Wednesday, May 12, 2010

gingercrush at the standard

In response to this post at The Standard, commenter gingercrush has replyed. It is a very good reply that i am reproducing here.
"I don’t think so. The main issue in regards to the Foreshore and Seabed is title. Maori don’t like the idea of “public domain” that National is pushing and that is the sticking point. The fundamentals of the Foreshore and Seabed are rather agreeable except for the matter of title. You and Marty G and most on the left fundamentally misunderstand Maori’s position on the Foreshore and Seabed. In the end the Maori Party will agree to the solution ultimately made because it delivers more than what they would ever get via court process only and is better than what they’ll get with Labour which is shite.
You also make the huge mistake and this seems to be rather consistent amongst all “Standard” writers. In that what you see as irrelevant such as DRIP and whanau ora etc that you classify as meaningless is wholly important to the Maori Party. You lot can feel free to dismiss them but they’re not being dismissed by the Maori Party.
Look at how your article is positioned. Its basically the same crap you and Marty G have been doing week in and week out. Its a misconception that what you see as betrayal for Maori and what you see as meaningless wins for the Maori Party is somehow the same view held by the Maori Party. When its not. Its fantasy bullshit writing of two people who don’t want National and the Maori Party working together (never wanted them to work together). Who fundamentally misunderstand who the Maori Party are and what the Maori Party wants. You barely cover the issue of Tuhoe because you actually don’t care about it. Instead, you just want to repeat the same set of lies, the same set of mistruths and the same fantasy left-wing view of what you believe the Maori Party should be about.
That’s why you include this paragraph: Then we have to add all the times the Nats have openly gone against the Maori Party’s position – the Fire at Will Bill, minimum wage, ETS (how humiliating that was), tertiary education, GST increase. The Maori Party has even had to vote for some of these policies, which it fundamentally opposes, or sacrifice its confidence and supply deal.. When in reality it actually has nothing to do with the Maori Party and one can’t imagine they the Maori Party didn’t understand where National came from on many of those issues. Also in regards to the ETS. The Maori Party got their forestry deal so how that can embarassing to them is beyond me.
In essence what John Key did in regards to Tuhoe was stupid and no doubt does put real pressure on the relationship with the Maori Party. They’ve been spooked when they should have given what Tuhoe wanted despite how acrimonious that is amongst National Party members. That they didn’t showed political opportunism of the worst kind. The real sadness of it all is that Labour and the left aren’t even screaming against it. Phil Goff basically agrees with John Key.
What the whole thing shows is that no matter who is in government. Whether that is Labour or National. Both of the big parties will actively agitate and dog-whistle Maori for politics sake. Of course you’ll deny that. That’s no big surprise but its real and its unfortunate. Therefore, no matter who the Maori Party goes with and what happens in 2011. They’re always going to face opposition as both parties will continue to have progress and then back-track for white/pakeha New Zealand will always be murmuring in the background.
It is a good thread with lots of interesting comments.


Anonymous said...

What Labour should do is apologise for taking Maori for granted. For the foreshore and seabed. For their ongoing attitude that the Maori Party is selling out by working with National. For the fact the MP gets more wins out of National than it would with Labour.

They should then ask (not say, ask) the MP at what point is it too much for you to work with National?

That we will endorse the DRIP, we will affirm the principal of returning land (with access protections where required), we will promise to listen to you as equals and partners.

We will work with you in the Maori seats and will work on Maori representation in local bodies. We will work with you on constitutional reform, including what a republic that still affirms the agreements made with the British crown would look like.

We will work with you on to build capacity throughout Maori communities, not just through separate Govt departments, but on whanau, hapu, and community levels. And say that this has to be on the basis of building Maori communities, not Maori corporations.

If that happens then perhaps we can begin to move forward.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who thinks the fundamentals of the new FS&SB proposal are agreeable but for the public domain.

Maori having to prove over and over again for every thing that comes along that they are the Treaty partner for the purpose (fish, settlements, RMA, Waitangi Tribunal etc etc) is a biggie.

Tests that only about 4% or less of Maori can meet because of previous Crown action - pretty big - the tests appear better under this proposal but the outcome is the same

no recognition of the development right - which is after all what the Ngati Apa and others case was about

the Tuhoe about face was a shambles - days after the co-management of the Waikato River was passed into law with scarcely a mention in the press. We have come a long way since the Ngai Tahu claim was settled with the fears no-one could climb Aoraki and the kakapo would be thrown of Whenua Hou and so on

Now look - the ultra conservative CCC is in a JV partnership to build and own the Councils headquarters, the police and Courts are asking Ngai Tahu to provide a roof over their heads

the fisheries settlments did not bring the seafood industry to the ground

people need to grow up - maori or joint maori ownership of the FS&SB is not as scary as you might think