JOHN KEY’S DECISION to suspend the passage of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary legislation marks an important turning point in the life of his government. Rather than pass Nick Smith’s environmentally vital bill with Green votes, the Prime Minister has, apparently, opted to capitulate to both the greed of rent-seeking Iwi leaders, and the schoolboy political philosophising of Act’s David Seymour.
Clearly, Key has his eyes fixed on the likely outcome of next year’s election, when the votes of his current Confidence and Supply partners may, once again, constitute the margin between victory and defeat.
In this respect, the fate of the Maori Party is of particular relevance. If Tukuorangi Morgan can unite the Maori and Mana parties against Labour in the Maori electorates to claim Tamaki Makaurau, Te Tai Hauauru, Te Tai Tokerau and (if Nanaia Mahuta can be persuaded to step down) Hauraki-Waikato, then Key’s hold on power will likely endure.
That will most certainly not be the outcome, however, if the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is made law over the loud objections of practically the whole of Maoridom. Hence Key’s determination to keep Maoridom (and the Maori Party) sweet.
It is even possible that Seymour’s posturing on the Bill is less about standing up for “the existing property rights of fishing operators” and more about providing some cover for Key’s capitulation to Iwi anger. Better to have National Party voters scolding Seymour for his disloyalty than upbraiding the Prime Minister for “pandering” to Maori interests.
Key will be especially keen that his electoral base is kept as far away as possible from the words of his own Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith.
In a media statement released earlier today (14/9/16) Smith angrily rejected Maori criticism of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill:
“We have tried very hard to find a resolution with TOKM [Te Ohu Kaimoana], with 10 meetings involving ministers during the past 10 months. TOKM wanted to be able to maintain the right to fish and the right to exercise that at some time in the future. We wanted to protect the integrity of the sanctuary as a no-take area.
“The claimed consequences for TOKM are way overstated. Māori have caught more than three million tonnes under the fisheries settlement since 1992, but not a single tonne in the Kermadecs. There are five fishing companies affected, none Māori, but who collectively have only caught about 20 tonne per year, out of an annual total fishing industry catch of 450,000 tonnes.
“The claim that this new sanctuary undermines the 1992 fishery settlement is incorrect. The Government always retained the right to create protected areas where fishing would be disallowed and has done so in over 20 new marine reserves, many of which had far more impact on settlement and customary fishing rights. New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity and the Aichi targets of setting aside at least 10 per cent of our oceans in marine protected areas.
“The proposed sanctuary is part of a Pacific-wide effort to provide large-scale Marine Protected Areas, with the United States announcing the Eastern Hawaiian Islands Reserve and the United Kingdom proposing a large reserve around Pitcairn Island.”
Smith’s statement was released shortly after 1:00pm and shows absolutely no sign of the Prime Minister’s impending decision to leave both the Environment Minister and his Bill twisting slowly in the wind. Less than an hour later, however, Seymour was issuing a media release announcing his party’s decision to pull its support for the Bill. By 3:00pm, Key was telling the Parliamentary Press Gallery that:
“We’re absolutely sure we can get the numbers with the Greens but we’re very disappointed that negotiations with [Te Ohu Kaimoana] have broken down at this point. The government would restart discussions with the Māori Party to see whether it would support the bill. So it is just going to take a bit longer.”
How much longer? The smart money would be on ‘Sometime After The 2017 Election’.
Key emerges from this whole episode with very little honour. Such craven compromising is a very long way from the extraordinarily bold behaviour of the John Key who took up the Opposition leader’s role in 2007. That John Key would have weighed the Greens’ 13 percent of the Party Vote against the Maori Party’s 2 percent and adjusted his strategy accordingly.
A National Party that was serious about a fourth term would have welcomed the chance to do something environmentally important with the support of the Greens. In a century defined and dominated by environmental perils, the political salience of Green Party issues can only increase. In recognition of that salience, Labour has been willing to forfeit any chance of recovering its former electoral dominance. That is because Labour understands what Key clearly does not: that a party which rejects every opportunity to govern with the Greens, will eventually render itself incapable of governing at all.
Well put case by Chris, but is this not about Treaty of Waitangi Principles, about consultation with Iwi and with Maoridom in general and about respecting the rights of Maori?
As reported on RNZ a short while ago, I think that Maori have a point, this could become the PM’s “Foreshore and Seabed” equivalent of a crisis while in government.
So this is highly sensitive stuff, declaring the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary and passing a law for it to be created, that is one thing, to have Maori on board, that is another.
As for “consultation” that Nick Smith may go about, was it really that comprehensive or not, I ask? Having seen what “consultation” means for this government, I am not so convinced.
Let us watch this space, it is getting “interesting”.
Very well said and thought out there Chris 100% comrade.
We on the east coast have a similar issue also still seething away over the loss of our rail.
I have many fine Maori in HB/Gisborne also fighting to save our rail before government steal it for a bike trail.
