Sunday, December 19, 2010

Frank Newman: News flash! Foreshore and seabed protest march

TVNZ reports; “Anger over Maori claims on the seabed and foreshore has brought hundreds of people onto the streets of Nelson. The march was organised by the government's political ally United Future party which believes the issue could divide the country. Those involved said they fear becoming second class citizens if claims to the foreshore are successful.

“If we create rights for some New Zealanders and not others, then we start down a very sure and slippery slope to anarchy,"
says leader Peter Dunne.

That story was dated July 28, 2003,
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/209059/2556418/article.html


It’s now 2010: the issue is the same, but Mr Dunne’s position appears to have reversed. He is now supporting National’s foreshore and seabed bill that will indeed “create rights for some citizens and not others”.

Why the flip-flop? Is it because he has genuinely reversed the strong position he held in 2003? Or is it he wants to keep in sweet with National to enhance his prospects for re-election in the northwest Wellington electorate of Ohariu, a seat he holds at National’s pleasure? Or is he bound by the coalition agreement he has with National?


In fact, there is nothing in the agreement that requires Peter Dunne to support National on anything but issues of confidence and supply. (The agreement can be seen on http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/successes/).

If Mr Dunne has had a “conversion” type experience along the winding political path that has seen him in coalition with both Labour and National, then I am sure there is genuine public interest in knowing what that experience was.


With the National / Maori sovereignty Party majority for the Bill now on a knife edge, the spotlight should turn on individuals like Mr Dunne to explain why they are supporting a Bill the public don’t want. The response would be especially interesting in Mr Dunne’s case given he is now supporting the very things he railed against in 2003.

Peter Dunne’s email address is:
mailto:peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

We really shouldn't be surprised at turncoat actions by politicians should we?. It is most unlikely Dunne's reversal is anything other than having a dollar each way on the bill and his future.
Passing of this bill will let the genie out of the bottle and almost guarantee anarchy on a scale difficult to imagine in this country.
Ray

Anonymous said...

Im disgusted at Dunn, Finlayson, and Key for what is happening over this bill, Maori own the beaches now just like every other person, by virtue of being a New Zealander. Im sick and tired of Maori commitees for this, having to seek their approval for this or that, the treaty of Waitangi clearly states the we shall live under one law. Why do Maori have to have the own version of everything - are they ashamed to be new Zealanders. Its quite surprising actually with all the child abuse, drug and alchohol abuse thats alive and well in that culture, I would be the last culture in the world that I wouls want to be associated with. It may do their culture a world of good to actually embrace some Pakeha values, instead of the rest of us (the vast majority) having theirs forced on us, and having to foot the bill to boot!

Keith Smith said...

Peter Dunne please reply with a logical statement on why you support National's proposed Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I await your reply eagerly as normally you are a forthright and erudite person.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Dunne and Smith,
I am wondering what where you doing in Nelson at the time you where so against Maori Decendants claiming the coast, while now suddenly you don't give a toss.
There is not any person in this country capable of calling him or herself Maori, due to inter-breeding with people of the tribe "Te Pakeha".
So guys, be fair to your voters and do what you thought in 2003 what was right. Vote against your bosses, Key and Finlayson.
Peter
Napier

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Mr Dunne will support this bill as it is a better bill than what we have now (although not perfect). What's wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

Peter Dunne is a career politician, I'm convinced that all his actions, speeches etc., are designed to ensure that he doesn't lose 'his job'.

Anonymous said...

Why is that maori feel the need to try to control this country? Are we not all New Zealanders? I think it's time that the New Zealand public stopped sitting back and trying not to offend anyone by agreeing to everything that has the "Maori" stamp on it, and stand up for the rights of all New Zealanders. Just for argument's sake, maybe we should form a Pakeha party and trample on the rights of anyone who isn't white. Maybe we could have white only schools, to run parallel with the Kohanga reo.
Maybe we could run a test and start charging maori to access beaches, and take shellfish for a while. How well would that be recieved?
We all have equal right to the foreshore and seabed in this country. Why hand over ownership to a few, just because they complain the loudest?

Anonymous said...

DearMe Dunn,

Please do not support Nationals passing the coastal bill.

