Foreshore review dead-on

Written By: - Date published: 3:16 pm, July 1st, 2009 - 105 comments
Categories: human rights, racism - Tags:

The Foreshore and Seabed review panel have reported back with the recommendation that the law be scrapped and people be allowed to attempt to prove ownership rights over the foreshore and seabed in court as they can with any other land.

Good.

Ever since the Government issued a proclamation in 1872 to stop the Native Land Court which had been granting title to blocks of the foreshore in the Firth of Thames to iwi wanting to protect their fisheries and get slice of the gold mining action*, politicians have attempted to satisfy the rednecks by legislating away Maori property rights to the foreshore and seabed.

Let’s hope that’s done with and Maori can now have the same opportunity that anyone else would have to attempt to prove title in court.

105 comments on “Foreshore review dead-on”

  1. Smokie 1

    The Foreshore and Seabed legislation would’ve been fine, if only they’d legislated away EVERYONE’s private property rights.

    • Zetetic 1.1

      we’re a wee way from that point, smokie.

      As long as its equal either way. Better than what we’ve had.

  2. Pat 2

    Looks like that’s an aborted attempt at a mea culpa from Eddie. Don’t worry, we know what you were trying to say but couldn’t bring yourself to say it.

    Congratulations to Tariana Turia for standing by her principles.

    • Daveo 2.1

      I’m pretty sure he’s always been against the foreshore and seabed act. There’s always been a lively debate on this issue on the left. What side were you on back in 2004 Pat? Iwi/Kiwi by chance?

    • Eddie 2.2

      I opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act from the start because it was a suck up to the rednecks. No mea cupla on my part.

      National opposed it because they didn’t like that there was a mechanism for Maori to claim some level of rights over the f&s in it.

      • Zetetic 2.2.1

        The Foreshore and Seabed Act wasn’t racist enough for the Tories like Pat. On the Right, only Act stood for equality.

        Quietly forgotten now. Of course.

      • Tim Ellis 2.2.2

        Eddie, you seem to have a problem with your timeframe. Labour supporters often claim that it was a suck up to rednecks, but the timeframe disproves this claim as a lie.

        Michael Cullen announced the legislation just a couple of days after the court judgement, sayin gthat he would legislate to overturn the judgement and remove the right of iwi to have the issue tested in Court.

        Don Brash’s Orewa speech was many months after, and was months after the hikoi.

        The rednecks suck-up argument is a convenient excuse, but it isn’t a truthful one.

        • Eddie 2.2.2.1

          Tim. you’re just showing the problem with relaying on Farrar for your facts.

          Cullen did announce an intention to legislate to settle the issue in legislation rather than have it evolve ad hoc in the courts. It was only after Don Brash’s racist Owera speech turned the polls by 15% that Labour decided it couldn’t just legislate along the lines of the court decision.

          It was in the context of the National’s race-baiting (that carried right on to Iwi/Kiwi – and you voted for that, didn’t you Tim) that Labour did its about face because it made a decision that this wasn’t an issue to die in a ditch over (not that I ever supported what they did).

          • Tim Ellis 2.2.2.1.1

            Eddie, I voted Labour in 2002. I know you are struggling with your arguments on this issue, but honestly it is just cowardly for you to hide behind your anonymity and accuse me of race-baiting.

            Labour announced within days of the decision on June 19, 2003, that they would legislate away the Court decision. Don Brash’s speech at Orewa wasn’t until January 2004.

            Labour was already intent on writing the legislation immediately after the court decision. Nice try at blaming Don Brash for it, but it isn’t truthful and it doesn’t wash.

            • Eddie 2.2.2.1.1.1

              “Labour announced within days of the decision on June 19, 2003, that they would legislate away the Court decision”

              No they announced an intention to legislate. Not an intention to take away the right to obtain title via court action. That came later in reaction to National’s race-baiting.

              So, you voted for Iwi/Kiwi in 2005 then? Did it turn you? Or did you just turn a blind eye to the fact you were supporting a racist party because you wanted a tax cut?

            • felix 2.2.2.1.1.2

              Tim, don’t drag up the old “you’re anonymous and I’m not” line of bullshit again. As we’ve discussed before, you’re just as anonymous as anyone else here and you’d probably like to keep it that way.

            • Tim Ellis 2.2.2.1.1.3

              So, you voted for Iwi/Kiwi in 2005 then? Did it turn you? Or did you just turn a blind eye to the fact you were supporting a racist party because you wanted a tax cut?

              Eddie, coming from a person who supported a party that willingly went into coalition with, and then proceeded to protect the worst race-baiter and bigot in the recent history of New Zealand politics, that is a new low.

              Tim, don’t drag up the old “you’re anonymous and I’m not’ line of bullshit again. As we’ve discussed before, you’re just as anonymous as anyone else here and you’d probably like to keep it that way.

              Wrong, felix. I use my real name on here. I’m not using a “you’re anonymous and I’m not” line. If Eddie wants to get personal and impugn my motives, then he should at least have the courage not to do it from a position of anonymity.

            • felix 2.2.2.1.1.4

              Tim you terminal dullard we’ve been over this many times.

              If no-one knows who you are then whether you use your real name is neither here nor there.

              You’re as anonymous as anyone else here, much less so than some.

              And before you spin this into an attack on your privacy I’m not suggesting that you identify yourself either.

              I’m simply pointing out that it’s extremely hypocritical to accuse anyone here of being anonymous when by every meaningful measure you are too.

              And that you do it whenever you’re floundering. That’s what I find funny.

            • Tim Ellis 2.2.2.1.1.5

              Felix you will just have to take my word for it that I use my real name, and I have no reason not to.

            • felix 2.2.2.1.1.6

              Still irrelevant, Tim – as explained very simply above.

