Opo 182 Report post Posted January 31, 2011 Coastal Coalition Committed to retaining the Foreshore and Seabed in Crown ownership http://www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz 30 January 2011 Media Release Prime Minister getting desperate over Marine Bill The fact that the Prime Minister is continuing to misinform the public over the Marine and Coastal Area Bill is a sure sign that support for the bill is falling. The fact that he is making outrageous claims against any non-Maori who speaks out against his Bill indicates that he is getting desperate, Dr Hugh Barr, Spokesman for the Coastal Coalition, said today. One of John Keys major misrepresentations is even featured on the governments website and involves mining on the foreshore and seabed. Under clause 63 (2) of his bill, commercialisation of the foreshore and seabed is being encouraged. Clauses 82-83 cover mining of all minerals except the four nationalised ones - oil and gas, gold, silver and uranium. Crown Minerals has valued New Zealands iron-sands reserves at up to $1 trillion dollars,[1] something John Key is trying to dispute. When the Coastal Coalition says that New Zealands iron-sands reserves could be worth up to $1 trillion, that is not our figure it comes from the governments own agency, Crown Minerals. Since iron-sands are not a nationalised mineral, any iwi given customary title to an area of foreshore and seabed that contains commercial quantities of iron-sands has the right to set up mining operations and keep the proceeds for their own private use. At present royalties from any mining on the foreshore and seabed belongs to the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders. In addition, the Crown is favouring claimants financially. If an iwi make a claim for an area of foreshore and seabed where non-nationalised mining is already established, clauses 83 (2) and (3) of the Bill require royalty payments to be transferred from the Crown and into iwi coffers from the time their claim is first lodged, rather than from when their claim is proved. The bill also enables foreign interests to exploit the foreshore and seabed under the provisions in clause (63) (2) which enable iwi title holders to lease out their customary right to mine and develop their area! As a result of the dramatic lowering of the qualifying criteria for customary title in the Bill - and the fact that title can be granted through secret deals with a Minister, rather than having to be proven in a court of law the government has estimated that on average, one kilometre in ten of coastline will be transferred to Maori.[2] But according to the Maori Party that is just a start they intend to renegotiate with future governments until the whole coast is in Maori hands, signalling the beginning of a brand new grievance industry. John Keys bill would be a disaster for New Zealand and the sooner he honours his promise to withdraw the bill if there isnt widespread support, the better. The foreshore and seabed is the birthright and common heritage of all New Zealanders equally, and Crown ownership not private ownership - is where it belongs, Dr Barr said. Contact: Dr Hugh Barr, Spokesman, Coastal Coalition, 04 934 2244, 027 686 0063 hugh@infosmart.co.nz http://www.coastalcoalition.co.nz FOOTNOTES: [1]Business Day, Ironsands industry unclear about foreshore law http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3900029/Ironsands-industry-unclear-about-foreshore-law [2]TVNZ, transcript of interview between Guyon Espinar and Chris Finlayson on Q+A 20 June 2010: GUYON: So something like 2000 kilometres of coastline under your guesstimates would be under customary title? CHRIS: Yes, and that in the round guesstimate Guyon. http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-chris-finlayson-interview-3600399 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie 2 Report post Posted January 31, 2011 I see Hugh is still around.Had him in the army territorials at Linton way back in the 1970's when he was a signals operator and i was his boss. Quite a cluey bloke and think he has a PhD in nuclear science from memory and has always been involved with the bush and foreshore preservations etc,,even back then. Cheers Archie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 1, 2011 Dear Honourable Members of Parliament, In June 2010 I became a New Zealand citizen believing that after living in and contributing to this country for 14 years, I should finally accept that I left behind Apartheid and Race Based laws. In 1995 there was a air of expectancy in South Africa. An expectancy of a bright future. Sadly the raced based reverse apartheid laws will continue to drag a great country down further. When this National lead government came to power in the last election there was that same sense of expectancy that this government would finally after 9 years of Labour turn this country around. I was wrong. The more I hear this government lie about this Foreshore and Seabed Act the more I am convinced I need to accept that I have made a mistake in becoming a NZ citizen and leave. This bill will be a landmark in NZ history, a landmark that no one will want to be associated with. It will mark the downward turning point of NZ to lows probably far lower than South Africa will fall. If the riots of 1981 are any