ACT’s latest stunt for political relevance is pure Machiavellian genius.
Previously, David Seymour has promised ridiculous nonsense like stripping the Treaty out of all legislation as he did in this years State of the Nation address.
I say nonsense because you know, I know and he knows that attempting to tear out the Treaty from all legislation would cause a race war that he couldn’t contain, no matter how much he twerks.
Which is why his call for a debate and referendum on co-governance is such an explosively clever and brilliantly manipulative stunt.
This referendum on co-governance is the perfect way for the tyranny of the majority to crucify the indigenous minority and reframe righteous land confiscation issues as race based ethno-nationalism.
The fucking balls on this guy right?
Māori suffer losing 95% of their land in less than a century, they were almost decimated by disease and technology brought via colonisation, they endured the 1863 Settlements Act, they survived blatant lies and falsehoods devised to create the pretext for confiscation and saw violence in the Waikato. Māori have lived throughout that entire experience and now have to face David Seymour casually asking for us to question co-governance?
The fucking balls on this guy right?
There are of course winners and losers.
WINNERS:
ACT: This is so clever because most Kiwis DO want a debate on co-governance and don’t understand how it works. The friction point is that the woke left currently believe even debating the issue is racist and their reputation for woke lynchings and cancel culture temper tantrum over reach plays perfectly into ACTs hands on a culture war level. I previously thought the Hate Speech legislation would be the dog whistle that lifted ACT, but Labour’s cauterisation of that took all the wind out of ACTs sails. This ‘just asking questions’ referendum will be Seymour’s Orewa Speech moment.
David Seymour: His ability to damn the very co-governance model that ACT and National engineered and pretend that’s a principled position and not race baiting is the most extraordinary act of mental gymnastics this country has seen since the Fish n Chip Brigade claimed it was only interested in Fish n Chips.
Willie Jackson: Willie Jackson is first out of the blocks and on Facebook accepted David Seymour’s demand for a debate on co-governance and has offered him multiple times and places to debate the issue – I want to see that and I want John Tamihere and Don Brash to join them so it’s a tag team Pay Per View match up.
LOSERS:
The entire nation of NZ: With the sad passing of Moana Jackson, our nation has lost the opportunity to hear one of the greatest political intellectuals in NZ since Bruce Jesson prosecute the blight of colonisation and articulate the most righteous defence of co-governance we could have ever heard. That this farce of a debate should proceed without him is a terrible loss to our history, our culture and our people.
Chris Luxon: Christian Lex Luthor is an enormous political loser in all of this. He’s from the Corporate Woke world where Executives have to learn Te Reo, perform a song and do a Pepeha while never mentioning race relations ever again. He can’t criticise co-governance because his DNA is frightened of offending anyone and because his angry white base want him to be far more offensive than he could ever be. That leaves him looking like he’s frightened of the debate and he’s been left him with only attacking the Māori Health Authority which is politically schizophrenic when you consider it was National that set up the framework of co-governance which Luxon is now denouncing.
Māori Health: Why the hell shouldn’t there be a Māori Health Authority that heals in a Māori way which is open to anyone in the community, because that’s what we are talking about here! If the current system fails Māori as much as it does, and there is a different option that cares in a Māori values way which is open and free to everyone in that community which produces better health outcomes for Māori – THEN WHY THE FUCK ARENT WE DOING IT NOW? The idea that Māori musty be locked into a failing public health system ‘just because’ is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. While politicians use Māori Health as a political football, Māori’s actual health continues to suffer! One would have thought the recent vaccination issues with Māori would highlight a deep seated distrust of Pakeha Public Health providers, if Māori can produce better health outcomes by delivering it in Māori value centred ways while accepting everyone from the local community free of charge as well, what’s the real fucking problem here?
Woke Left: Fresh from screaming NAZI at all the lumpenproletariat Nazis on Parliament’s Lawns, the Woke left are now screaming ‘RACIST NAZI’ at anyone wanting to enter, listen to or interact in any way with a referendum on co-governance. It will be this woke social media lynching frenzy that most people will see in their social media feeds and recoil in terror at. It will be the Left’s reaction to the mere idea of a debate that will recruit the most for the Right.
Matthew Tukaki & Rawiri Waititi: By screaming that everyone should cancel Xero because a former boss donated money to ACT and ACT are racist now because they want a referendum on co-governance is probably playing directly into David Seymour’s hands.
