Tuesday, May 2, 2017

A CHEAP STUNT

National has been quick to label the claim lodged in the High Court by Maul Paul on behalf of the Maori Council for control of the nation's seabed and foreshore a 'cheap stunt' destined to fail.

The Maori Party (and presumably the Mana Party) has backed the claim.

It will be fascinating to hear Labour's position as they work to lift their profile in the Maori seats they hold under threat from the strategic alliance brokered between the Maori and Mana Parties.    Can Labour afford to distance itself from the claim?    If it does it offers an opening for the Maori and Mana Parties to exploit.   If it doesn't it will risk a white voter backlash.    Damned it they do and damned if they don't.   My guess is that they will wriggle and squirm and end up with a bob bet both ways by pledging to respect any decision of the Court subject always to Parliamentary approval.


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

What gives National the right to pre-empt a High Courts decision by trying to influence it through the media.. Right wing Governments do this a lot and think they are above the law ie. Trump, Mother Theresa, Edogan etc.

Labours position will be more statesman like than name calling.


Lord Egbut

Gerald said...

Any other time it wouldould be "I can't comment whilst its before the Courts".

pdm said...

Lord Eg said

`Labours position will be more statesman like than name calling.'

That will be a (surprising) change!!!

Noel said...

Is this purely political like the decision to terminate Immigrations action. To have it later reported that the Minister can't chage anything if the Afghan doesn't break his parole conditions?

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... you forget your history. Labour's Seabed and Foreshore Act nullified a decision of the Court and helped bring about the Maori Party. The Marine and Coastal Areas Act which replaced it allowed whanau, hapu and iwi to seek recognition and protection of beaches and waterline in their rohe but set a very high standard for any claim to be successful. The Maori Council's claim is for customary rights over the entire countries seabed and foreshore. That goes much further than allowed for in the Act and the PM and Minister Finlayson were right to label it a cheap political stunt.

The reality is that most Labour MPs would agree with National's position that no-one owns the seabed and foreshore (and waterways) which is held in guardianship by the Government of the day.

But the point of my post was to point out the quandary that Labour finds itself in vs the Maori and Mana Parties in deciding their position on the issue.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... your point. The Immigration Act does not allow the Minister to overturn a decision made under delegation. That caused the Minister to 'pull' the delegation while the Department reviewed its procedures. I agree, The person in question should have been deported post haste.

Noel said...

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1184873

Reading between the lines I'm guessing the review will find that the Department acted within its guideline regardless of ours or the Ministers perception.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... I'm absolutely sure you're right but I suspect the guidelines were light on common sense on the basis that common sense was a given ... except clearly it wasn't.

Gerald said...

Portfolio responsibilities are interesting.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/mbie-corporate/Immigration.pdf

Anonymous said...

Veteran....the quandary is all Nationals. As it is before the court Labour does not have to say a thing. I'm sure when Trump was putting the verbal boot into the courts on immigration no one was thinking of the 1902 immigration act.

Sandy McNicol....RIP. A man of principal I would have got on with.......did you know him from Waiouru?

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... wrong yet again. You file something that is so far out out of left field and you invite derision. Are you seriously suggesting that Maori should exercise control; over the seabed out to the 12 nm mile limit. If so then you are nuts2 and the government has a duty of responsibility to point that out given that it far exceeds that provided for in the Act.

You attempt to link that to Trump shows the paucity of your argument and yes, I knew Sandy and from what I know of him he wouldn't have a bar of your argument.

Anonymous said...

Umm...point out where I suggested that I actually had an opinion on the outcome. I am a disinterested party and merely replying to your assertion that National was right in preempting the courts and Labour is in a quandary. The facts suggest that National was wrong and Labour is not in a quandary. Attacking a non existent position and claiming victory was tried in the US civil war. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... sorry, disagree. National has every right to label the Maori Council application a cheap political stunt (which it is) just as the Maori Party has a right to support it.

The quandary for Labour remains ... the case will not be heard before the election and if 'they' are happy to go to the hustings and leave the inside running on the issue to the Maori Party then more fool them. Actually the cynic in me suggests the Maori Council did this in order to assist the Maori Party and embarrass Labour knowing that they, unlike National, can't afford to state a position on the matter. 'Their' silence is instructive.

BTW ... my family had a close association with Sandy McN early on. He and my cousin Ron were very good mates. Sandy used to spend a lot of time at the family batch at Waitarere Beach.