Ouch. Former National candidate and law lecturer David Round launched a blistering attack on the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals in the Weekend Press
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/3614257/Time-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand
“A betrayal of all non-Maori New Zealanders” from an insincere Attorney-General who “wants to sell us down the river”
“On the beaches we should draw a line in the sand,” says Round. Now where have we heard that before and from whom…
Interesting article. he makes some very good points vis a vis the C of A decision and what it really meant/did. Yet another well laid out example of how the media lets this country down by clamping on to sound bite reporting and allowing misconceptions to flourish
“They might allow resorts and hotels along the coast. Finlayson accepts this, arguing only that such proposals would be subject to the pretty useless Resource Management Act and our toothless overseas investment laws, both of which are actually being further emasculated. ”
I agree with this concern. I have been surprised at the readiness of some iwi to swap guardianship of flora and fauna for money. Most recently the Mokahanui River issue. Through my lifetime I have observed, as many Maori have said it is about guardianship, not ownership, they do not want money they want to preserve, and infer they are better guardians of things natural than the pakeha overlords ever were or could be. More recently however it seems money speaks as loudly for some Maori as their overlords. I am NOT saying Maori have no right to money, I am saying that after decades of saying “it’s not about money” it seems tobe coming down to that. I don’t necessarily blame those Maori, we took alot from them, I can see their desire to get something back BUT they consistently argued guardianship and altruistic value not monetary.
I also note the DOC accession to business interests in return for money and understand it is a legitimate part of the RMA process.
One of the things I like about being on the right is the freedom to debate issues out in the open rather than having to `toe the party line’.
David Round was hand-picked by Don Brash as a candidate in 2005 and spends most of his free time knocking around online with Muriel “Vikings discovered New Zealand” Newman and her ‘Centre for Political Debate’. (He probably assisted Newman with her speech to the Act conference this year, where she simultaneously held that i. The Treaty and its principles have no legal standing, but ii. Signing the Treaty somehow extinguished Maori claims to customary title under the common law). It’s no surprise these cranks bitterly oppose reform of the law – it is surprising that Brendon Burns pines for the days of the 2005 National Party.
That was a deeply disturbing article by David Round. The F&S issue and the DRIP accession have to be seen together.
Labour’s stance in office on both has been confirmed, IMHO.
The Nats are looking for evasive manouevres to keep the MP happy, but the ordinary NZ’er may end up losing big time.
It is quite possible that as a small, honest and law-abiding state, NZ will be singled out in the UN by a raft of dodgy regimes whose own records are appalling. These states may back DRIP claims for Maori sovereignty, and/or redress, far beyond current Treaty negotiations.
And what happens then?
DRIP is has no legal status until it becomes an internatyional convention.
As for what Maori want, at some point we can conclude a multi-party agreement that money is not part of the equation as a conclusion to the Treaty and F and S process and before we ratify any international convention.
Brownlee did an about face ( scary) on the Mokohanui dam too.
Did he get something in return?
Labour should be constructive on this. It’s better to engage with Finlayson than some future Nat demagogue (Son of Brash) or the outer fringe of Maoridom, who want pie in the sky (or in the sea).
Neither Labour nor National want to fight the 2011 election over the foreshore and seabed. The public don’t want that either.
great Lecturer and no one can possible deny that….crap politician though unfortunately
pdm – look down one post
Why is Labour so silent and ineffective in opposition to the National government’s proposed foreshore and seabed bill? This bill represents a major attack on the customary and legal rights of non-iwi New Zealanders to enjoy the coast as shared owners of the foreshore and seabed. Pakeha will be made to feel like visitors in our own country, and New Zealand is sleepwalking towards apartheid. Why is Labour so quiet on an issue of such national significance? Surely it is your duty to fight against this race-based legislation on behalf of the majority of New Zealanders who will be adversely affected by it? Please speak NOW Labour or you will lose my vote!!! How can I trust you on other issues if you are so gutless on this issue?