PREDICTIONS:
Calling for a referendum on co-governance, a concept that hasn’t really been explained by the Government while the activist Left are constantly looking for targets to proclaim holy woke war against is the spark that will ignite a terrible political backlash.
Previously David was promising tricks, but as the economy tanks, as people’s pain is open for manipulation, the sanctimonious beauty of calling for ‘debate’ on the attempts to repair the damage to the minority from the majority will take a terrifying life of its own.
David doesn’t understand the forces he is about to let loose.
I believe co-governance is a strength, not a weakness!
In my entire 48 years of life, I as a Pakeha male have never once been penalised in any way shape or form by any measure to help Maori!
I don’t see co-governance as the apartheid some see it as.
Calling He Puapua ‘a secret agenda’ is disingenuous to the words ‘agenda’, ‘secret’ and ‘a’.
The idea that a barely read wish list of indigenous hopes and aspirations that could live up to the promise of the Treaty would ever get fully implemented is Trump like in its delusion of imaginary white fears.
An upper house 50-50 split between Pakeha and Māori to decide Treaty Legislation has been an idea I’ve been arguing for years now!
For a majority MMP Government that can barely build houses to suddenly transform into a super hero for Indigenous rights who manages to overnight re-write the entire constitutional framework of NZ by stealth is so farcical in its possible threat delivery that you may as well imagine a child with a water pistol up against a laser guided Jet fighter.
He Puapua is a wish list of hopes and aspirations, it is not a secret blueprint for the takeover of a country by radical Māori, to attempt to frame it as such is bordering on QAnon conspiracy fantasy.
Likewise with 3 Waters and the claim it’s Māori stealing the water.
We wouldn’t be having discussion over who owns the water of John Key hadn’t sold our hydro assets!
Māori are a break peddle on neoliberalism and their views can ensure privatisation and foreign ownership stops!
For decades, the Treaty of Waitangi has formed a part of New Zealand’s approach to trade. Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta is kicking it up a notch. National Correspondent Lucy Craymer explains.
When the epochal Uruguay Round of global trade talks was happening almost four decades ago, New Zealand’s chief negotiator had a premonition.
Tim Groser reckoned the global trade arrangements being formed might – in ways he could not anticipate – come into conflict with the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1986, with a Labour Government led by David Lange in office, and vast economic and social reforms sweeping change across the nation at a breakneck speed, the modern significance of Te Tiriti was only starting to come into view.
“We could see a potential political problem arising whereby people would want to do things that we couldn’t quite foresee, in respect to the treaty,” Groser says. “We needed to avoid trade agreements getting in the way of that.”
The negotiation brought about the biggest reform to global trade ever and led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation. A clause was included allowing New Zealand to meet its treaty obligations, even if this meant breaching the global agreement.
Groser says it went through with no controversy and little publicity, even in New Zealand.
“I don’t think a single country raised a question let alone an objection. It’s not surprising. Why would they? Countries have bigger fish to fry,” he says.
A version of this clause, which allows the government to deliver on Te Tiriti ahead of its free trade obligations, has been included in every agreement since.
Most Pakeha don’t know that the Treaty is our out clause in free trade deals.
We can side track the exploitation by global corporations using the Treaty!
For me, I love the Treaty because of the relationship of responsibility it immediately sets up between the Crown and its people. I believe the Treaty needs to be expanded to all NZers and not just Maori because it sets out the obligations of the Crown to protect the rights of its people. We deserve as a nation to entrench the Treaty as the basis of our constitution so we can force Governments to protect our rights rather than strip us of them.
Pakeha want to gloss over the theft and confiscation of indigenous lands because it’s a shameful denial of the promise of a Treaty between two peoples and when you consider the paltry compensation that has been paid back to Maori via the Waitangi Tribunal, it’s a mere $1.4 Billion.
$1.4 Billion for confiscating the majority of NZ???
What is most egregious is that some Pakeha have the audacity to claim that pathetic reparation is a ‘gravy train’.
One of the problems with NZ politics is that we have a unicameral Parliament, that means we just have one chamber with no upper house. This means NZs Parliament is one of the most powerful Parliaments in the world. It allows for legislation to be read straight into law and is one of the reasons why the neoliberal revolution was so ruthless and impossible to reverse.