Tell National where to get off.

Cheers Eugene

Anonymous said...

There is sufficient indignation being expressed concerning this bill to, in itself, warrant a full and open public debate on its content and its ramifications. There is no moral or ethical objection to all New Zealanders have free and unfettered access to all the coastline. Indeed it is a chartered and culturally ingrained expectation in European communities that the foreshore has open access for all people and no one has the right to deny this. Our elected parliamentary representatives have the duty to explain legislation of this type to the satisfaction of the nationhood. The silence of the foreshore debate (compared for instance with the worthless debate of the anti-smacking bill) has heightened suspicions that it will be to the detriment of non-Maori New Zealanders. The governmental shift towards the exclusivity of Maoridom and their preferential treatment is this and other matters is abhorrent to the fairmindness of Kiwi. We all know the consequence will be "enough is never enough" and soon all non-Maori in this country will be disinherited of their birthright as citizens. The coalition is not racially driven despite the slur campaigns that eminate whether they want to discuss this issue. My ancestry in this country goes back to 1860 and I feel that gives me sufficient right to be heard as much as anyone. This Act is devisive and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It will not appease the money-hungry intentions of elite iwi coorporations, in fact it will only serve to whet the appetite for more activity under a phoney guise of cultural equity and restitution. Previous major concessions have been made and are quickly forgotten for the convenience of making further claims. Personally I cannot (and will not) live in a country where my basic freedoms are slowly and relentlessly eroded and nor will I vote for any government that legislates to remove them.

Anonymous said...

Why do we continue to pander to a minority?? I thought that maori's were taught to respect their elders? Why, then, do they have a problem respecting the decisions and agreements that were made be their ancestors? Are they not elder's??

Don't give away our beaches keep them for everyone to enjoy for generations to come.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who was born here, no matter when their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, has sufficient right to express their outrage. Nationality is not based on how far back you can trace your lineage, but where you heart and your loyalty is. Under the eyes of the law, birth and residency status should be the only thing that matters. If that is not true, then I'd better claim back some of my ancestors' land in Scotland taken from them during the Clearances, and the property seized from my Jewish forbears under the Nazis, as well as claiming compensation for emotional distress and loss of culture! Yeah right.

Anonymous said...

Im disgusted at what is happening and being proposed over this bill. Key, Findlayson and anyone who support this bill should step down. Maori own the beaches now just like every other person, by virtue of being a New Zealander. Im sick and tired of Maori commitees for this, having to seek their approval for this or that, they are 'Kiwis' just like the rest of us and it is time that point is aired strongly to all these 'bludgers' who use our Parliament to this end. The Treaty of Waitangi clearly states the we shall live under one law. Why do Maori have to have the own version of everything - are they ashamed to be new Zealanders. Our Judiciary system is a joke and should be more accountable for the pathetic sentences dished out. If Key continues to follow this line he and those that support it MUST GO.

Anonymous said...

There is not one full-blooded Maori alive in NZ so why should these brown Pakeha have rights that other Pakeha do not?

Anonymous said...

This country has certainly gone to the Dogs! With turncoat politicians, and a PM not keeping to his statements. My partner is Maori,and this bill is RACIST...
CERTAINLY will not be voting National, EVER AGAIN.
Will surely have been BETRAYED if this bill goes through. (We are all KIWIS)

Anonymous said...

I would like to live as a free New Zealander, and be afforded all the rights and privledges that all other New Zealanders enjoy. I do not want to live in a separatist society where laws are passed to benefit minority populations. I am a 6th generation New Zealander, this is my home country, I didn't just arrive off the boat from England for politicians and a sector of the population to treat me like a nationless immigrant. I support equality for all and that includes access, use, and enjoyment of the New Zealand coast. Perhaps its about time New Zealand drafted its own Constitution where no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of colour, culture, religion, ancestry, etc.

Anonymous said...

Won't be voting for John any more. Don't want most of those other parties either. I will vote for the party that ticks the boxes for me. Cullen was correct in calling John a liar, not that Cullen is any better. There he was sitting as one of Helen's yes'mam lapdogs without the balls to stand to her. So ... they are both a waste of space.