indication, this bill will cut deeper against those it is trying to appease, Maori. Will the National party survive this downturn? If this government can turn 180 degrees on it's previous position on the act passed by Labour and it's stated policy on the racist Maori parliamentary seats, what else is it wilfully misleading NZ about? Why does the government contradict it's own department on the value of the ironsand deposits? What has this government done to gain the trust of NZ? Where is the mandate to pass this law? Their last campaign did not mention it in this form. So they lied. Mr Henare, after I gave my submission to the select committee you chaired you asked me to contact you. I have tried on various occasions, maybe you were busy listening to submissions. I would like to extend to you the opportunity to discuss with you any item I raised in in my submission or any other matter you wish to speak on, my contact details are below. Finally Minister Finlayson, remember you are supposed to serve ALL New Zealand citizens NOT JUST YOUR FORMER CLIENTS. These are the actions I am taking: 1. I will highlight to everyone I speak with about the lies perpetrated by this National government. 2. I will highlight to everyone that race based laws divide and by definition cannot unite a country. 3. I will consider an action plan to leave NZ, maybe Australia, there is a woman with balls prepared to lead the country that is prepared stand up for who they are and proud of it. The trigger will be if this bill is passed into law. 4. Educate any voter that if they disagree with the options presented in an election, vote, by spoiling your ballot. That is an answer ALL politicians will hear. My success in this will be marked by the percentage increase of spoilt ballots in the next election, if this bill is passed. 5. Educate any voter about how much of a National puppet Peter Dunne has become since leading a rally in Nelson. 6. Educate anyone on how to identify when a National or United Future politician is lying, when their lips move! This bill is proof. 7. I will leave every political conversation with this question, "New Zealand is fast becoming a highly culturally diverse collection of peoples. What nation building or uniting action does any raced based law bring about? By definition it must favour one over another. Therefore, if there no benefit, why is it there?" In closing, a question to ponder. How effective is an ex-South African in highlighting the effects of raced based laws? 1981 is an easy example. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie 2 Report post Posted February 1, 2011 Opo One question -Martin Who ? Martin by itself could be anybody or a ficticious non de plume !! Cheers -Archie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooboy 1 Report post Posted February 1, 2011 If this government can turn 180 degrees on it's previous position on the act passed by Labour and it's stated policy on the racist Maori parliamentary seats, what else is it wilfully misleading NZ about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 4, 2011 By Jim Hopkins 5:30 AM Friday Feb 4, 2011 They were walking down a Wellington street towards the cafe, unseen but heard. Two men, talking loudly, as people do when they think no one's listening. One was a local, the other a Pom although it was hard to tell whether his accent was Brummie or Cockney or an amalgam of both. Imagine an Eastenders/Coro Street hybrid and you're probably close enough. Anyway, this Pommie geezer was bleedin' determined 2011 would be a better year than 2010. There'd been too much personal crap in his life, 'e reckoned. When they reached the cafe and it was possible to see who was talking, something unexpected became instantly obvious. The Kiwi looked like he'd spent his whole life in an office, safe from the tanning sun. The Pom, who wore running shoes, was, unarguably, indisputably, 110 per cent African. That wasn't the mental picture the conversation had conjured. A pallid chap with a packet of pork scratchings, perhaps, but not a young Nelson Mandela. Yet there he was, looking nothing like he sounded and completely, candidly happy in his own skin. It's always risky to draw big inferences from small encounters but this revived a thought sparked during the debate about Mr Harawira's pathetic attempt to get himself sacked so he can go and play with his new chums, Matt and Sue. Some of Hone's defenders said he was just reflecting the views of "our people". And there's been similar comment this week from Ngapuhi leader, David Rankin, unhappy about the "racist and shameful" decision to slap a $1000 fee on journos keen to catch the fracas on the lower marae. "Village idiots" was Mr Rankin's description of those imposing the compulsory koha. "These self-appointed bullies are doing great harm to our people." There it is again - "our people" - a collective entity thinking with one mind and speaking with one voice. Yet, as the Pom on the footpath proved, we all speak with different voices. It's the life we live, not the DNA we've inherited that shapes us. Context means more than colour. It's hard to imagine a Maori panelbeater in Invercargill, married to a Polish nurse, feeling she'd been "harmed" by the avarice evident in the north - though she might tell her kids (50 per cent Polish, 25 per cent