I think one solution to the Waitangi Tribunal ruling is to consider a NZ Parliament Upper House that has 50-50 representation between Maori and Pakeha. If Sovereignty was never signed away, then the Government of today has a responsibility beyond paltry compensation for past injustices , it must provide real power sharing solutions.
Having a 50-50 Upper House with the power to delay legislation that was not in the best interests of the Nation when it comes to Treaty issues would stop Government’s from fire sales of national assets and prevent things like the Foreshore and Seabed legislation from becoming law.
An Upper House would be seen as a guardian of the Treaty for the maintenance of public well being over private gain, it would show real power sharing and for Pakeha, it would represent a political body that protects their public interests as much as Maori interests.
Now do I for one second believe we can have an actual debate on these very important topics?
No. Fucking. Way!
The activist Left will go into a spinning death feeding frenzy of outrage while those who secretly burn crosses will have a field day under the fake veneer of ‘debate’.
This is going to be a cluster fuck of madness that Seymour will not be able to contain once he releases it.
The only hope we have is to actually step up the way Willie Jackson has and debate the issue in good faith because co-governance IS a unique strength that can build us, but we need the skills to debate without alienating which will play into the hands of extremists.
Comrades, I don’t think we are ready for this Jelly.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
The thing is with “co-governance” is I cannot ever recall this being key Labour party policy, or for that matter a policy. You know, not like housing!
It’s existence is only known outside the deep political beltway because ACT has raised it so publicly, so publicly that Jacinda had to admit to its existence. And at that point the whole thing looks like a major shift in the way this country is governed, concocted in the dark away from the publics prying eyes. And that raises alarm bells because if it were so good, what not publicise it? Why not have Jacinda talking about it at every turn?
This wasn’t meant to get out. It was supposed this be fait acompli before we knew it. Or that is what it seems.
The other loser in all of this is the shadows. Because the busy Willie Jackson, who clearly has toiled away on this, has had to leave them to front this thing!
If only Labour toiled away so hard on something as silly as housing. In the dark or not, I’d applaud that!
Xray how has three waters and a Māori health authority been a secret that only ACT have ‘outed’? I don’t see how you get to that conclusion. As Martin pointed out National put the framework in place as clearly the likes of Chris Finlayson have been doing genuine work to solve complex issues. If you hear his interviews recently it’s pretty clear that National (rightly) acknowledged that Māori have been f*cked over with land confiscation etc. I think that is one of the real reasons Chris Luxon said not now to a referendum, because they would look stupid saying yes having put some of the framework in place previously
Did I say it was a secret? No!
But it has been kept well and truly out of the lime light. ACT has now made it very public!
I would think the debate over aspects of Three Waters has been very public and well under way before David Seymour got on his soap box
I think we will get a referendum, or a clear choice at the next general election which is how it should be. That Labour chose to keep their He Puapua intentions secret from the people and their coalition partner prior to the last election is a damming inditement of them, their respect for the will of the people and their abject capitulation to their so called Maori caucus.
The full text for the He Puapua required an OIA submission, by ACT, before it was made available. Secrecy and lies? Yes!
Those minor and very specific co-governance arrangements that Finlayson was talking about are as nothing to the He Puapua coup. He was also less than honest about ACT’s support for his mad ideas:
“Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I rise to oppose the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I oppose it as the Minister of Local Government, I oppose it as the leader of the ACT Party, and I oppose it as a New Zealander. This bill represents a radical departure in terms of the management of natural resources and in terms of local government in New Zealand. I do not think that members appreciate how big the departure is. Indeed, the Government is on record as saying that this is a one-off and that it is unique, but today we heard Minister Turia say, when she began the second reading debate, that it will be the model, the benchmark. We heard the Labour Party say that that was the case, too.”
Kept their intentions secret? Explain how again. I am glad someone has acknowledged that co governance ideas are not a left v right issue as you have pointed out National was pushing “mad ideas” too. That bill passed in May 2010 did it not? Was that a Labour secret too? They weren’t in power but clearly they were planning this ages ago.
Act is always accusing people of keeping secrets,
Mr Hide also said Mr Key had “failed to honour” the no-surprises clause of the confidence and supply agreement with Act.
“The declaration is the very antithesis of Act’s policy of one law for all New Zealanders
Mr Hide later said that ability to sign off customary title through regulation meant “our valuable foreshore and seabed can be handed across to iwi in secret, in the Attorney General’s office, with no public or parliamentary scrutiny.
