Here, he explores the possibilities, both a far cry from Key's 'elegant solution'.
"One option is a part share in the SOEs. Which of course blows the government's case for sale out of the water. Another is the enactment of similar clauses to the existing sections 27 - 27D, which protect Māori interests in transferred land, and allow for the Waitangi Tribunal to order its return. That too would blow the government's case for sale out of the water; either it would have to accept lower prices to reflect its uncertain title, or it would have to indemnify purchasers against "Treaty risk" (or both). Either way, suddenly privatisation looks like an even worse deal..."
Ouch!
6 comments:
You can either take Idiot/Savants word for it or one of the top constitutional lawyers word at http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=4097
An alternative view that holds a bit more water.
Key's only dilemma is how to manage any potential fall out from the Maori Party. All the finding something elegant really means is arranging a rat that is most easily digested for the Maori Party.
Paranormal
Nice way to treat your coalition partner - greasing the rat so they don't choke on it. More importantly, how's that for a way to behave toward our indigenous peoples - Key's about to sell of a chunk of their Treaty rights and is intent on doing so, despite obvious opposition from Tangata Whenua.
That's some sick behaviour right there!
Actually sad to say Robert I would love the Maoris to stop this traitorous craziness of selling our assests...But legally the Waitangi Tribunal decisions are NOT binding all they can do is recommend to Govt this or that action should happen etc.......
In reality though in the past in order to stop a negative political backlash most wise Govts have abided by the tribunal recommendations ...
But as we know Keys an co are so Bl...dy arrogant they will and can legally simply ignore the tribunal and carry on selling yours mine and other NZers birthright,
Why can they because this countries voting community treacherously gave them the mandate to do so at the election last year
The argument that National doesn't have any such mandate is very strong, Pauline. I'd not be giving it any air at all. Public opinion is clearly against Key's greedy, short-sighted asset sale plans, despite the narrow win they gave National at the election. There was more than one issue to vote for or against and the claim that they are mandated on this issue is pure Tory BS :-)
"...narrow win....", Rg. I seem to remember whoever was second was some distance behind.
The disparate band on the left who appear unable to agree on much - except to say no to sensible policy - may have cobbled together enough to look close.
Fred - without the Maori Party, Key will have a one-seat majority.
One seat!!!
Naturally, I would like to see the Maori Party show some tuaraa and make a hikoi out of Key's camp, for the sake of their mana and that of all Maori, but hubris will probably ensure that they stay.
As for the disparate left, I know there are many in National who quite rightly do not support asset sales. Hamish English, for example. My letter to the editor (coming to a newspaper near me) draws attention to the chasm and to Hamish's wise assessment of National's misake.
Post a Comment