              Come on Tim, we all know you’re not as thick as you’re pretending to be.

        • Daveo 2.2.2.2

          National had also been running “beaches for Kiwis” billboards as far back as when English was leader. You remember those don’t you Tim? The redneck backlash had begun, it just took the disgusting and racist Orewa speech to give it a political vehicle and frighten the government into giving in to the rednecks.

          By the way Tim, where were you at the time of the Orewa speech?

          • Tim Ellis 2.2.2.2.1

            Except your timeframe doesn’t stack up Daveo. Helen Clark announced she was going to legislate against the court decision just a couple of days after the high court decision. The government then set up a review and consultation document, which reported back at the end of 2003, with options that the government adopted. The Orewa speech wasn’t until the end of January 2004.

            I don’t remember where I was at the time of the Orewa Speech, Daveo. It was mid January, so I suspect I was probably on holiday.

      • Helen 2.2.3

        [looks like she’s been banned but it’s worth remembering this dark face of the NZ right exists so I’ll let this one through]

        suck up to the rednecks.

        It’s often difficult for reasonable people to interpret the buzzwords used by those that attend the “political education” courses offered by the Labour Party Politburo.

        Here’s a quick translation guide to make The Standard a little more understandable to reasonable people.

        “Rednecks” – Kiwis.

        “The Rich” – The employed and the law-abiding.

        “The Workers” – Welfare beneficiaries and career criminals.

        “Legitimate acts of resistance against the colonial oppressors and the bourgeois class-enemies by the heroes of the oppressed proletariat, yearning to break free” – Violent crime.

        “Crime” – Caucasians driving European cars in excess of the speed limit.

        “Social Justice” – Taking from the overburdened in order to give to the undeserving.

  3. Nick 3

    Yes, good news. It’s not a difficult issue conceptually, it only remains so politically.

  4. Tigger 4

    Great, so how will National keep the rednecks happy during the inevitable discussion over how to proceed? The proposals are all laced with mines.

    Meanwhile, my husband wants to know how soon he can start charging white people to use the beach…

  5. Nick 5

    As heard on Danny Watson’s show this afternoon (he read this text out he received):

    “No nigger is going to stop me going to the beach you nigger lover”.

    Watson was saying the report was good news etc.

  6. How Key handles this issue will be fascinating. Welcome to real politic where you actually have to make a decision and live with it.

    Either he repeals and enrages his wingnut fans or he doesn’t and the agreement with the Maori Party will then surely fail. I do not see much room in the middle of this to manoeuvre in.

    I do not see it as simply as most. The FSA did allow for an application to the High Court for recognition of an existing right. If it was recognised then there was a mechanism to either create a reserve or to seek compensation. Contrary to what some commentators have said court access was preserved although modified.

    The right to seek a “title” was taken away. I had always thought that “title” was a particularly european concept and did not think this was such a bad thing. The trouble with titles is that they can be transferred and rights alienated.

    I appreciate this is somewhat nuanced view and not in keeping with the rights/no rights arguments but I never saw the issue as simple as the debate that ranged presented it to be.

    Anyway it is now Key’s baby. Best of British to him, he will need it.

    • Maynard J 6.1

      “How Key handles this issue will be fascinating.”

      Agreed. You know, I think this will be one of Key’s strengths, a tough negotiation and balancing act, with no real ideology behind him. As long as Hide keeps well away he may just come up smelling of roses – maybe that is why he is letting Hide do Auckland, as a payoff for keeping well away from this minefield.

    • mike 6.2

      “Either he repeals and enrages his wingnut fans or he doesn’t and the agreement with the Maori Party will then surely fail”

      Poor mickey doesn’t quite get how much of a winner this is for JK and the Nats.

      Mr Pragmatic will be at his best now the emotion is gone out of this this (eg: labour gone) MP and Nats will come up with an agreement cementing beach access and customary rights – deal done + JK looks the consummate mediator yet again (anti-smacking) and we move onto 2011 with the MP happy and the hapless labour party scrambling for cover.

  7. Red Rosa 7

    The National Party allowing Maori freehold title to the foreshore and seabed? No worries. Tenure review gave South Island runholders freehold title to valuable lakeshore frontage for a pittance.

    And presumably foreshore titles would be just as valuable.

    So where is the problem?

    But somehow I think JK will not use this as precedent!

    Well said MS, it is a real minefield for Key.

  8. ak 8

    …and the govt hopes to make an initial response by late August

    Ya gotta laugh….hot kumara, anyone? Stick it on the shelf with the broadband and the bike track, Mike, something’ll turn up, trust me……

  9. vto 9

    Well that seems unsurprising. And good. That law was a complete steamroll if ever there was one. It should go to court and be tested.

    But the outcome of such a court determination would not of course also be the answer to the bigger question of whether that part of our fair land concerned should be held in that way.

    There are two issues which are quite similar but quite separate. And often muddled.

  10. Tim Ellis 10

    Poor form by the Maori Party, for making this review a core issue for its support in government with National. Not very mana-enhancing to get the foreshore and seabed issue resolved, now, is it?

    Oh hang on… that’s Labour’s line…

    Looks like the Maori Party are managing to achieve for Maori what Labour took away. If they can achieve this with a National government, then it looks like there will be a permanent break with Maori voters and the Labour Party.

    • gobsmacked 10.1

      Resolved?

      It’s just getting started. But of course Tim, you’re not really interested in the actual issue at all, are you?

      • Tim Ellis 10.1.1

        Yes I am interested in the actual issue gobsmacked. Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation in 2003 and 2004 was a major point of grievance for many Maori. It alienated Maori from the Labour Party, I believe permanently. The time since then, and in particular Labour referring to the Maori Party as the “last cab off the rank” and favouring a coalition with Winston Peters, the biggest race-baiter of modern politics, ahead of the Maori party showed Labour’s true colours.