“There is not precedent in any other Westminster jurisdiction of a minister being able to transfer title to private interest groups in secret.”
Did John hold a referendum?
No he (Luxon) said no to a referendum so he can get himself up to speed on this issue as he needs to actually have a look at what his party did around co-governance as they have track record.
Rod Drury is Ngai Tahu I believe.?
A major flaw with democracy is that it favours the lowest common denominator when the issue at hand needs a modicum of intellect to understand. Act knows this and knows a vote on the issue is guaranteed to go their way. Labour is on a hiding to nothing here even though the cause is a good one.
What do the dumb voters know eh?
That’s a strange reason to reject democracy. sounds a bit elitist. I don’t think the questions regarding the co-governance proposals are particularly intellectually challenging. The fundamental question, the institutionalisation of ethnicity as a political category, is a moral, not intellectual, issue in any case.
Is it intellect or actually having an understanding of the issues? If we had been teaching NZ history a lot early in the past I think there is a good chance there would be more empathy. ACT wank on about free speech and debate but Brooke Van Velden’s comments about the curriculum seemed to be bordering on ‘please leave out the bits that don’t look so good’. All her goodies and baddies rubbish.
‘please leave out the bits that don’t look so good’
Like the deliberate exclusion of the pre-treaty 19th century intertribal wars? The Maori on Maori wars that left a third of them dead, cannibalised or enslaved, more murdered than all the NZers killed in the two world wars combined.
Lets stop the BS, the history curriculum that is being taught is designed to divide not inform, to cast one group as evil and the other as innocent victims. The bits being left out are not what you suppose.
So was teaching about things like the World Wars designed to make us anti German, Japanese etc? That clearly didn’t work. So your idea is teaching NZ history is a master plan with the sole intent to divide? Say hello to bugs bunny on the way down the rabbit hole.
Well that was racist rant DG.
Can someone please explain why a co-governance model that allows for a separate Maori health system also requires that the managers of that system need to have vito power over the health system for the rest of us?
If a seperate Maori system was adequately funded based on both population and medical needs surely it would be better focused on actually rolling out and managing effective care to Maori people. But from what has been proposed it looks like a situation where they would have a disproportional power and have there cake and eat it.
Now there may be a genuine reason that this has been designed this way but if so I have no idea what it might be and surely that would suggest that there is a very good reason for a public debate on this issue so we all can understand why this has been proposed.
We didn’t debate Whanau Ora or the 140 million dollars it received in the first 4 years
Whanau Ora was a māori health authority that focused on self determination and self management, The aim of the Whanau Ora approach was to enable whanau to assume responsibility for their own affairs. Labour didn’t support Whanau Ora – But they have continued to support & fund the organization while in government. National made drastic changes when they were in power, they had major opposition, but they followed through on their plans. Why can’t labour do the same?
A plague on both their houses. I have just had the veil lifted from my eyes about Labour’s mealy mouthed use of idealistic tropes to provide a barrier to proper ethical behaviour towards citizens and environment – combining being kind and practical.
Whatever sentimentally appealing ethical stuff they come out with, they have found a small side door, a hole for the White Rabbit political operator to slip through to carry messages that will result in party-boosting and people-shafting. National has no idea, and should be provided with loudspeakers, soapboxes, and subservient minions of the media at every opportunity so they can sell their own fraudulent message, in the spirit of fair play and equality, and level playing fields etc.
I thought that Labour was caught in a mire on housing and had some genuine concern for the hapless people left homeless after the collapse of the free enterprise business first method. But no, they mouth equality and compassion towards those who treat their state-provided homes and know that they are on the pig’s back whatever bad behaviour they display, and the hell that their complete lack of responsibility or social control creates for those within earshot of them, and the damage that they can cause an accommodation owner before they leave, and are rehoused by a an ‘accommodating’ sickly, machiavellian state. The drop-outs from society have it all worked out – they are on the pig’s back in today’s political climate – and the taxpayers and low-wage people and parents are the pigs bearing this unlovely and crushing burden.
Labour as we knew it is no more, and should be dissolved. Read up about the years before WW2 in Germany; the methods of swaying the people. No need to mention the loaded word it’s etched into our brains.
