Sunday, December 12, 2010


Yesterday The Veteran attended a special meeting of the Northland Electorate of the National Party called primarily to discuss the selection process to choose a candidate to replace the retiring John Carter. There were over 100 in attendance along with the twelve (to date) candidates who were each given the opportunity to introduce themselves.

Nominations for the seat open on 11 March and close on 1 April. On 9/10 April the Preselection Committee will determine a short list of up to five candidates to go forward to selection scheduled for Saturday 30 April at Kaikohe. It is anticipated that upwards of 250 delegates representing the 4,000 Party members in Northland will make the final selection.

The meeting also passed the following resolution which is the main point of this post. It relates to illegal land occupations. The resolution reads "Resolved that Government cease negotiations with any iwi, hapu or whanau in respect of their Treaty claim(s) if that iwi, hapu or whanau, either overtly or covertly, encourages and/or endorses the illegal occupation of privately owned land in support of real or imagined grievances".

We would expect that Government takes note of this resolution and acts accordingly. It disregards this resolution at its electoral peril.


Anonymous said...

what a directive to the government.....who does the membership think it is?.....not even a recommendation or suggestion but an edict almost.....what arrogance from the tories

Anonymous said...

I bet the National party are so afraid. It reminds me of The various scenes in The Life of Brian featuring the People's Front for the Liberation of Judea. This is just as irrelevent and you appear to be under an impression that we live in a democracy. These tresspassers should have bee rounded up and run off long ago.

mawm said...

We would expect that Government takes note of this resolution and acts accordingly. It disregards this resolution at its electoral peril.

Why should this be any different? They have ignored the electorate on S59, ETS, EFA and Foreshore and Seabed. Anyway it sounds as if the creepy AG drafted it.

The Veteran said...

mawm ... why should this be different? ... because this was a resolution passed by the most powerful electorate in the National Party.

You refer to a number of other issues. There are diverse opinions in my Party on those issues and I am not aware of any resolutions passed either at Electorate of Regional level calling for Government to rethink its stand on those issues

But I do find it fascinating that you criticise due process. Perhaps you could enlighten me as the alternative.

BTW ... this resolution was the work of the Electorate Executive. The AG had nothing to do with it. The AG doesn't own us. We do and we reflect the will of our members whose numbers I suspect exceed the combined membership of ACT, NZ First and United Future. And those numbers give us a certain leverage in the policy debate.

mawm said...

The Veteran - they have ignored the electorate, ie those people who go out and vote, those of us who voted National into power to represent us.

It is quite clear that we, the people of New Zealand, did not want S59 or the ETS. It would seem that from polls of public opinion that we didn't want the EFA - something National stood against when Labour was in power. And it looks very much like the people of New Zealand do not want this Foreshore and Seabed legislation passed.

It might be that the Northland Electorate passed that resolution, but it very closely echos what the AG has said.

Expressing my dissatisfaction with the course that the National Party is taking does not, certainly in my mind, critisize due process.

Anonymous said...

Vet - let me know when Peter Dunne, Tariana Turia and Rodney Hide respond. After all, they are part of the government too.

This is not FPP remember!


The Veteran said...

Gooner ... but this is an internal National Party matter with the resolution passed in Party forum and following due process. If my Party decides to pick up and run with it well and good ... then and only then will ACT, MP and UF will need to be 'consulted'.

Turning your arguement on its head, you are not suggesting that a policy proposal/resolution by ACT needs first to be signed off by National before it becomes ACT Party policy ... are you????

The National Party exists in its own right as do all other parties.

The reality of MMP is that you first need to get your own Party to agree to a proposal and then the realities of MMP come into play.

I guess in this instance I might expect ACT to support the proposal; the MP to be opposed and for UF to do a 'Walter Nash' and be neither for or against.

Anonymous said...

Sure, I understand all that, but you've worded it that the Government ceases negotiations. Maybe you could have limited it to the National Party seeking support from its governing partners to ceasing negotiations...etc.


Shane Ponting said...

Veteran, so you are telling me this electorate group has high numbers of anti-smacking proponents?

Must be the 13 or so pct that voted against the last referendum......

The Gantt Guy said...

Veteran, I for one applaud the Northern Electorate for passing this resolution. There is no way the Government should be negotiating with terrorists.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the pack of cowards and traitors who currently occupy the treasury benches have proven time and again (as MAWM pointed out) that they are happy to ignore the wishes of voters. Perhaps they'll listen to their own Party members. Maybe a series of resolutions should be moved and passed, specifically relating to the issues MAWM mentioned. I don't hold out a hell of a lot of hope, but since Plan A hasn't worked, mebbe it's time to try Plan B.

The Veteran said...

Gooner ... it's the National Party coalition Government with the operative word being 'National'.

Shane ... I have no interest in opening up the S59 debate. I have no idea what our members think on this issue but I do know that we are sick and tired of the antics of rogue Maori iwi who have no respect for the rule of law.