        John Key is a pragmatist. I think New Zealanders have moved on from the divisive debates of 2003-2005, which were in a large part fuelled by Labour’s decision on the foreshore and seabed legislation. It will be great to have a solution that is acceptable to all parties.

        There were a number of left wing commentators, including some writers on this blog, who said that a deal between the Maori Party and National would not last. Mr Pierson said that the redneck element in the National Party wouldn’t allow a deal with the Maori Party. Mr Trotter claimed that conservative National voters would not stomach any deal with the Maori Party.

        How wrong they all were.

        Labour belatedly wants to come to the table on this, but they don’t seem to have learned the lesson not to patronise the Maori Party and Maori voters. The Maori Party has shown just how astute it is, and seems to be delivering exactly what its voters want.

        • gobsmacked 10.1.1.1

          Tim

          Why do you do this?

          Is it a) because you’re stupid (I don’t think so), or b) because you think we’re stupid (you’re wrong), or … c) because you believe that online debates are just a matter of repeating the same lies as often as possible, and “winning” because people eventually get bored and/or have lives? I reckon it’s c). So sad.

          Who did Maori vote for at the last election? You know the answer, and you know we know, and we can all play the Google game, so why lie about it?

          • Tim Ellis 10.1.1.1.1

            Maori voted for Maori Party MPs in their electorate vote in large numbers gs. I don’t see how the 2008 election can be seen as a win for Labour in the Maori seats. Have you got some other interpretation gs?

            Which part, specifically, of what I wrote above do you have a problem with?

            • gobsmacked 10.1.1.1.1.1

              Here are the results of the last election.

              At the bottom of the page are the Maori electorates.

              http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/electorateindex.html

              You can check each one. Maori voted Labour with their party vote, ahead of the Maori Party, and miles ahead of National. It’s a simple fact.

              Therefore, Tim’s statement that Maori are “alienated from the Labour Party” is demonstrably, entirely false.

              But you know that, and we know you know that. So I’m done with wasting my time on somebody who has no interest in good faith debate. Find some other sucker to lie to.

            • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1.1.2

              Which part, specifically, of what I wrote above do you have a problem with?

              Seeing you asked.

              Yes I am interested in the actual issue gobsmacked.

              Good, I’d like to hear your views on it, and how they have evloved, if they have.

              Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation in 2003 and 2004 was a major point of grievance for many Maori. It alienated Maori from the Labour Party, I believe permanently. The time since then, and in particular Labour referring to the Maori Party as the “last cab off the rank’ and favouring a coalition with Winston Peters, the biggest race-baiter of modern politics, ahead of the Maori party showed Labour’s true colours.

              Oh. That’s not the issue, that’s a bunch of partisan horse shit.

              Obviously Labour’s legislation was a point of grievance. Not so much that Labour couldn’t get 70,000 list votes in 08 though. Perhaps they remember iwi/kiwi. Can you explain that billboard for me Tim? I’ve asked many a Nat, and yet to get an answer. It somehow fitted in with ‘mainstream’.

              What was Nationals policy about the f&s that Labour’s was the alternative to Tim? What was the policy on this issue of the party that you voted for? I’m sure you’ll be keen to relate, seeing your interest in the issue. Tell us about your thought processes over that time. Were you on any hikoi? What did you think about those that were?

              Do you think Brash would have refused a deal with WP? Do you think Brash was not a race baiter? He himself has expressed his regrets about it if I recall.

              Just so you don’t get confused by all those questions, I guess I can some them up by asking one last one that I’d like to hear the answer to, and you can use the above as a guide to the sorts of issues invloved.

              Seeing you are interested in this issue, what was National’s policy on it at the time, did you vote for it, and why do you think they changed, if they have?

          • felix 10.1.1.1.2

            Timmy writes for the lurkers. He repeats himself when he knows he’s wrong because he doesn’t care whether his arguments are reasonable.

            His goal is to fill the threads with national party talking points for the consumption of the casual readers.

            He assumes that casual readers aren’t going to follow a thread from start to finish so he doesn’t really care how inconsistent his comments are.

            In short he’s not really debating with you at all – he’s just spamming the threads.

            And yeah, it’s pretty sad.

            • Tim Ellis 10.1.1.1.2.1

              That’s right, felix, and I’m a National Party researcher working in Wellington, paid to feed talking points to, oh… I forget how your story goes. It’s very repetitive.

            • felix 10.1.1.1.2.2

              No, you’re a lowly auditor working in a bank. Who spends all day repeating national party talking points on several blogs.

              (Now you attack me for being “anonymous”.)

    • Tim

      The wingnuts will be in a frenzy if Key scraps the law. Good luck to him. His lot stirred them up. They can now deal with it.

      You should go over to kiwiblog land and make those sorts of comments there and then see what response you get.

      BTW Labour still did well with maori party votes. And after what has happened over the past 6 months I am sure that support for Labour has increased.

      • Tim Ellis 10.2.1

        BTW Labour still did well with maori party votes. And after what has happened over the past 6 months I am sure that support for Labour has increased.

        None of the polls are saying that micky.

        • Zetetic 10.2.1.1

          There haven’t been any public polls of party vote support among Maori,brainiac.

          • Tim Ellis 10.2.1.1.1

            So you’ve confirmed Zetetic that none of the polls support Micky’s contention that support for Labour has increased among Maori. Thanks, brainiac.

            What the polls do say is that support by voters nationwide for National is considerably higher than it was at the time of the election. In which case, it would be counter-intuitive to assume that support for Labour had increased among Maori, unless there was specific evidence supporting this contention.