Maori, 15 per cent Welsh and 10 per cent French) they were all "village idiots" up there. The fact is, there's no such thing as "our people". "Our people" doesn't exist. It's a convenient myth. And a potent one as years of argy-bargy confirm. But potent things can still be bollocks - try homeopathy next time you're dying. "Our people" is homo-opathy (as in erectus, you understand). Every one of us is a person before we're a people. If we're not, Hitler's won. If it's acceptable to define someone as a Jew rather than a physicist, then every racial generalisation, foul or flattering, becomes legitimate. But they're not. Race is neither the arbiter of identity nor the measure of destiny. The man on the footpath proved that when he spoke. Our personalities are as individual as our immune systems. Many things shape us - class, community, family, location, height, weight, sex, the way we're wired, the things we watch - but this host of things influences each of us in a host of ways. There's no collective response to the world. "Our people" don't all think alike. If you need proof, it's in Australia. Thousands of Maori have gone there to create for themselves lives more individual than collective. They don't want to be somebody else's "our people". They want to be their people. They've gone to a place where they can be, and in 10 years time they'll sound like classic Ocker oisters. Slapping a label like "our people" on the infinite variety of any racial group may be what we do in Outer Roa now, it may advantage the activists and help the missionary classes assuage their guilt, but it's still bogus. The only colour that matters is the one we all share - the colour of our brains. Sorry, folks, we're all grey. The stuff on the outside is a suncoat, that's all. Different shades for different climes, nothing more, especially when "our people" and "other people" have been busily bonking and happily breeding for the best part of 200 years. It's the thing between our ears that makes us and shapes us and bends us to its will. If it decides we should lose ourselves in an invented collective, then lost we become - and that's all. Just lost, however found we may feel. The Maori Party's dust-up and David Rankin's row with the "self-appointed bullies" are evidence that "our people" are as distinctive, discursive, quirky, perverse and idiosyncratic as any. And it's an insult to every "people" person for anyone to suggest otherwise. Yet we've been exactly that for decades - annually, officially and interminably. The myth of "our people" has become an inviolate shibboleth, politically and socially. No one challenges it. No one queries the emperor's wardrobe. An uneasy thought occurs. Maybe it's not the people running the lower marae or even the people running the country who're the "village idiots". Maybe it's us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted February 4, 2011 Jim Hopkins is always a good read, Opo. Even though he does have the alarming Rumpole trait of being seen far too often with those red-framed glasses of his... I like him particularly because he is non-doctrinaire... (Mind you, having said that I found myself agreeing with something Chris Trotter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted February 4, 2011 Persecution complexes, I meant at the end up there! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 4, 2011 Step up John Key. your turn Australia says NO - Second Time she has done this! She's done it again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 Take a look at the Rodney billboard trailer http://www.box.net/shared/4dpyca6ib9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooboy 1 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 Step up John Key. your turn Australia says NO - Second Time she has done this! She's done it again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 One big difference Rooboy, Maori whether the current crop admit it or not they are a conquered race. The actually signed the TOW with the English to save their brown hides from the French who may have wiped them out or beaten them into submission. And they signed to accept British sovereignty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nahla 1 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 Omg Gillard Come Here Please And Bring A Set Of Balls For John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 One big difference Rooboy, Maori whether the current crop admit it or not they are a conquered race. The actually signed the TOW with the English to save their brown hides from the French who may have wiped them out or beaten them into submission. And they signed to accept British sovereignty. and should be thanking the British for coming here. Imagine what would have happened if the Spanish had landed here, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 One big difference Rooboy, Maori whether the current crop admit it or not they are a conquered race. The actually signed the TOW with the English to save their brown hides from the French who may have wiped them out or beaten them into submission. And they signed to accept British sovereignty. Those comments show your ignorance of history. Up to the signing of the treaty Maori outnumbered white setlers by a ratio of over 100-1. It was the white settlers who needed