I'm pleased that the government has done the decent thing and backed down over its plans to sell Whenuakite station. I'm less pleased with those like John Key who think that it was wrong to do so. This was a case where the government was clearly and blatantly in the wrong, acting in bad faith by selling the land out from under a future Treaty settlement. Admitting it, putting the sale on hold, and promising to review the policy was the least they could do. Arguing, as Key has, that the government should not have "buckled to pressure" is to argue that the government should never admit it is mistaken, even when it clearly is. And arguing that people should not protest about blatantly wrong decisions - again as Key has - is to deny us any role or influence in government decisionmaking and reduce us to an executive dictatorship.
This incident has not only revealed the government's ongoing bad faith in the Treaty settlement process - a terrible mistake given our desire that these settlements last - it has also revealed the National Party's undemocratic, dictatorial urges. Neither is a very pretty sight.
6 comments:
There's no photo op for honesty.
Posted by Unknown : 3/02/2007 08:01:00 AM
I have several questions about this whole debacle.
Firstly, what on god's green earth was a an SOE doing trying to sell land that's subject to a treaty claim? What dumbarse political apointee has rocks for brains on issues like that?
Secondly, why did Labour ignore it's own Maori caucus on this issue?
Thirdly, whay are there no solid guidelines for state owned land that is or is likely to be the subject of a treaty claim?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/02/2007 12:38:00 PM
One sad spectacler was the minister having to spend a question time acting like it was reasonable.
Posted by Lyndon : 3/02/2007 02:30:00 PM
I saw that too, was it Mallard you're referring to, geeze that man's taken some whoppers in the head for this Govt (school closures, stadia, hawking off Treaty contested land). He's just indestructible, lookout, they're going to give him something for this.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/02/2007 03:41:00 PM
I doubt it. Like most politicians, Mallard is inherently abnormal. Like Winston Peters, Judith Tizard and Murray McCully, he is given to flaunting his abnormaity. Probably it affords him the nearest thing to the sensation of pleasure and fulfilment that fully-functioning humans enjoy.
I'm grateful for our political institutions. Without them the likes of Mallard would be roaming the streets.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/03/2007 11:12:00 PM
Yes, I agree.
Posted by Unknown : 3/05/2007 07:56:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).