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.
A Full & Final Settlement as agreed to with certain conditions means very little? Cause I’m looking at two current deeds to settle and there aren’t any conditions or exceptions or exemptions other than, if anything within the deed that is deemed not to be legally binding in the sense of; within the jurisdiction of the Crown bla bla bla, is basically toilet paper you say?(In not so many words,metaphorically speaking) Whats the point of any law or legal document or contract? Oh yeah. There’s a precedent setting 170 year old document!? ….Anyway, moving on. The Greens are only pandering to white middle NZ voters and will lose what brown votes they have for obvious reasons. The Kupapa Party aka the Maori Tainui Inc Party have already isolated themselves by aligning themselves to Tainui & the region, Waikato/Hauraki where Mr Underpants has picked a fight with his cousin who’ll now trounce whomever he’s going to put up. Will it be JT or Tau Henare? It’ll have to be a “named-brand” with such little time to get a nobody in without a profile to stand against the Nania? Lastly, it’ll be a Labour gain & Hone too? He could get Greensil to stand and he can do what Nga Puhi do best … do a runner and take a chunk of the party votes with him too from those feeling that they can no longer vote for a Iwi based party? Lets hope the NactMP-Dunne partnership keeps on painting themselves into more corners all the way to the next election.
Excellent comment!
yep
This is exactly why many Maori don’t trust this government with the TPPA the same issue applies here. The government says they have protected Maori interest by the accord in the TPPA but hey they are running buckshot over the treaty themselves when it suits them they simply dismiss it and when they want to be popular. Power can be abused and we all know it is being abused under the tories
“The Greens are only pandering to white middle NZ voters and will lose what brown votes they have for obvious reasons.”
Really? Flaxroots Māori have no interest in the Kermadec Islands. The Brown Table only have an interest thanks to the idiots who thought it was a good shortcut to give a pan-Māori organisation commercial fishing quotas, rather than recognising rights to traditional fishing practices on a hapū by hapū basis.
The Greens evaluated the likely effects on Māori (minimal), and the environmental value of the proposed sanctuary, and taken a principled position. Of course, the Brown Table and their Māori Party front will spin it as an “anti-Māori” position, since they stand to benefit in influence and votes if people buy that line. The Greens have a Māori woman as senior co-leader. If you look at their campaigning and voting record, they take Māori rights more seriously than any other major party, and as seriously as Māori/ Mana do. I hope that most people will realise that – like the Greens’ opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill – it’s really an “anti-corporate exploitation” position, not an anti-Māori position.
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.
Agreed Chris.
Let’s not forget those same “rent-seeking Iwi leaders” tried their best to stop this National government from requiring boats fishing in NZ waters register in NZ and thereby come under the jurisdiction of NZ labour and safety law. They preferred to have slave labour-like conditions, injuries and deaths, just as long as it maximised their profits.
That said, you have to give credit for National pushing environmental policies like this and the national water quality standards. (The Clark government sat on its hands).
“That said, you have to give credit for National pushing environmental policies like this and the national water quality standards. (The Clark government sat on its hands).”
“National water quality standards”?? What “standards”, Andrew?? Are you making up this shit because there are rivers in this country that would make you seruisly ill if you drank from them.
The government signed a deal with Iwi that was “Bind on the Crown”. What part of “Binding” confuses your prejudice-riddled brain, Andrew?? Pray tell us.
This is how Maori lost their land and assetsd throughout the last 150 years, through government connivance and right-wing pricks co-operating and nodding in approval.
History. Always repeats.
Theodore:
The previous Labour government tried and failed to get a national water standard implemented and this was subsequently completed by the incoming National party government. Along with that they also set up a national database for water quality.
Both are firsts for NZ.
Now you may argue that the standard is too low and you may be right (although I have had this debate with a Green party canvasser and he was speechless when I asked him “OK so what should the standard be?’) but a lot of this is just political gainsaying to minimise the achievement of this current government. We’ve got to start somewhere. Meanwhile an enormous amount of good work is being done in terms of fencing and riparian planting to reduce runoff.
As regards the actual pollution in our rivers:
Firstly it also needs to be borne in mind that the vast majority of dairy conversions occurred under Labour and they did nothing to stop it.
Secondly, despite what the media has implied, this is not just about cows. About half of the pollution in our rivers is due to lack of investment in sewage treatment plants in the smaller towns. In fact we have some townships which rely solely on septic tanks.
So there are solutions but it’s going to take time, money and a lot of goodwill.
References for those assertions?
So how do you you employ sewage treatment plants for cows, Andrew?
And you’re glossing over the fact that the ‘bug’ at the center of the contaminated water in Havelock North was found to be bovine in origin. So yes, it is about our dairy industry.
I bet you wouldn’t be so ken to support dirty dairying if I put a glass of water in front of you, downstream from a dairy farm, or from Havelock North.
As usual, as long as it’s someone else’ problem, you don’t seem to give a toss.
Frank
There are several options for effluent treatment for dairy farms. Try using Google to search – it’s all there if you bothered to look.
As a good example, a few years ago I was consulting in Aussie in this sector and visited a large feedlot & abattoir operation where they had installed bio-digesters which converted effluent into methane. This is turn was used to run gas powered alternators. So they were converting pollution into useable electricity whilst at the same time reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. So there are options out there. Many of the larger municipal waste water treatment plants do similar.
As for the Havelock North bug, it may be bovine in origin but it could just as easily have come from beef cattle, or even a pet if we want to get smart about it. I suggest you avoid making comment until the facts are known. The report might also point fingers at HBDC for focussing on dam building rather than doing their day job.
Thanks for sharing the story about bio-digesters Andrew, these are an exciting yet relatively simple technology with a range of potential uses. Imagine turning noxious weeds into gas or electricity for human use!