Again Maori are incensed at the loss of fishing rights here and the rail also as Māori only gave the land access accosts their tribal land after the government promised in a letter from the then “Minister of Native affairs” to the chiefs that allowing rail access across their land “would be of great advantage to them”
At the present the Maori, and Pakeha rail supporter’s are getting support from Labour, Greens, NZ First, and Māori Party for restoring the rail link.
All involved in the fight for our rail here feel the Government after a long four year fight may finally come to an end with Government also
giving us our right’s back to our rail promised to us all many years ago “to be of great advantage”
“A National Party that was serious about a fourth term would have welcomed the chance to do something environmentally important with the support of the Greens. In a century defined and dominated by environmental perils, the political salience of Green Party issues can only increase. In recognition of that salience, Labour has been willing to forfeit any chance of recovering its former electoral dominance. That is because Labour understands what Key clearly does not: that a party which rejects every opportunity to govern with the Greens, will eventually render itself incapable of governing at all.”
How fascinatingly bizarre that the Nats are trying to pass an environmentally responsible piece of legislation while the Maori party are opposing it! The “right to fish” is a kind of New Zealand religion, just like rugby is – questioning it is akin to asking an ISIS guy to shave his beard off). But all around the globe species are being over-fished so the need for marine reserves has never been greater. Shame on the Nats for capitulating to short-term greed and selfishness. But then doing the right thing has always taken second place to expediency for them. I await their proposed actions on climate change – no doubt they will be long on rhetoric and short on specifics. And yet the World Bank, The IMF, the Bank of England, Citibank etc. have all warned that climate change will deliver a king hit to the global economy if we do nothing. (NZ has the 5th highest per-capital greenhouse gas emissions of all countries.)
You know I don’t think the issue is one of ‘the right to fish’,… but rather the setting of a precedent . And that precedent being one of non consultation, and arbitrary overruling of the Treaty of Waitangi.
And I hardly think if Iwi had been consulted properly in the first place that they would all rush out and over-fish the Kermadec’s,- now or in the future. In fact , quite the opposite. They would become custodians and guardians of the sanctuary.
The issue is how to protect Maori fisheries without having incursions being surreptitiously introduced that impact negatively on legally established rights and protections.
“They would become custodians and guardians of the sanctuary”
How about ‘they’ becomes ‘we’?
When will ‘we’ be credited with the will, skill, feelings and attachment to also be kaitiaki/guardians?
When do we all begin to be ‘the ancestors who preserved and conserved for present and future generations’?
Or are we forever to be designated ‘non-Maori’?
We, the people who want to create sanctuaries for the species of the sea from pillage and pollution. Who already have created such places for the good of all. And who are ‘consulted’ only by way of small-number organisations. We, without any right of voice in these matters.
We. As well as ‘they.
Yes Sir Robert would turn in his grave if he knew today’s National party was de-electrifying the Main truck line now as he built it as leader of National Party .
He would be astonished it was being axed by his own National Party that has been hi – jacked by Global Corporatism (Trucking/oil companies backed by Goldman Sachs) similar to Greece copied here.
http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/about-us/history-of-kiwirail/150yearsofrail/stories/nimt-electrification.html
NIMT electrification – a project with a history and “attitude”
Electrification of the North Island Main Trunk line between Auckland and Wellington can be viewed as both an engineering triumph and a philosophical conundrum.
The 411 kilometre section between Palmerston North and Hamilton was electrified at 25 kV 50 Hz AC and opened in June 1988. It ranks as one of the most significant engineering projects in the history of New Zealand Railways.
The project was one of the so-called “Think Big” projects of the Muldoon era and a response to the oil price shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s.
Quote from Kiwirail; http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/about-us/history-of-kiwirail/150yearsofrail/stories/nimt-electrification.html
“Today it is a standard-bearer for those who believe passionately in the use of renewable energy and a bête noir for those who adopt a strictly cost-benefit approach.”
So why are Kiwirail considering next week to be axing it now????
Bloody Criminals, as this rail infrastructure belongs to us as tax payers and we should take them to court now over this, as they probably had been financially forced by Government to shut it down now??????????
Well, I don’t know about the ‘greed of rent seeking Iwi leaders’ ,… but it looks like this might be more the issue at stake… this from the NZ Herald….
………………………………………………………………………………………..
1) The failure to reach an agreement on the matter prompted Te Ohu Kaimoana) chair Jamie Tuuta to send a strong warning to National, saying the Kermadecs issue was “this Government’s foreshore and seabed”.
Te Ohu director Ken Mair, a former vice president of the Maori Party, said its co-leaders should “seriously consider” the relationship.
“We’ve had discussions with the two co-leaders and the president of the Maori Party this morning, and made it clear to them this issue is exactly the same as the seabed and foreshore issue.”
……………………………………………………………………………………….
2) “Unfortunately, the [Environment] Minister Nick Smith accepts nothing but legal nullification of all Maori rights in the Kermadec region.
“We have made it abundantly clear, over a number of meetings, that such a position is unacceptable to iwi.
“We therefore have no choice but to step back from discussions.”
………………………………………………………………………………………..
3) Tuuta said today it was “extremely disappointing” that iwi and the Government had been unable to resolve “major” Treaty differences.