            • Zetetic 10.2.1.1.1.1

              micky was speculating on the Maori vote. You said none of the polls say that but none of the polls are on point. So your statement doesn’t invalidate micky’s speculation at all. Has micky got proof? No but you don’t have proof for the opposite either despite your attempt to pretend the polls that have been published provide some kind of proof.

        • mickysavage 10.2.1.2

          Tim

          Check out the results for the Mt Albert byelection. According to the polls it ought to have been really really close.

          What was the result again?

          Can you remind me?

          • Tim Ellis 10.2.1.2.1

            The only Mt Albert polls I saw micky showed a very wide gulf between the Labour and National candidate. The Mount Albert polls turned out to be quite accurate.

      • mike 10.2.2

        do you mean national reviewing and soon scrapping the racist law that labour brought in – is that why maori are flocking back to labour is it mickey?

        Most ‘rednecks’ you are referring to were just mainstream NZers sick of nanny labour and it’s thieving socialist ways – they will not mind JK making a pragmatic decision. National can only gain votes from this – they knew this would be the outcome of the review when they signed up to it.

        Remember they did not need the MP to govern but chose them as a partner.

        • Zetetic 10.2.2.1

          The rednecks are the ones who National won over with their iwi/kiwi campaign. Do you think they’ve got less racist now?

          The good news is that now National has given up the race-baiting Labour doesn’t have to try to appease the rednecks so we can get rid of this law with unanimous support.

  11. vto 11

    And eddie surely this post is proof again that the red in redneck is, contrary to popular opinion, reference to labour voters.

    • gobsmacked 11.1

      “Proof” in your dictionary being defined as “XQZZZCVG<G; hubbedy guppity plop"

      You can be embarrassed by Brash, Ansell and the Orewa-utangs, but you can't just wish them away.

    • Zetetic 11.2

      Redneck was a term given to English yeoman colonists in colonial America. They would get red necks from working outside. More intense sun of the colonies than they were used back in England. These yeomen were renowned for their reactionary, conservative, and racist attitudes.

      Their cultural descendants constitute the Republican base.

      • vto 11.2.1

        Yes well times have moved on. Today the red in redneck infers labour voters. Otherwise why would eddie say … “politicians have attempted to satisfy the rednecks by legislating away Maori property rights to the foreshore and seabed” if Helen hadn’t been thinking, as always, about the vote.

        Eddie is proof. So there gobsmacked – do I have to spell everything out for the small bwains?

        And ffs zit, why am I talking to you for after that early morning calamity today..

        • Zetetic 11.2.1.1

          because you love it vto. Don’t lie to yourself.

          The rednecks are the 15% who switched to National went they went racist.

        • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.2

          Good oh. Perhaps you can explain those iwi/kiwi billboards then vto.

          I was labeled a hater and/or a wrecker back then, so that’s how I felt. Where were you, politically speaking? Where was National?

          This attempt to put National’s rhetoric and scare-mongering down the memory hole is breathtaking. But seriously, it seems to me that you can only do so if you don’t actually care about the issue.

  12. Murray 12

    Good It was just a stupid racist act dreamed up by labour rednecks

    • Zetetic 12.1

      It was a law dreamed up to appease the rednecks who were flowing to National in droves on the back of National’s ‘iwi/kiwi-style race-baiting. National didn’t think it was racist enough that’s why they voted against it.

      • Tim Ellis 12.1.1

        Zetetic, again just because you keep repeating that doesn’t make it true. Labour announced its plans to legislate months before Don Brash made the Orewa speech.

        • Zetetic 12.1.1.1

          and you had that explained to you up above.

          can you tell me why the Tories voted against the Act? Can you admit that they thought it was too generous to Maori?

        • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.2

          The Orewa speech was hardly National’s first damn comments on Maori issues Tim. Stop stuffing ‘uncomfortable’ shit down the memory hole.

          What was National’s reaction to the court decision?

          Here’s a story for ya:

          http://tvnz.co.nz/content/214114

          It’s about reaction to Labour’s announced intentions. Bill English and Winston Peters are saying pretty much the same thing.

          also this:

          http://tvnz.co.nz/content/205607

  13. Red Rosa 13

    Well, that’s cleared the air.

    National will repeal the Act, and ensure Maori get freehold title and/or exclusive access to the foreshore and seabed. Otherwise, what do they get?

    Or is there something I am missing?

    • Lew 13.1

      Red Rosa,

      You’re missing something. I think what you’re missing is having read the actual document, rather than the thread on The Standard.

      L

  14. Lew 14

    Actually, Eddie, while I agree with your title and the overall argument, the post is just wrong.

    The Foreshore and Seabed review panel have reported back with the recommendation that the law be scrapped

    This bit is right.

    and people be allowed to attempt to prove ownership rights over the foreshore and seabed in court as they can with any other land.

    This bit isn’t. This described the so-called “judicial option”, option 1 which the panel considered, and which they explicitly didn’t recommend. Instead, they recommended a “mixed” model encompassing aspects of the other three potential models:

    Option 4: The “mixed’ model. We favour a “mixed’ model. It combines a number of discrete components: a national settlement, allocation of rights and interests, local co-management, and an ability to gain more specific access and use rights. This model takes as its starting point that entitled Māori (i.e. those hapÅ« and iwi with traditional interests in the coastal marine area) have some form of customary or tikanga title to all of the foreshore and seabed and that the public also have interests in access and navigation over this key area. A mixed model of this kind appears to be the preferred option of those who made submissions to the Panel.

    This is on page 11 of the summary. I haven’t yet read the full document (hope to have time over the weekend).

    It’s an important distinction, because the judicial model, while it could have worked in the initial case (before the Act), after the fact it does not provide very much certainty, and no grounds for wider reconciliation on the matter. This last is the most important aspect of the review, in my view: it is focused on reconciliation as well as on redress and recognition of rights. It is a compromise solution; a mutual second-best, not an ideologically-bound all-or-nothing solution of the type Labour constructed and Brash’s National party favoured.