However, when used in intensive diarying, this is an ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff solution. If you take a look around some organic dairy farms, you’ll find they don’t need bio-digesters to process ponds of effluent. Instead, they use lower stocking rates, and practices that build soil life, and increase its ability to absorb and hold coo poo/pee and turn it back into grass. Once set up, this is a lot less work than industrial processing of cow effluent, and less prone to failure due to extreme weather events.
I’d go even further and suggest people just stop drinking dairy milk, as it’s about as healthy as cane sugar (see the doco Forks Over Knives). You can produce much more plant-based protein than milk solids on the same area of land, with no exploitation of animals, much lower inputs of water, energy, and labour, and no pollution of nearby waterways. Plus, plant-based protein comes in a wide variety of forms, allowing for a much more diverse farming landscape and reduced dependence on a single commodity.
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.
Nobody is suggesting a pact – just a single issue voting arrangement.
I don’t understand why you think Labour and Greens are natural allies.
Maybe you could explain this?
The evidence so far is that socialism is the enemy of the environment. This is demonstrated by the environmental disasters that failed socialist states always seem to leave behind and the common theme in society that privately owned land is generally better cared for than communally owned land (think ‘Tragedy of the Commons’)
I am not going to get into a debate about socialism and so forth, but I do think people need to know how our planning laws work. The number of people who do not is concerning.
Environmental laws – like a lot of laws – exist because whilst the majority of people are law abiding, there will always be a small percentage who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and that their rights are somehow more important than those of others around them and society at large.
Those laws are not perfect, but in the absence of anyone conceiving a more robust way of guaranteeing the health of the environment, whilst enabling sustainable development of resources to occur, they stand. The R.M.A. is a whipping boy for people frustrated with the lack of progress, but really, it has to be said that:
1) The very vast majority of resource consents applied for DO get issued (95-98%)
2) Councils have a requirement to process those applications within 20 working days
3) A Section 92 request for more information is not a delaying tactic, but because the detail of a resource consent is proportionate to the scale of the activity – a house is relatively straight forward, but damming the Waitaki River is not
In their regional/district/city plans councils are required to identify activities that may have a more than minor impact and classify them accordingly. Those classifications are to grade the resource consent application against.
A permitted activity does not need a resource consent.
A controlled activity needs a consent, but the consent must be granted – basically to notify the consenting council in case there are complaints.
A restricted discretionary activity is one the council can exercise its discretion in determining whether the activity goes ahead, but it can only exercise that discretion according to particular criteria set out in granting the consent.
A discretionary activity is one where the council has full discretionary power – that is it can exercise its discretion how it sees fit.
A non-complying activity can be granted consent, but the council needs to be satisfied its effects will be minor. If the threshhold is met, the council can apply full discretionary powers as it sees fit in order to ensure the activity is not contrary to the plan.
A prohibited activity is one where resource consent cannot be applied for. Nor can a council grant the consent. To change the classification the applicant must apply for a plan change to the relevant council plan.
Prior to the Treaty the fisheries around our coastline contained more than enough fish for all takers. The Treaty granted Maori traditional rights to these.
The idea that any Maori would ever sail all the way up to the Kermadec trench to catch fish in those days is a lunacy. I suspect Maori negotiators are only trying it on because they’ve formed the opinion that pakeha politicos are stupid enough to believe it. Fair enough: I agree that most of them qualify.
This Pakeha says honour the treaty National with all things!!
Don’t cut and run as you have so many times.
A comment I put on The Standard today… as I cant be bothered regurgitating it again…
And CLEANGREEN, I’m with you.
‘ There have been some comments that imply it is simply a greed issue. Regarding Maori fishing interests I doubt that is the case and driving motive. If it was , we would have seen large fleets in the Kermadec’s already.
We haven’t. And even if the Kermadec’s were never to be set aside as a sanctuary , we wouldn’t have. So we can confidently write that angle off.
So that leave’s the other motive which is two pronged.
1) The fact ( as was reported ) that at the U.N meeting John Key announced it to become a no -go sanctuary only hours after Iwi first heard about it. Therefore there was virtually no dialogue between interested party’s. There should of been.
2) The binding conditions under the Treaty of Waitangi. The manner in which this is being done can create a precedent of shifting the goal posts in not only Treaty of Waitangi issues but in other areas of private property, propriety and so on in favor of an arbitrary govt overruling of our legal system. And that’s dangerous.
And because surreptitiously this issue was stitched up beforehand, its created division, ….its cold comfort for Maori fisheries to hear Key announce they have the ‘ numbers’… the only saving grace here and the only Ace card is that the Maori party can counter that by withdrawing future support.
And while Key is confident of the numbers, he still would prefer Maori party support come 2017. Personally I would prefer Ken Mairs course of action : walk away. But more moderate Maori party leaders will more than likely buy into a deferral situation…. keeping things on the back burner til after 2017.
But what happens on this issue has the potential to set a precedent for not only Maori,- but those in the wider community as well. And that’s why this is important. ‘
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…
Now its making sense. Joining the dots …Goodfellows family fortune-Wealth (circa) $1.3bn created and derived from the fishing industry & still National Party President? Probably some Talley’s influence there too. That makes sense why Nick Smiths feeling cock-O-hoop?! Scoring the partys’ influential members support and brownie points? He then could contest the leadership in the aftermath of the impending Crusha-Colins & Pullah Benefit’s bloodbath when it subsides! The Greens are mongrels too. Supporting the Nat’s to undermine Maori Property Rights.
Nick Smith has fucked more dogs than I’ve had hot dinners. God knows what dirt he’s got on people to keep his job – I can’t think of any other reason.
Comments are closed.