The Government rejected a proposal in which iwi would have voluntarily shelved their fishing quota around the Kermadec Islands in exchange for the preservation of their Treaty rights.
Te Ohu has already filed papers in the High Court, claiming it was not adequately consulted on the sanctuary, north-east of New Zealand, and it overrides iwi fishing rights.
Iwi had worked hard to find a compromise that allowed the sanctuary to go ahead but did not extinguish Treaty rights, Tuuta said.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
4) Speaking at a press conference in Wellington, Tuuta said Te Ohu would continue its legal action against the Crown.
He said if the Government had worked closely with Maori on the sanctuary, it could have been “Aotearoa’s gift to the world”.
“Instead it is just Nick Smith and John Key’s.”
The establishment of the sanctuary was a “new environmental ideology” that cut across fishing rights, he said.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
5) The creation of the sanctuary was the first time that the Crown had legislated over the top of a full and final Treaty settlement.
“This action calls into question the durability of all Treaty settlements,” Tuuta said.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
6) The minister also proposed to amend the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill to acknowledge Maori fishing rights and the impact of the sanctuary on those rights.
Te Ohu said this did not go far enough because it did not provide protection to its rights.
“Acknowledging dispossession doesn’t make the taste any less sour,” Tuuta said.
“A right that cannot be used is not a right at all.”
………………………………………………………………………………………..
And here’s the real essence of an arbitrary govt that could potentially overrule future Treaty of Waitangi negotiations at a whim and nulify what was legislated into law without due process….
………………………………………………………………………………………..
7) The proposal was announced at the United Nations last year by Prime Minister John Key, just hours after iwi were told about it for the first time.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
It seems to me, … yet again the Key led govt is practicing the same anti New Zealander tactics it always has , – while on the one hand saying that the TTPA wont affect the Treaty of Waitangi , – yet even before that situation eventuates is busy in its arrogance in trying to circumvent legal due process to curry favour with offshore accords and interests…
Will John Key ever grow a spine or tell the truth?
No.
I side with Ken Mair and Te Ohu Kaimoana . Walk away. NZ has suffered enough under this corrupt , deceitful govt.
yes an agreement means nothing if it isn’t upheld
Looking at this graph:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
and the graphs here:
https://www.rt.com/news/359122-nasa-hottest-august-recorded/
it really isn’t going to make much difference who has fishing ‘rights’ and who doesn’t, or whether the government designates areas as ‘Ocean Sanctuaries’ or not, because quite soon there won’t be any fish. And not long after that there won’t be any humans.
All government policy (NZ and elsewhere) is directed towards bringing about utterly catastrophic (abrupt) climate change and rapid acidification of the oceans as quickly as possible via unrestrained CO2 emissions. So that is exactly what we are witnessing.
Needless to say, everything has been made substantially worse in the short time since this outstanding lecture was presented by Jeremy Jackson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAtCQ7REXAc
and the time scale for collapse has been substantially shortened.
If the kind of annual difference values witnessed over the past 10 months were to continue (or dare we say be exceeded) ‘we’ will break through the so-called safe upper level of atmospheric CO2 of 450 ppm in about 8 years!
Daily CO2
September 13, 2016: 400.97 ppm
September 13, 2015: 395.86 ppm
Annual difference 5.11 ppm
And the average temperature of the Earth will exceed the so-called safe upper limit of increase of 2oC in a similar time frame.
Needless to say, the most pressing issue of the times we live in gets almost no attention whatsoever, as has been the case for the 20 years since this ongoing catastrophe was clearly identified.
We now have less time to prepare for absolute catastrophe than we have already spent making it worse.
And we have a government that is absolutely determined to make the predicament far worse as quickly as possible.
The ultimate moral of this story is that no matter what anyone does to try to save this planet’s lifeforms, someone is going to get in the way to stop this happening, from oil companies, to power companies, to farmers, to Iwi, to practically everyone. We are watching a horror story of unimaginable proportions unfold before our eyes.
Another Nick Smith portfolio, another disappointment!
The idea of a National Greens pact would never fly. Green members would walk and I am not sure how many Nat’s would want a bar of Metiria and James.
Labour and the Greens are natural allies. National and the Greens are not.
The guarantees under the treaty talk about taonga but not the right to sell commercial exploitation rights. What constituted treasured possession to both parties at the time of signing is largely unknowable at this point.
There are solutions to the impasse: recognizing the right to catching fish for certain purposes, (with provision made for a period of joint assessment of viability before allowing it to happen), while not allowing a right to pillage the area or sell the fishing rights to a third party. This is entirely reasonable and within the spirit of the Treaty, to my mind.
Many environmental issues, perhaps the issue of biodiversity being one, should not become a Left/Right issue or the game may be entirely lost as half or more of the time the steps needed will not be taken or may even be reversed out of sheer partisan bloody-mindedness.
It’s amazing that Maori were not consulted given the significance of consultation with Maori previously with any other fisheries-related legislation. It’s almost as if they planned it this way.
Goodfellow and Jonesy and their mates colluding and laughing all the way to the bank…
Comments are closed.