Similar Posts

10 Comments

  1. Labour couldn’t care less if they effectively bounced you back to National. Because National/Labour are a good cop/bad cop SCAM, their job is laundering the proceeds of crime into political influence and then concealing the crime.

  2. We Maori don’t see ghost in the land we see and feel the presence of our ancestor who want us to fight and stand up for everything like they did and not let there fight be in vain or their lives as they fought in wars and many died for us and our country

  3. Yes I have been reminding Labour who got them in power apart from Winstone it was our 7 Maori seats now if they want to carry on with their policies of transformation they need to sort cyfs/OT & Ihumatao otherwise i believe they will lose those 7 Maori seats.

  4. Actually Andrew if she didn’t front she would be haera ra at the next election but this doesn’t mean national the no friends party will get back in they need to make friends fast and they don’t seem to be very good at this

  5. “….the Marlborough Council, decided to allow rich prick boat shed owners who were building those boat sheds into Gin Palaces perched on pristine coastline, the right to sell those Gin Palaces.”

    I remember the Foreshore and Seabed imbroglio; what you claim here about Marlborough Council didn’t sound right to me. So I went digging. And sure enough: I found this:

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/law-of-the-foreshore-and-seabed/page-4

    “In 1997, eight iwi (tribes) of the northern South Island, spurred on by their failure to be awarded rights for mussel farming, applied to the Māori Land Court to have a determination of the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds as Māori customary land. While the Māori Land Court decided that it could consider the issue, the High Court ruled amongst other things that once the adjoining dry land had been purchased by the Crown, the Māori customary interest in the foreshore was lost, while the seabed below the low water mark was owned by the Crown in common law.

    In 2003 the Court of Appeal overturned this and unanimously decided that the Māori Land Court did have jurisdiction under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to determine whether the foreshore and seabed had the status of Māori customary land.”

    As I recall, the Marlborough District Council was issuing permits to pakeha mussel farmers, but not to Maori. Hence Ngati Apa’s case to the Maori Land Court.

    I remember the Foreshore and Seabed hikoi: when it reached Wellington, I, along with a small group of pakeha who, like me, were infuriated at the Clark government’s bungling of the case, joined the hikoi and marched on Parliament. It was quite an experience, I can tell you. I’ll lay bets that I’m the only pakeha – very possibly the only person – commenting on this blogsite, who was on any part of that hikoi.

    “…..the Protectors realising this as they scramble to argue the Crown needs to find a solution, not Tainui.”

    The land is privately-owned: the government has no role at all. It cannot intervene. Newton and her followers appear not to want to accept this, but accept it they must.

    “The protectors of Ihumātao will need to make concessions to get that visit from Jacinda because Labour needs this settled before December. The single worst outcome is for this activism to be used as a wedge issue by National to win the 2020 election.”

    For the reasons adduced above, the PM should stay away from Ihumatao. Bridges is correct: she has already interfered when she should have kept out of it. I was surprised at that; I’d assumed that she’d have got wiser advice.

    The only circumstances under which she can go there is after the issue is resolved, without the government having been dragged into it in any way. Anything she says or does which gets the government involved will land the Labour party with the wedge issue from hell at the next election.

    This is what Duncan Garner thinks is going to happen:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/115246462/tainui-saves-the-government-from-a-seabed-and-foreshore-moment

    Maybe he’s right, maybe not. In any event, it’s the second-best outcome. The best is that Newton and her followers see sense, go home, and leave the rightful owner of the land to deal with it as they think fit.

  6. Sorry D estirer we wont be listening to your advice and it looks like thousands of our Maori people don’t agree with you on this one your out numbered

    1. Michelle: “Sorry D estirer …”

      I do you the courtesy of correctly spelling your nom de guerre; please do the same for me, if you’d be so good.

      “….we wont be listening to your advice and it looks like thousands of our Maori people don’t agree with you on this one your out numbered”

      Whether you collectively like it or not, I have the law on my side. The same law, I’d point out, on which Newton and her followers are relying, to avoid getting their asses handed to them over the illegal occupation of Ihumatao. And there’s one commentator who agrees with me. See this:

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/ihum-tao-protest-movement-has-based-its-campaign-misinformation-iwi-advocate?fbclid=IwAR3UEmtxu2Yl6JHt1i5nOhurMKF8QfCKPRUIa_WmTl0TIcCldiF9Xn9usSE

      I am right; that land is privately-owned, and the government has no role there at all. Were it to be dragged into the dispute, you’ll no doubt be among the first ones to scream blue murder when the consequences come back to bite you on the bum. And they will…..

  7. So, Michelle: were you on the Foreshore and Seabed hikoi, all those years ago? Even the last part of it, through Wellington to Parliament? I was.

Comments are closed.