Mrs Turia said the issue was a "property rights" one and she doubted that ordinary people realised what actually happened when the legislation passed because it was "sold to them" as being a battle over access.It could cause a few headaches. And it might even help get property rights back on the agenda. Here's what I've said before on this, here and here.
The bill could cause a few headaches around Parliament if it is drawn from the ballot because several parties have hinted that they could vote for it.
As Hone Harawira said yesterday (who is unfortunately only concerned himself with property rights when the holders of said rights are brown and indigenous) ACT should support the Bill because they're in favour of property rights, National should support it for similar reasons (not that I'm convinced they are supporters of property rights however, particularly in this area), and given that United's Gordon Copeland is the promoter of a Private Members Bill to place property rights in the Bill of Rights, you would think United might also be supporters if the Bill was drawn to go before the House.
So good for the Maori Party. The debate should at least show everyone where each of the parties stands on property rights, and it might even begin a process of reinstituting legal protection for them.
LINKS: Turia bill aims to repeal foreshore law - NZ Herald
A Brash dismissal of Maori rights - Not PC (April, 2005)
Selling the foreshore - Not PC (April, 206)
Libertarianz submission on Foreshore and Seabed Bill - Libertarianz, July 2004
Support for Property Rights - Not PC (August, 2005)
RELATED: Property Rights, Maori Party, Politics-NZ, Libz, Common Law