the treaty for their own protection if they were going to be able to stay successfully. Maori controlled most trade, coastal shipping and land at the time. It was a direction of the Colonial Office in London that Hobson negotiate a treaty and Maori iwi leaders had requested that the British control, their unruly elements among such as whalers and sealers, as it was their problem to control and not Maori. If Maori had acted then the small European populations may have been in serious trouble. The situation changed over time due to one side abrogating its responsibilities to the treaty and history shows it was not Maori no matter what side it is written from. The French were not likely to beat them into submission either as they were a smaller minority than the British and they too were negotiating arrangements with some iwi. That was another reason why the British sped up the process to get a treaty - the fear that the French might reach an arrangement first especially in the South island. Your last comment indicates you haven't even read the treaty and if you have you don't seem to understand it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 7, 2011 Philocon, you are stating numbers of the day back then. Do you really believe British or French would have stopped coming here at that point. Without the TOW both invaders would have kept coming until Maori would have resisted and then been annihilated by sheer numbers and weaponry. If you dispute this then it is your ignorance that is showing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macduff 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2011 and should be thanking the British for coming here. Imagine what would have happened if the Spanish had landed here, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth. Right on SS, without the british coming here Hone would not be wearing spectacles and his mummy dearest would not be swanning around in designer gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted February 8, 2011 mummy dearest would not be swanning around in designer gear That thing Mrs H was wearing was designed? There were better costumes on show at the Sevens! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macduff 0 Report post Posted February 8, 2011 That thing Mrs H was wearing was designed? There were better costumes on show at the Sevens! good point Props Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1102/S00136/nationals-desperate-attempt-to-pass-foreshore-bill.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1102/S00079/pm-breaking-his-promise-on-the-marine-coastal-area-bill.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted February 9, 2011 Interesting article Alan Opo. Once introduced there will be no going back,i don't think the vast majority of New Zealanders have any idea of future implications this has. This once great country is slowly but surely on the way down with no chance of recovery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Thursday, 10 February 2011, 4:47 pm Press Release: ACT New Zealand Foreshore Bill Fails Prime Minister's Criteria ACT Deputy Leader John Boscawen today called on Prime Minister John Key to stand by his promise in March 2010, that if there was not widespread support for the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, the law that currently governs the foreshore and seabed would remain in place. "During Question Time in Parliament today, I asked Attorney-General Chris Finlayson what evidence he had been able to show the Prime Minister of this 'widespread support' - and he could not point to any," Mr Boscawen said. "Mr Finlayson could not point to any evidence of widespread support for the simple reason that there is none. Rather, we have the complete opposite: widespread opposition throughout the country. "The sheer fact of the matter is that this Bill is finished and should not be allowed to pass. The process surrounding it has been a complete farce, and almost every single submitter - Maori and non-Maori alike - has opposed the Bill in its current form. "Now it has become even clearer that the Bill does not even pass the Prime Minister's own criteria of 'widespread support' as outlined in March last year. "I call on the Prime Minister to keep his word to New Zealand and scrap this Bill - rather than trying to rush this Bill into law now so as to put as much time as possible between its passing and the election," Mr Boscawen said. ENDS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Curious, isn't it, Opo that the average New Zealander would read that statement and think nothing more of it... If Hone Hawawira had said it, there'd be all hell to pay because he'd be 'dividing the Maori party', 'driving a wedge between the Maori party and the National-led coalition' etc etc... And yet Boscawen basically said nothing that Harawira hasn't already said. Exactly why the Government is pushing on with this bill is beyond me - it seems the Nats themselves don't much like it, the Maori party likes it even less and ACT don't want a bar of it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opo 182 Report post Posted February 10, 2011 Properispomenon, could it be Koha coming/going to the two who are hellbent to push this racist Bill thru? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News