Colin Craig- Another moment of clarity on “Maori” water rights

From a Conservative Party press release-

“The idea of allocating special ownership rights to any person or group is unwise. As New Zealanders we are tired of the continual litigation and bargaining that promotes and encourages division.”

Yes we are..!!!

This is what the National Party should have been saying years ago.

And it is important to recognise that even when Craig’s press release has been prompted by the water rights debate, this is a statement that has wide ranging political and legal impact in other areas where legal title is important.

For example, it can also be applied to land.

There should only be one title to land, and to pretend that others have rights to the same land through any other title (such as “customary” title) is completely wrong.

Here is a practical example of why it is wrong-

An oil exploration company wants to drill on a farmer’s property. So the company negotiates with that farmer to enter his property and drill their well.

Simple right? Except it does not work that way. Present NZ law requires an extension to that process.

Along comes a group of people of no special distinction other than claiming to be of a certain race, and who claim to be the “customary owners” of that land, and force the exploration company to jump through all kinds of hoops before they will also give their permission for the company to enter the property.

They can actually legally challenge any agreement that the farmer may already have with the company. Just like a state sanctioned Mafia.

Craig’s statement suggests that the Conservative Party would require wide changes to policy from the National Party cowards if they wanted him as a coalition partner.

No wonder the National Party and the rest of the left are so intent on destroying Colin Craig, perhaps the only force in NZ politics capable of inserting some steel into the jellyified spines of John Key and his group of progressive impostors.

Thanks to Crusader Rabbit and The Gantt Guy for bringing this to my attention.

15 thoughts on “Colin Craig- Another moment of clarity on “Maori” water rights

  1. I’m not a member of the Conservative Party, but the more I hear from them, and the more fear they instill into the political left, the more I’m tempted to join. Their platform seems to be based a couple of attributes sadly lacking from the rest of the political sphere: principles and common sense. Common sense on “asset sales”. Common sense on property rights. Common sense on the left’s cause-du-jour “gay” “marriage”.

    I saw the Helensville flyer that Farrar got so upset about (because it said the Quisling Key is too gay for Helensville). It was well-presented and well-written. Like much of their material. They do need to professionalise a bit more between now and 2014, though. The press release I saw on Facebook, for example (the one I copied into my CR post) still isn’t on their website. And as I said the other day, they need to find a “marquee” candidate to stand in a winnable electorate.


  2. B2 – The Conservative party needs to promote itself as a viable and durable option, and avoid being labeled ‘extreme’ by the usual chorus from the left. Their press releases seem to have become much more professional lately, which I think is a good thing, and probably will attract many more members than inflammatory rhetoric. ; )


  3. I think the Conservative party has good policies, certainly far superior than the tired, progressive major parties. The Greens are
    currently polling at around 14%, so there has to be a foil for them on the right. I would join the Conservatives, but they seem to
    trend towards previous christian parties and I don’t believe religion and politics work well together. I respect peoples religious
    beliefs, but I have been a long term agnostic, even though I was brought up in an religious environment.


  4. There is a wide expanse of sea between pap , see ‘unwise’, effective language and inflammatory rhetoric.
    ‘Unwise’ is govt department language and makes the risible ‘we own the water’ claims sound like something that might be considered ‘wise’ in another context, in the fullness of time , after lengthy consideration, having exhaustively consult with the stakeholders…… ; )

    Still, as long as you’re not fucking with that carpetbagger Banks, there’s hope.


  5. Re: “No -one who isn’t a Democrat has ever forensically examined the originals, as opposed to merely viewing the purported originals, to my knowledge.”

    When the Republican officials of a state say that there is a birth certificate for a Democrat president in the files and that the facts on it are the same as those that the Democrat president published, that is pretty damn good evidence.

    But that is not all. There is also the Index Data file, which shows that there is a birth certificate for Obama on file in Hawaii.

    But that is not all.

    There is also the fact that the DOH of Hawaii sent birth notices to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    We know from (1) the DOH; (2) the newspaper; and (3) the name of the section of the newspaper, which was Health Bureau Statistics—-that only the Department of Health of Hawaii sent out those birth notices to the newspapers in 1961.

    We know from the DOH that in 1961 the DOH only sent out those records for the children that it had issued birth certificates to. And we know from both the DOH and from the Hawaii laws that in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to issue a birth certificate to a child who was not born in Hawaii.

