So why have we (but not iwi) been excluded from a Northland beach? Because of official laxity, it seems

It looks like our indigenous persons can chalk up another triumph in having craven public servants put iwi interests ahead of the wider public’s.

The bureaucrats in this tawdry tale of ineptitude are the tossers at the Overseas Investment Office who are dab hands at rubber-stamping applications for foreigners to buy chunks of the country but not so good at ensuring the conditions are met.

Mind you, they have done our indigenous persons a big favour in this case and will have earned lots of brownie points from their political masters in the Beehive.

Strictly speaking, as a member of the Government, Alf should be applauding them.

He will do so publicly (which may well help our team to keep the Maori Party on side).

But privately…

Institutional racism is bad if it puts you behind bars but it’s good if it gets you into Parliament

The Maori Party is happy to go along with some forms of institutional racism.

“I keep this handy to deal with Winston Peters.”

Indeed, it encourages them and will excoriate critics who suggest they be got rid of.

It all depends on the nature of the outcome and who are the beneficiaries.

Winston Peters spotted a few of the Maori Party’s favoured forms of racism early this year (and for his troubles was denounced by the Maori Party, the greenies and the lefties).

Mr Peters, speaking at Ratana Pa, says his party would never support “separatist” Maori Party policies such as having separate Maori units in prison, the separate Maori social welfare system Whanau Ora and the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag.

Mr Peters says he could not work with the Maori Party as long as it keeps “separatist” policies.

“You can’t have a Crown that’s composed of two different groups – the rest and Maori. Either we’re all together or we’re all going to be separate,” he says.

Maori like to be consulted – but who did Tuhoe consult about their ban on Urewera hunting?

Nowadays he will need Tuhoe permission.

Alf was never satisfied with the assurances and platitudes from Chris Finlayson, our Attorney-General, about public access to the foreshore and seabed when the issue was being argued a few years ago.

He particularly remembers ACT MP David Garrett being given the brush-off at question time in Parliament.

Finlayson was apt to insist he expected  very little of the foreshore and seabed would end up under Maori customary title through the claims process in the legislation that replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

A runanga is not consulting with residents? But when did Maori have to do any consulting?

Aggrieved residents could try moving to this Hamilton…

The good citizens of Hamilton (the one in the Waikato) are learning the hard way what happens when sovereignty is ceded to their indigenous neighbours.

The indigenous neighbours are rejoicing in their sovereignty and flexing their muscle.

As a consequence the Pakeha element of the neighbourhood perhaps has become subservient to the indigenous element.

This explains why (as you will learn here) some residents of Hamilton are whinging about not being consulted.

They don’t understand the conventions that are being established in tune with our Treaty arrangements and the partnership it created.

Under these arrangements governments and local authorities are expected to consult with iwi and other bodies representing our indigenous Treaty partners.

There is no obligation for our indigenous Treaty partners to do any consulting.

So you want to enhance your property? Don’t forget to get the cultural okay from your local iwi

“Of course I’ve got an iwi permit…but only for a wee-wee”

Hard on the heels of his political triumph with the supermarkets, Labour Maori Affairs spokesman Shane Jones will have chalked up more political points with his criticisms of a new rule that will affect Auckland property owners.

The city’s leaders – fasten your seat-belts, folks – are requiring property owners to seek iwi approval to work on sites of cultural and heritage value to Maori.

As if living in Auckland isn’t penalty enough for any individual of sound mind, this is a lulu of an idea.

Jones actually calls it dangerous as well (obviously) as an extra compliance cost.

His views are reported today in the NZ Herald:

Why the court should have ignored the Mongrel Mob bit and focused on his indigenous status

Alas, the court hasn’t recognised the special qualities that are more than skin deep.

Oh dear.

We have some judges who aren’t up with the play about our indigenous citizens requiring special treatment.

A giant blow was struck in favour of these citizens on 20 April 2010, when Pita Sharples announced your Government’s decision to formalise its support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

He said this would help to restore New Zealand’s mana in addressing indigenous rights.

Pita’s media statement included 16 points set out under an “Announcement of New Zealand’s Support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

Golly – we must brace for that word to be stricken from the language of all decent people

Yes, we know what it is – just don’t use the word.

Oh dear. Alf is harbouring an offensive weapon in his storage box of childhood toys and memorabilia, such as his Plunket book.

Among his treasures is a ….

But wait. The moment Alf completes that sentence, he will have committed an offence against modern-day notions of decency and probably against the law.