There’s a long thread on housing on The Standard starting off with this reasonable statement which seems correct. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-02-04-2022/#comment-1880302 >
The biggest OPEX is the housing of the economy’s workforce….time (well past) to cut our biggest cost, and maybe, just maybe we may improve our productivity.
(FYI – as we are now majorly an economic entity rather than a nation it is helpful to know the language. ) –
Ongoing operating expenditure (OPEX) relates to the expenditure and cost recovery for building management costs that sit with the lead agency. There are three basic categories of costs or ongoing operational expenditure: fixed. variable, and. additional costs.
Operating expenditure costs (OPEX) | New Zealand …
https://www.procurement.govt.nz › funding-a-co-location
Seymour Guns is really clasping for straws and does not have the remotist idea what Co-Governance is about, it above his level of intellect and understanding imho.
Adding bureaucratic layers or meddling with existing bureaucracy will always fail when any change in outcome largely depends on the choices, habits and behaviour of the individuals supposedly receiving care and services. It’s like when a sports team changes coaches, sometimes they do better, sometimes they do worse. The coach cannot go out on the field and play the game for them.
So there will be three classes of people in Newer New Zealand, Tangata Whenua, Tangata Tiriiti… and everyone else.
Before the last election I went to a few talks about the marajuana referendum and the lies about medical marajuana not being related from government MPs was breath taking. I would have no faith in the outcome of anythink this government says on race issues. I am all for a fair deal for Maori but a 50/50 split is not fair and how do you overcome the animosity between different iwi.
I agree with Seymour over the discussion and possibly the vote. I mean ffs we got a vote over the flag.
I think Jacinda has signalled there will be discussion and first time I take my hate off to Willy Jackson.
I don’t have an understanding of what co-governance would mean and so I would like the debate. Imagine if it was National making a change like this with no discussion. The left would be up in arms.,
Co governance. Imagine if we gave it a shot and it worked!
They do have such a system in Lebanon, each constituency; Christian, Muslim, Druze etc. has a share of power and representatives primarily promoting their cause. The idea that the representatives act in the interests of the country as a whole is absent – much as you see from The Maori Party here and contrary to the parliamentary oath and our long held democratic principles.
Have read of how that dystopian shithole functions; I’ll leave you to decide on whether “it works”.
That’s a bullshit representation of what happened in Lebanon. Each of the constituency have some representation – that is correct. But Lebanon has had corruption, graft and corporations stuffing up their system for years. External interests have flooded the country with dark money, and inertia became the norm. This crap has been happening long before the current constitutional changes you speak of.
That said, It did mean after the explosion, some unity was obtained. Outside parliament, albeit briefly. But the reality is Lebanon is going to have to work harder to fix a lot of the base corruption, graft and outside influence. If it’s going to work.
We don’t have that here, except a growing problem with outside influence and dark money.
We’re not Lebanon, not yet anyway, but there’s no progress, no will to tackle the issues that beset that benighted country, and for the reasons I outlined I believe.
At times circumstances require our governments to act, for the good of the whole, against the short term interests of their base. That’s what concerns me, a sort of Balkanisation of our institutions.
Is anyone, are you Ignatious, naïve enough to believe that Nga Tahu, for example, will act as impartial arbitrators of the resources they and their competitors use.
No, we’re not in Lebanon and that is why this has potential to work. We won’t know if we don’t try and doing the same as we always have done hasn’t worked. As the saying goes ” you miss 100 % of the shots you don’t take”.
The difficulties that the past two years of the Covid epidemic have revealed for the health of Māori suggest a strong case for a separate Māori health authority.
I see no problem with Māori exercising a co-governance of kaitiakitanga over the Three Waters, as long as that does not lead to the distribution of special monetary dividends.
I think Māori wards have their place on all local-body councils and boards, in proportion to the number of people on the Māori electoral roll.
However, we really do need Labour and the Greens to state clearly, either jointly or separately, what they intend generally by ‘co-governance’, He Puapua, and the implications for sovereignty.
“An Upper House would be seen as a guardian of the Treaty for the maintenance of public well being over private gain, it would show real power sharing and for Pakeha, it would represent a political body that protects their public interests as much as Maori interests.”
How can you say this? Iwi are private corporations, that we will be inviting into our political system, to manage all public resources. Iwi are in the courts claiming the rights to water, the marine and coastal area, DOC estate etc. Including the right to make money off these resources. For the benefit of of the Iwi.