    L

    • Eddie 14.1

      I only had a chance to read the report in the Herald. Should have written that sentence without ‘in court’. Lucky we’ve got you Lew.

      • Lew 14.1.1

        Well, no, the whole second bit is wrong. It’s not going to be about “proving ownership rights”; that’s only a part of it. Details matter.

        But as I said: hooray!

        L

        Captcha: ‘crowned President’

        • Eddie 14.1.1.1

          ‘details matter’ . maybe on kiwipolitico, Lew 🙂

          well, i can’t see how even in the other option iwi are going to get rights recognised without proving them.. and i confess I still haven’t read the detail, but it seems impossible that the government would be allocating property rights without proof.

          • Lew 14.1.1.1.1

            Eddie,

            Surely your arguments can be both robust and right ; )

            Of course, proof will have to be part of it, but proof isn’t the hard thing to achieve – establishing a framework which will accept that proof leads to value is the holy grail here. And which will constrain the value granted such that big blocks of the foreshore and seabed can’t be sold off wholesale by a couple errant kaumatua, for instance.

            L

    • Good comment Lew

      The issue is really intricate and I believe the political debate lags way behind the legal debate.

      The “mixed model” option appeals but most of it was available under the legislation.

      If you read the Act …

      Section 33 says

      ” High Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights

      The High Court may, on the application of a group, or on the application of a person authorised by the Court to represent the group, make a finding that the group (or any members of that group) would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1), have held territorial customary rights to a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed at common law.”

      There could then be negotiation with the Crown for redress (section 37) or the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve and the appointment of a board of guardians to manage the reserve. The purpose of a reserve is to acknowledge the exercise of kaitakitanga by an applicant group and to permit the are to be held for the common use and benefit of the people of New Zealand.

      Also the Ngati Porou settlement recognised their rights to the foreshore in various areas. The Crown negotiation resulted in a regional settlement of issues.

      I wish the reality was as simple as the rhetoric …

      • Lew 14.2.1

        micky,

        I’m not a lawyer, but I sense there was at least as much legal uncertainty around the FSA as political uncertainty. In any case, it wasn’t a legal manoeuvre, but a political one.

        Add to which, a “reserve” is not what Māori want for the foreshore and seabed. That’s why even after signing their agreement, Ngāti Porou stated that, while it was the best deal going, it was still insufficient and they would continue to lobby for the repeal of the act.

        L

        • mickysavage 14.2.1.1

          Agreed Lew … but the legislation has lots of goodies in it …

          Section 37 of the FSA says

          … [i]f a finding is referred to the Attorney-General and Minister of Maori Affairs under section 36(1)(a), the Ministers must enter into discussions with the applicant group for the purpose of negotiating an agreement as to the nature and extent of the redress to be given by the Crown in recognition of the finding of the High Court under section 33.

          The problem is the debate is between well intentioned pakeha lawyers trying to achieve certainty and iwi trying to put into legal concepts their understanding of iwi rights to the coast. It really is vexed. What annoys some of us is that there was a well intentioned desire to resolve the matter amicably.

  15. Tim Ellis 15

    PB, you made a number of questions further up the thread.

    Obviously Labour’s legislation was a point of grievance. Not so much that Labour couldn’t get 70,000 list votes in 08 though. Perhaps they remember iwi/kiwi. Can you explain that billboard for me Tim? I’ve asked many a Nat, and yet to get an answer. It somehow fitted in with ‘mainstream’.

    I was uncomfortable with it at the time, PB, and I thought it was polarising at the time.

    What was Nationals policy about the f&s that Labour’s was the alternative to Tim? What was the policy on this issue of the party that you voted for? I’m sure you’ll be keen to relate, seeing your interest in the issue. Tell us about your thought processes over that time. Were you on any hikoi? What did you think about those that were?

    I wasn’t on any hikoi, PB. I had a number of friends and relatives who were, and I congratulated them for expressing their views. It was a challenging time, and I was thankful that they were able to express their views so peacefully. Unlike Helen Clark, I didn’t consider them to be “haters and wreckers”. I understood that they had a genuine grievance.

    I was not greatly personally affected at the time, but I understood that many Maori felt that there was a genuine grievance.

    Do you think Brash would have refused a deal with WP? Do you think Brash was not a race baiter? He himself has expressed his regrets about it if I recall.

    My understanding is that Dr Brash did not pursue a deal with WP. From people I have spoken to, he was not interested in being PM in a government that included Winston Peters. I do not believe Dr Brash was a race baiter, but I do believe he was ill-advised in pursuing the issue as strongly as he did, and I understand he has come to regret his Orewa speech as unnecessarily divisive.

    Seeing you are interested in this issue, what was National’s policy on it at the time, did you vote for it, and why do you think they changed, if they have?

    National’s policy at the time was, in my view, confused and misguided. I did not personally support it, but it was not a major issue for me personally. I think it changed because John Key saw a greater interest in forming a relationship with the Maori Party, and that settling historic grievances and putting the issue behind us was more important to him than retaining a policy that was clearly a point of major contention for Maori voters.

    I hope that helps.

    • Lew 15.1

      Tim, Brash having given and stood by the Orewa speech makes him a race-baiter.

      L

      • Lew 15.1.1

        Let’s just be clear, as well: Brash having given and stood by the speech doesn’t necessarily mean he, personally, in his heart of hearts, is racist, or a race-baiter. He was playing a role. But that’s a role you can’t play without a little bit of it rubbing off on you, and he knew the role he was playing and played it well.