    In short, in Hawaii in 1961, a birth notice in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers, which Obama has, is proof that confirms his birth certificate that he was born IN HAWAII.

    This is merely confirming evidence to; (1) the birth certificate itself; (2) the confirmation of its existence and the accuracy of the facts on it by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, (3) the Index Data file; (4) a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and of writing home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in the USA of a child to a woman, also named Stanley.

    AND, of course, there is not a shred of evidence that Obama’s mother traveled outside of the USA in 1961—which would have been very rare for a woman late in pregnancy in those days, and the government of Kenya has eliminated birthers’ claim that Obama was born there in an investigation. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and yet you and other birthers still believe that there was a chance that the officials are lying and the birth notices too and that Obama was born outside of the USA. No wonder that Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers crazy.


  6. “So he won’t mind approving the release of all the original docs to independent forensic doc examiners, will he.”


  7. Re: “So he won’t mind approving the release of all the original docs to independent forensic doc examiners, will he.”

    The answer to that is that NO independent forensic document examiner has asked to see it. Why they haven’t I do not know, but they haven’t.

    Birther “experts”—who have not shown that they are really experts and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial—have made claims about the image of Obama’s birth certificate. But they ALSO have not asked to see the physical copy of the birth certificate, the one with the seal on the back—where it is supposed to be—the one that Obama had passed around in the White House press room.

    Hawaii has stated that it sent the birth certificates to Obama, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file and that the facts on it match those on the birth certificate in the files, and there were birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961.

    Recently the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm other facts on his published birth certificate. Hawaii did, and the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona accepted it as evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.

    Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii. Obama’s father was studying in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them went from Hawaii to any other country in 1961—and certainly not to Kenya, where the Kenyan government said that it checked on the “born in Kenya” claim and found that it was false. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and pregnant women rarely traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and yet you and other birthers apparently think that there could be a chance that Obama was born outside of the USA and that the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data, and the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961—-are all lying about that fact.


  8. I think the theory about Obama’s real father being Frank Marshall Davis – the Chicago communist socialite and author is more believable than him being born in Kenya


  9. I am not paid at all. Are you being paid?

    Regardless of whether your are or I am (and I’m not), what counts are the facts, and the facts show that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. The birth certificate and the officials of both parties and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers in 1961 all show that Obama was born in Hawaii. The government of Kenya and Obama’s Kenyan relatives say that he was not born in Kenya.

    Re Davis being Obama’s father. If you want to vote against Obama because you think that his father was Davis, or if you think that his father was the Angel Gabriel, go right ahead. Others may vote against Romney because they think that his father was Harpo Marx or the Washington Monument. Both the Davis-was-real-father theory and the Harpo-Marx-was-real-father theory have precisely as much evidence behind them—-no evidence at all.


  10. Sinclair Davidson has it crystal.

    Worth pasting….

    “….. the election will be about whether the United States is any longer the country it once was, a country of free markets and a free people. A United States that can elect Barack Obama once is on the edge of a precipice. To elect him for the second time knowing everything we now know from his first four years as president means the US has gone over the edge.

    The march through the institutions that began in the 1960s will have been finally completed. The ethos of an America that will not only be free itself but ensure whatever is necessary to maintain freedom in as much of the world as can be retrieved will have gone. We, in our till now free societies, will be largely on our own with no major power to shield us from totalitarian winds of every kind and gusting from all directions.

    Barack Obama is a socialist of the most radical leftist kind. His mentors, just to name the three most prominent, were Frank Marshall, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers. That the vast majority of the population has no idea who these people are, or the role they played in Obama’s life, is in turn a consequence of the deep leftward turn of the American media forging ahead in step with the social sciences division of the major educational institutions of the United States. The commanding heights of the intellectual world have been taken over by the left and they have created an environment all but impossible to break through. It is only common sense in combination with the disastrous outcomes that leftist policies inevitably lead to that creates the hope that trends now in place can be turned round and reversed. The institutional structure of the United States permits change driven from below if it becomes widely understood that change is necessary. That is the story of this election. Will the American people see the danger in time or will they continue in the direction of the likely ruin that a second Obama administration would bring?’


Comments are closed.