No one is above corruption, which is why we separate the decision-makers from the beneficiaries for matters regarding public resources. Unless you think non-Maori should pay royalties in perpetuity.
If I can identify as a woman can I identify as a Maori? I would rather be one, I hate being the same race as Jacinda and Luxon, I am ashamed to be associated with grubs who only care about enriching the rich.
Is it possible you can identify as a civil human being who accepts people for who they are, or who they choose to be?
https://youtu.be/YkgkThdzX-8?t=53
Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people Livin’ for today
Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion, too
Imagine all the people, Livin’ life in peace
Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one, I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
This is well worth a listen – Seymour’s position on Co-governance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWw9almI9Go
You’re having a battle of wits with some seriously unarmed, rabbit-holed dwelling opponents here @bert.
The self-appointed, racist ‘blog sheriffs’ here, attempt to adjust the narrative. The “sheriff” commentators are on a similar spectrum and are a similar ilk to those threatening to execute politicians.
People like Richard Sivell (sic.), suddenly went media turtle in the dock, when realising that justice is real and nothing to do with fantasy justice at the end of a Facebook Algorithm, or Steve Bannon, or QAnon Website – WWG1WGA
“Police officers and court security staff restrained the unmasked Sivell on the floor of the courtroom, in full view of the public gallery and watching media.
Clutching his Bible, he was dragged along the floor to the dock, yelling that he was being detained illegally and was being assaulted.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/court-outburst-richard-sivell-charged-with-threatening-to-kill-pm-forced-by-police-into-dock/JFTRYCT6MOCWOC5FGRQDAZH5Y4/
And “Sandra Crack, who has claimed to be the “chief sheriff” of Australia” and her wide-eyed acolytes believed that Facebook Algorithms, Steve Bannon, or QAnon Websites – WWG1WGA has made them online sheriffs, judges and executioners, and immune from actual justice WTAF?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300555020/the-selfproclaimed-sheriffs-who-want-to-arrest-the-authorities
However, New Zealand/Aotearoa’s real sheriffs are closing on on the perpetrators of ‘execution’ sheriff sites and their makers, enablers, contributors and backers.
Expect to see some further trials of suddenly shy and reluctant “sheriff” types, unhappy with having their fuckwittery on display. Pull them from behind their keyboards and screens, from their smoky Dirty Politics’ rooms by their rabbithole ears, and into the cold light of dock for sentencing.
Sheriff, judge and executioners – sorted. Makers, enablers, contributors and backers – next to be sorted
, When was the last time a government held a referendum because a minor opposition party demanded it? Has National ever held a referendum to pass The Greens policy into law? John Key didn’t hold a referendum when he gave 140 million dollars to Whanau Ora, a Whanau based health authority derived in accordance with tikanga, self-management & Whanau determining their own destinies…Peters said it was separatist, labour said it was racist, coalition partner ACT said National was failing it’s “one law for all” policy. John key said he would repeal the foreshore and seabed act & grant customary titles, Coalition partner & Act leader Rodney Hide said the provision for a minister to sign over title without public scrutiny was without precedent. They started a campaign to fight the change it “gained a lot of traction” even members of national warned Key the seabed saga was polarising the party’s support, and many core voters feel betrayed and will never vote for National again. John Key didn’t hold a debate, he passed the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill into law, Two years later
“The Coastal Coalition’s campaign” was still fighting and promised a referendum. Then he signed the UN declaration that recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, Mr Hide also said Mr Key had “failed to honour” the no-surprises clause of the confidence and supply agreement with Act. He said in Parliament that the declaration was divisive and a further step for New Zealand down a path of a divided nation.
“The declaration is the very antithesis of Act’s policy of one law for all New Zealanders
Did John Key hold a referendum? David Seymour will need to introduce his bill to parliament by pulling it from the biscuit tin, or have a citizens initiated referendum by getting 10% of the population to sign a petition – but even if he managed to pull off something that remarkable it doesn’t mean it’s legally binding, The Greens got 370,000 signatures for it’s “stop the asset sales” petition, A referendum was held and the majority voted against the sales… John Key mocked the process, He said sales were going ahead and the election was the only referendum he cared about
Why would the labour government, bow down to a small opposition party and hold a referendum for policy it doesn’t support?
Comments are closed.