        It was all bullshit, mind – John Johansson’s Orewa and the Rhetoric of Illusion paper nicely illustrates how. It seems to have been taken off the interwebs, but I’m sure if you email Jon he’d be happy to e you a copy, if you’re interested in, you know, studying the issue.

        L

        • Anita 15.1.1.1

          Lew,

          Do you believe it would have been possible for Brash to have given that speech if he had no racism in him? I will happily agree that the speech wasn’t motivated by racism, but I just can’t believe someone who was truly not racist would have gone there.

          • Lew 15.1.1.1.1

            Anita,

            Everyone has some racism in them, it just takes the right set of circumstances to bring it out.

            I found this out while living in Asia. It’s frightening.

            So while not saying Brash was free from racism, it seems likely that it was more an opportunistic thing than a dedicated and calculated part of his political or ideological core as it is for, say, Kyle Chapman.

            L

            • felix 15.1.1.1.1.1

              It’s very difficult when listening to Dr Brash speaking on certain issues to not notice some deeply racist assumptions behind his thought processes.

              All that really weird stuff he used to say about how Maoris can, sometimes, with the right training, be just as smart as, you know, normal people.

              However I don’t think he had any idea at the time just how deeply racist some of his views were.

    • Pascal's bookie 15.2

      Not much I’m afraid.

      I asked what the iwi/kiwi billboards meant, and you say that they made you uncomfortable, and that you thought them polarising.

      That’s not an answer, but it implies one I suppose. I had one in view of workplace for well over a month. It made me angry Tim. And yes it was deliberately polarising. That’s why it made me angry. I didn’t think Don was a racist, and yet there was that billboard in all it’s ‘uncomfortable’ glory. Day after day. Not being a racist, but pandering to them for electoral gain is the very definition of race baiting, is it not?

      It’s a shame that you never mentioned this campaign when saying that Labour was to blame for much of the negativity of that year.

      Don Brash signed off on that campaign Tim. He was the Leader. It was his call. His regrets after losing, I am sad to say, don’t excuse him at all. He knew at the time what he was doing, and thought it worthwhile. And it wasn’t just on this issue. The whole campaign was based on dividing the nation into ‘mainstream’ and ‘other’. If it is true that national’s positions were purely based on vote gathering, rather than any principle, that makes it worse Tim. Not better. It means that they deliberately went with that ‘uncomfortable’ stuff to cause division. I’m glad I suppose that it made you ‘uncomfortable’ though.

      I still wonder how Don would have followed through on that rhetoric had he won. I think we dodged a bullet.

      edit: shorter bookie: ‘what Lew said’.

    • Eddie 15.3

      “I did not personally support it,” you voted for it, so you did personally support it but you were willing to support racism because you wanted a tax cut.

      • Tim Ellis 15.3.1

        By that logic Eddie you supported Winston Peters, because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen defended him.

        That is silly logic Eddie. I’m not a National Party member, let alone a member of caucus. I can, and choose to disagree with National Party policies frequently. You might want to try it sometime. It’s quite liberating.

  16. Tim Ellis 16

    It’s a shame that you never mentioned this campaign when saying that Labour was to blame for much of the negativity of that year.

    I was referring PB to Eddie’s claim that the Foreshore and Seabed act was a suck-up to rednecks, that it was an inevitable consequence of Dr Brash’s race baiting. I pointed out that claim as false, since Labour clearly intended to legislate as it did, long before Dr Brash gave his Orewa speech.

    Labour knew it was going to upset many Maori from the moment the Court decision came out. It had nothing to do with Dr Brash.

    I was saddened by Dr Brash’s Orewa speech, because the National Party, particularly with Doug Graham and Jim Bolger, had gone a long way towards healing the divisions of the past, and I considered the Orewa speech to have undone a lot of that.

    There is another contextual point to note, which I think is valid. There was a genuine sense amont a sizeable degree of non-Maori that the pendulum had swung too far since the initial treaty settlements, and that Maori were receiving preferential treatment, particularly in social services. The Closing of the Gaps rhetoric from Labour during Labour’s first term was symptomatic of this. There was a genuine perception that these policies were targetted based on race, rather than need.

    That issue was never properly dealt with. As soon as Dr Brash raised the issue, he was branded a racist and howled down. When Dr Brash’s polling increased, Labour got the message, ceased calling him a racist, and then dismantled the Closing the Gaps policies and instead focussed on need.

    I think a showdown, in that climate, was inevitable. Non-Maori, rightly or wrongly, felt excluded. They had, for over a generation, been told it wasn’t appropriate to express a view that might challenge the orthodox view that all policies targetting Maori were appropriate.

    The way Don Brash handled the issue was divisive. So too was the way Helen Clark handled it. For a progressive politician, I suspect over time she will deeply regret that she sold Maori out over the foreshore and seabed issue, which she clearly did in my view, for short term political gain (and the very same expediency which seems to appal you so much about Dr Brash).

    Like Matthew Hooton, the discomfort I felt around Dr Brash’s actions was that they were contrary to his personal, liberal beliefs. I suspect many Labour voters now feel a sense of shame that Helen Clark similarly sold her progressive political beliefs down the river as well.

    I think John Key has the skills to negotiate an outcome with the Maori Party, which will see both Maori and non-Maori feel included. I hope so.

    • Tim

      “Labour clearly intended to legislate as it did, long before Dr Brash gave his Orewa speech”

      This is the bit where you lose your credibility.

      The initial comment by Cullen was to suggest that all kiwis should have access to the foreshore. The detail of the legislation was not even thought of let alone decided on at this stage.

      You really do appear to continuously support the extreme possibility of views and then claim them to be the truth.

      You would get more credibility if you allowed for the various possibilities rather than claiming that the view consistent with the conspiracy theory is the only possible reality.

