Category: Constitutional Reform
It is decision time for the proposed Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) to restore Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed. If you are concerned about this issue I would ask you to forward this newsletter on to as many interested people as you can. We need to make contact with as wide a group as possible if the referendum is to have a fighting chance of success.
How hard can it be to collect enough signatures for a referendum? Well first let’s look at the history of Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) since Parliament passed the legislation to allow for such a democratic process in 1993.
I wonder how you voted in the last binding referendum. I refer of course to the 2008 election in which we the people decided the mix of representatives for the next 3 years. Of course there is another binding referendum (election) later this year but is one every 3 years enough? I think not. Indeed I suggest that it is time that Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) became binding.
In the same week that the Coastal Coalition took a step towards forcing greater accountability on Parliament, by initiating a Citizens Initiated Referendum to repeal the Marine and Coastal Area Act and restore public ownership of the foreshore and seabed, National was trying to change Parliament’s rules to reduce accountability! Treaty Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson is attempting to gerrymander the Parliamentary process to enable a raft of Treaty settlement bills to be fast-tracked into law before the November election. [1]
There are so many untruths and uncertainties about National's highly controversial Marine and Coastal Area Act that the public has been vindicated for massively opposing it. The Act claims to address the uncertain issue of Maori customary rights in 1840, something that nobody alive today has any direct knowledge of.
There appears to be a growing undercurrent of disillusionment with New Zealand’s system of representative democracy. Some are saying our elected members of parliament are turning their backs on voters who put them into office. Instead of representing the public’s views, they are displaying an appalling arrogance by belittling those who dare to voice a contrary opinion.
Last year New Zealanders were informed a new Marine and Coastal Area Bill, scheduled to replace the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act would mean “nothing would change.” Despite this claim, further down the track New Zealanders were presented with a 101 page Marine and Coastal Area Bill which appears to deliver the contrary and places that statement in the political misinformation file. New Zealanders have every right to rationalize if “nothing would change” then why a 101 page change?
Few know much about a shadowy and powerful group of tribal elite that have become a driving force behind the acquisition of public assets. While they first argued for Treaty settlements to put right historic wrongs, they are now successfully claiming assets as an indigenous right. Most people don’t realise how deeply this group has penetrated the Maori and National parties.
In the last five years there has been a shift in the strategies used by iwi in their quest for property rights and constitutional recognition. The shift is from a Treaty of Waitangi justification to a more comprehensive indigenous group rights argument. The group rights argument is used to claim customary rights, and in an extension, to claim that those customary rights are property rights guaranteed under English Common Law.
After nine months of campaigning to raise public awareness about the dangers of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, the National Party is on the brink of passing it into law - while the country is still in mourning over the shocking Canterbury earthquake. According to Parliament’s Order Paper, National intends pushing ahead with what has been called the most controversial bill in modern times, on Tuesday.
Loading ...
