
Anthing that extinguishes customary rights is, as I understand it, in direct contravention of the TOW and international conventions on indigenous rights. I believe Labour knew this and even may have acknowledged it BUT they bowed to the populist wave and tried to take that wave from under national (in opposition). Hands were tied however, because of Nat’s opposition and the MP, it required a consensus, so not solely driven by Labour. National and ACT can do this without MP….
This will test Turia. IF she is mainly baout holding her bitterness toward Labour and Clark, she will reach a compromise with Key, and compromise Maori for expediency.
If she is genuinely about Maori and Maori rights, she wont get into bed with anything that touches customary rights
The suggestion that there is a link between the F and S and the UN’s protection of indigenous peoples – in the matter of customary rights – may explain the reluctance of National to ratify a certain UN document. They said they would (consistent with Maori believing National was going to give them something tangible in the F and S review), but they are taking their time about it.
Tracy, in the case of Labour – their failure to ratify was consistent with their F and S legislation. We take our international committments seriously (unlike some of those who just sign and ignore conventions).
Martin, the whole point of the F and S legislation was to decide matters which would otherwise be determined in court and that includes ownership. If the legislation had allowed court redress, then the legislation had only temporary meaning, as actual ownership would have been subsequently determined in the courts.
Signing the UN convention before the courts looked at the matter could impact on how the court determined ownership.
Nicola – repeal v amend is often very much a semantic issue. Lets look at the proposal. If it is just total repeal and leave it to the courts I can’t imagine supporting it.
Sometimes things take longer then expected, I mean the Skyhawks deal didn’t exactly run smoothley as an example
Tracey I believe Turia will compromise on Maori Rights – in my opinion nothing about that party has signaled they are there to advance Maoridom. They are after the power and privilege that comes with being an MP, nothing more. They have done little to make a real difference in the areas that are crippling Maori in this country – such as their disproportion representation in crimes which obviously include violent offending and the physical abuse and neglect & deprivation of children.
Trevor well said. I personally like the principle of the S & F legislation but do however, feel that it goes too far and would like to see it amended so that it is more balanced.
I can’t see National doing anything to be honest – they appear to be constantly chasing their tail when it comes to all the major issues.
Just think back to Labour’s first term and how you managed to show by the second term that you had achieved everything on your pledge card. National doesn’t even come close to this. Yes they inherited some very faulty policies and systems, but they don’t even seem to have concrete PLANS when it comes to addressing these things.
Nationa essentially had to promise to do bugger-all of what they really wantt o get into power, they expect to swing very much to the right, privatisation etc in term 2. For now it’s policy by stealth
Yes but I quite like a lot of their policies – just waiting for them to implement them! I swing between the 2 major parties and have inklings towards Act & the Greens. I judge each policy by it’s merits and no longer affiliate myself with a particular ideology. I’m all about personal responsibility; while this includes leftist sentiments the left has done and is likely to do bugger all for families like us, which means I will always choose what is right for us as a family over my idealistic notions. :p
Self interest is a universal human driver, politicians included. We hate it in them…
I’ve been around long enough to know that wa sis best for me wont work for most people.
@SPC. Then the previous Labour government did the right thing. No one privately should own the foreshore and seabed. Doesn’t anyone remember what happened in the 80’s and 90’s? It didn’t work!! And now we’re going back to that under this government. And I’m not just talking about the F & S.
@Rebecca. I think that you’re right about the Maori Party. The strength of the Maori Party rises and falls on the F & S. Either way if Maori get the F & S or not the Maori Party is finished.
However their policy platform of Whanau Ora is a good idea. If Whanau Ora worked we would save money down the line (ie emergency services, justice, welfare etc). People can complain about the cost of Whanau Ora, but we’re already paying for Maori on the general system, and it’s not working.
The downside is that the Maori Party has put WO on the back burner behind the F & S. This I can’t figure out. How can land be more important than tangata (people)?
Martin, agree about WO. Alo intersting to note that WO is nOT dedicated to only Maori, they are open to all races who fall withint he criteria of person they are trying to assist. Of course Maori will figure more prominently, in that, they are over represente din certain areas including 50% ofoffenders.
I listened to Guyon Espiner on this on Breakfast this AM. His memory is different to mine and probably more accurate. He saw the current legislation as over reaction and knee jerk from Labour. Isnt it this issue which led to the infamous Orewa Speech?
Didn’t National turn it into a one people one nation affair, and were NOT happy for the Maori Court to be left to deal with it?
As I say this is Guyon’s job, not mine, so my memory could be way off on this, and I may have confused issues.
Orewa speech extract
“We will deal with the foreshore issue by legislating to return to the previous status quo – the settled legal situation before the Court of Appeal decision. That is a position where for the most part the Crown owned the foreshore. In so far as there was uncertainty about the situation before, we will clarify the position. Public ownership leaves room for recognising limited customary rights, but we will not allow customary title. If this Government issues such title, we will revoke it.” http://www.national.org.nz/speech_article.aspx?ArticleID=1614
The reference to the Court of Appeal was their decision to allow the Maori Court to settle the issue. national were firmly OPPOSED to this as outlined above.
It is National who created the “storm in a tea cup” which Labour cowardly pandered to to try to wrestle back the peoeple who blithely lapped up the Nat rheoric. I thought, and now am more certain that Guyon’s “summary” this morning rewrote history on this debate, by leaving national’s part in it, well, out .
One of the reasons what is to follow by way of policy is fascinating is that National, previously, wanted to circumvent the Courts right to test customary right in the Maori Court. It (the court of appeal decision) does not, and never did guarantee customary rights would follow as day follows night.
So, how far have the MP and National moved? I hoped it is to a consensus which achieves what everyone wants. It does, however require a HUGE shift from both Nats and MP from their 2004 positions.
Yeah Espiner talked about Labour wanting to stir up angst on Breakfast this morning. Don’t agree with him these are important issues so methinks this isn’t angst stirring.
yea Spud I was concerned that the main political mouthpiece for TVNZ truly recalls history as he outlined it…