      • Tim Ellis 16.1.1

        micky:

        From the Ministry of Justice website:

        On 18 August 2003, the government released draft proposals for consultation on the foreshore and seabed. An extensive consultation process followed involving 10 hui, over 50 meetings with the general public, interest and recreational groups; and a public submissions process. Over 2,100 submissions were received on the government’s proposals.

        During November and early December 2003 further consultation was carried out between the government and Maori and other sector/interest groups. Later in December, the government released its revised policy framework, with a proposed way forward.

        Following this, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill was drafted and introduced into the House of Representatives on 8 April 2004. The Bill passed its first reading and was referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration. After six months of hearings and consideration of just under 4,000 written submissions (of which 222 were presented orally), the Committee was unable to agree to any amendments and the Bill was reported back to the House on 4 November 2004.

        The Foreshore and Seabed Act was enacted on 24 November 2004.

        That’s the official timeline. No, I don’t believe that Dr Brash’s speech in January 2004 is what determined the legislation.

        EDIT: and the link is here http://www.justice.govt.nz/foreshore/background.html

        • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1

          Here’s a news report from July 15, which is before 18 August for those paying attention.

          http://tvnz.co.nz/content/205607

          The National Party says government proposals to settle a row over ownership of the foreshore and seabed contradict a pledge two weeks ago to preserve them for all New Zealanders.

          On Monday, acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen said the government may allow iwi to take issues of customary rights to the Maori Land Court. His comments follow a Maori challenge to plans to legislate Crown ownership.

          Last month the government said it would legislate to keep the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership – but it made a distinction between customary use and customary title.

          National MP Nick Smith says the change would allow the Maori Land Court to divide up the coastline, with no opportunity for non-Maori New Zealanders to have a say.

          Smith says a future government would find it hard to undo the changes….

          But but , national didn’t say anything till Orewa!! Labour wasn’t reacting to anything at all, it was all just a dreeeeeam. wiggly fingers wiggly fingers.

    • Pascal's bookie 16.2

      “I was referring PB to Eddie’s claim that the Foreshore and Seabed act was a suck-up to rednecks, that it was an inevitable consequence of Dr Brash’s race baiting.”

      Except Tim, Eddie never said it was Brash’s race baiting. Don wasn’t leader yet so his turn with the whistle was to come. It was National party rhetoric and scare-mongering that was setting the agenda leading up to the legislation. That’s what DPF’s little timeline ignores. That English and Smith et al were out there holding meetings at turning up at Marlborough rallies, and bleating about the ‘Beaches’ how the Govt had to legislate full crown title.

      See my comment at 9:02 for links.

      • Tim Ellis 16.2.1

        I’ve had a look at your links PB. They are pretty mild, and I don’t deny that National was talking about the issues.

        http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_smartphone_story_skin/255490 is a very interesting link. It shows that there was no significant shift in the polls between Labour and National until March 24, 2004. Until then, Labour was consistently tracking at least 15 points ahead of National, including throughout the time of the FS&S issue.

        Yes, the Orewa speech gave Dr Brash a significant lift in the polls, but that was the only time there was a major poll shift. The major poll shift wasn’t reported until March 24.

        Until March 24, 2004, there was little to suggest that National’s policies were getting any public traction.

        • Zetetic 16.2.1.1

          Orewa didn’t get much pick up at first. It burst into a major issue about a month later. The rednecks flooded over to National. Labour was spooked to see their led disappearing. Felt they had to follow National. One reason I vote RAM.

          • Tim Ellis 16.2.1.1.1

            Zetetic, the first poll that saw National getting any traction was on March 26, 2004. Labour introduced the legislation in early April, after many months’ consultation.

            Surely you are not so stupid/dishonest as to claim that Labour decided after the poll on March 26 to completely change direction?

        • Pascal's bookie 16.2.1.2

          “I don’t deny that National was talking about the issues.”

          It would be fairly difficult to now, but you have been implying so all along. I don’t find your link that interesting at all. English couldn’t get traction for any number of reasons. And the f&s issue had been essentially played out by Orewa. To pretend though, that Labour wasn’t responding to National’s race baiting but instead initiating that angle is simply false. That’s what the iwi/kiwi billboards were all about. As much as I hated what Labour did, National showed every sign of being much worse.

  17. RedLogix 17

    There is no question in my mind that Maori are ultimately seeking full private property title rights. All the talk of ‘freedom of public access’ is just a sop.

    Sorry but I cannot see it working. At some point, no matter how it’s spun and diced, there will arise an irreconcilable difference between iwi ‘property rights’ and ‘unfettered public access’.

    • Zetetic 17.1

      It’s all about aquaculture. Big bucks to be made. Iwi want to be the ones making them. Get the rights recognised, get the aquaculture. Oh well, it was theirs in the first place so fair enough.

      No economic interest in closing beaches (although some extremist group will do it)

  18. RedLogix 18

    No economic interest in closing beaches

    So why all the ‘closed private’ beaches you find in so many places you travel around the world?

    Fine ideals and liberal principles aside, it will end in tears.

  19. So Bored 19

    National are the party that sanctifies private property and runs policies aimed at entrenching class advantages for those that have. Whats so different about thee Maori Party? The real rub willl come the day some urban Maori family from Otara head for the beach and get denied or charged for access by the local iwi or hapu.

  20. millsy 20

    Say goodbye to the right of a family to have a day at the beach. This is one slippery slope New Zealanders are heading down. There is no reason why the iwi elite wont lock the beaches up in the future. Hell, they are doing it already in heaps of areas. And you idiots are falling for it hook like and sinker

    If Maori had their way, every lake, forest, river, mountain, beach and rock in this country would be locked up. They are doing it now. For example, DOC want to fix up an old stock tunnel on the whitecliffs walkway up here in Taranaki, but the Maori are making things difficult, and not letting them, I think that they really need to pull finger and realise that to enjoy the outdoors is a kiwi birth right.

