If as you correctly point out that in common law aboriginal title has precedence before all other considerations, even presumably Acts of Parliament, the Courts will eventually have no other choice than to declare all of NZ, wet or dry, as being in full freehold title to Maori.

Well, no, for a few reasons. For one thing, aboriginal title isn’t the same as freehold title, and (I believe, though IANAL) the transfer of one to another would require some substantial legal or — more controversially — legislative contortion.

For another thing, land held in aboriginal title can be alienated, and most of it already is — by both legitimate and illegitimate means, because ‘alienation’ isn’t required to be legitimate or legal in the same way ‘sale and purchase’ is. So land which can be proven to have been alienated isn’t liable to be declared the possession of tangata whenua — even thouogh that might be a historically just outcome in a very strict sense. That also isn’t what tangata whenua are seeking, which goes to my point above about trading off a strong but risky and divisive claim against a weaker but more certain and durable claim.

L

or something.

If as you correctly point out that in common law aboriginal title has precedence before all other considerations, even presumably Acts of Parliament, the Courts will eventually have no other choice than to declare all of NZ, wet or dry, as being in full freehold title to Maori.

As you rightly say, it’s got to be about more than just giving Maori their day in Court.

Repealing the law does not return the law to the state it was.

If you repeal the law and replace it with nothing then Maori don’t get to go to Court, and they don’t get to claim any of the foreshore etc. under the Ngati Apa case. That’s not how repeal works.

Matthew Hooton seems to think that more commercial development of our coastline will improve our standard of living. I would vehemently argue the oppsitie. Economic development is of course essential, but need not be at odds with preserving the natural environemnt. In fact, given the premium placed on ‘nature tourism’, in the future, it will arguably be worth a lot more to the New Zealand economy if it stays ‘undeveloped’.

Mr Hooton, having lived and worked in seven different countries, I can safely say our qaulity of life is unrivalled. It comes not from being an economic powerhouse, but instead from the fact that we enjoy free, unfettered access to our bountiful natural resources. I gladly forgo earning a higher salary in Europe for this very reason.

I actually agree with Mr Hooton that “beach access’ is a red herring in this argument. But he unwittingly highlights the real concern in the same paragraph: a repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, combined with other Government policies and legislation still to come, leaves the New Zealand coastline vulnerable to rampant development.

This WOULD see the deteriation of our standard of living which Mr Hooton fears.

And I have no doubt that some iwi would block or restrict access to some beaches, as with other privately-owned sections of the foreshore and seabed.

It would simply be part of the new tapestry of life in New Zealand going forward. I can’t imagine National’s core vote accepting that, however.

I think he may just have left the door wide open for the return of Winston Peters and NZ First.

when you get angry, you go red; when you get jealous, you go green; when you get sad, you go blue; if you’re a coward, you’re yellow; if you’re a communist, you’re a pinko – and you have the cheek to call us “coloured”

I accept that there are reasonable limits to public use and ownership, such as ports and infrastructure.

As I said before, Hooten, what have you got against white people getting to use the beach? And would you see it as acceptable for our National Parks to be handed to iwi?

edit: Millsy, I think that’s the first time in my life anyone has called me PC!

[lprent: PC? IrishBill? That really really stretches the definition. I think the Genghis Khan (with his interesting habits of educating cities that resisted) would also fit in any definition of PC that Irish also fitted into. He likes biting the heads off trolls. ]