  21. RedLogix 21

    And in among all the talk of ‘access to the beaches’, there is no mention of protecting access to the sea itself. If Zetetic is right and it is all about aquaculture rights that will lock up large areas of sheltered bays on our coastline into private property titles… will this mean that boaties will have to ask the grace and favour of the local iwi before they can push out from the local slipway on Sundays?

    Even further down the slope there remains the open question that if ‘indigenous pre-colonial’ occupation can be translated into property rights for the S&F, then it hugely lowers the barrier to applying exactly the same legal argument to the rest of NZ.

    Many years ago (in the mid 80’s) I recall meeting and having breakfast with a then Chairman of Te Arawa confederation. Back then he outlined his vision for NZ, that eventually the iwi would restore full sovereign rights over their original territories, each run as separate nation states. In complete naivety I recall asking him how he thought us Pakeha might fit in. His reply was along the line, that Maori were very generous hosts, but if we didn’t pay the rent we could go back to where we came from. I swear I’m not making this up.

    He is not known as a radical. And yet every step he outlined in his vision to me nearly 30 years ago to me, has come directly to pass. His iwi, as of yesterday, now own huge tracts of mid- NI forest and rights to much of the geothermal energy in the area. Exactly as he planned.

    Personally I thought Labour’s S&F Act was a valid and workable compromise; allowing for some rights and recognition of iwi interests in an area, but without going anywhere near what now looks like being given to Maori. Listen carefully to the language being used; in among all the soothing talk you will clearly hear an underlying and uncompromising demand from Maori to obtain full private property title rights. And once obtained the next step is to demand full control of that property.

    As some other poster very cogently pointed out, this is exactly the same question we ran into when Jim Sutton tried to reform access to public lands, potentially requiring a handful of white farmers to legally secede small, linear and defined access routes to rivers and backcountry. Recall the howls and screams over that?

  22. Red Rosa 22

    “Personally I thought Labour’s S&F Act was a valid and workable compromise; allowing for some rights and recognition of iwi interests in an area, but without going anywhere near what now looks like being given to Maori. Listen carefully to the language being used; in among all the soothing talk you will clearly hear an underlying and uncompromising demand from Maori to obtain full private property title rights. And once obtained the next step is to demand full control of that property.

    As some other poster very cogently pointed out, this is exactly the same question we ran into when Jim Sutton tried to reform access to public lands, potentially requiring a handful of white farmers to legally secede small, linear and defined access routes to rivers and backcountry. Recall the howls and screams over that?”

    Well said Redlogix, deserves a repeat.

    Given a few days’ reflection, the FSA may not look too bad after all.

    • So Bored 22.1

      Redrosa and Redlogix are onto it. As a trout fisher access to rivers has a real resonnance, privatisation of the public domain by stealth is common. Pakeha or Maori the end result of privatisation is the same for Joe or Rangi Average.

      Im all for restitution for past losses for Maori, I am not for creation of a landed class based aristocracy. The Nats are because the aristocracy of property and money like to buy and trade from one another, and this represents a whole pot more of tradable assetts carved from the public.

    • I agree with Red Rosa.

      I feel somewhat compromised however. For the first time ever my comments at kiwiblog have resulted in net positive karma. Ooooo. I think I need a shower

  23. Tim Ellis 23

    micky,

    This thread is very interesting. If this thread is anything to go by, it seems that a large proportion of left-wing voters don’t want Maori to have a share of foreshore title, and are quite happy with Labour’s decision to legislate in 2004. This does suggest that Labour wasn’t pandering to red-neck reactionaries, but expressing the Labour Party view.

    Or would you have it that it is only people from the Right who oppose redress for Maori who are red-necks?

    If Millsy, So Bored, Red Rosa, Red Logix and Zetetic had been right-wing, I can well see that Eddie would label them as racists.

    • So Bored 23.1

      Ouch! Tim,

      If it is racist to object strongly to race based priveleges or preferences I plead Guilty as charged.

      As punishment I have to go to work now…..noticed you were on the blog ALL DAY, dont you have a job to go to, or something better to do?

      • Tim Ellis 23.1.1

        I wasn’t labelling you racist, So Bored. I was pointing out that had you come from the Right with the opinions that you hold, then Eddie would label you a racist.

        Can you tell me, though, which part of Don Brash’s Orewa speech did you disagree with?

    • Tim

      “it seems that a large proportion of left-wing voters don’t want Maori to have a share of foreshore title, and are quite happy with Labour’s decision to legislate in 2004”

      My view is more nuanced than others. I am more than happy for indigenous “rights” to be recognised, and if they have been breached or confiscated then for compensation to be paid. The only caveat to this is that access to beaches should continue to be open.

      I do not want the ability for “title” to be issued because the “rights” are something that in my view should not be able to be transferred or alienated.

      I do not believe that Labour was pandering to red-neck reactionaries but attempted to reconcile the competing interests.

      National did pander to the red-neckers. They proposed abolition of title and right without compensation.

      • Tim Ellis 23.2.1

        I agree with your point, Micky, that access to beaches does need to be preserved. All of the signals from the Maori party appear to be consistent with that, irrespective of recognition of customary rights.

        Labour did abolish title and right without compensation.

        • mickysavage 23.2.1.1

          Tim

          “Labour did abolish title and right without compensation.”

          No they did not. There was the right to go to have the High Court to seek a declaration and if the claim was upheld the Crown were obliged to negotiate compensation. See sections 33 and 37 of the FSA.

          And check out the deal done with Ngati Porou.

  24. Tigger 24

    Of course, one hopes that it is Maori and not the Maori Party who get to decide what they want from this process…

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts