web analytics

No closure on the foreshore

Written By: - Date published: 12:43 pm, December 9th, 2010 - 49 comments
Categories: foreshore and seabed, labour, Maori Issues, maori party, national - Tags:

When it looked like the Nats’ Marine and Coastal Areas Bill (replacement for the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004) was going to be a successful and enduring solution to the foreshore debate in NZ I was relieved and supportive. The new Bill had cross party support from National and Labour, and appeared (at that time) to be largely acceptable to Maori and the Maori Party. But the fragile consensus didn’t hold. Maori support for the Bill evaporated, while the looney right maintained its attacks. It became ever clearer that the Bill, even if passed, would be regarded by Maori as “a small step along the way”.

Now the new Bill has suffered a further massive blow to its credibility. Labour is pulling its support. As Stuff reports:

Labour to turn its back on foreshore bill

Labour is preparing to pull its support for the replacement foreshore and seabed legislation, with leader Phil Goff branding it a ”farce” that will not provide a lasting solution.

Labour initially supported the Marine and Coastal Area Bill when it was introduced to Parliament, but Goff said it was now likely to oppose it as it was clear the Maori Party wanted to revisit the issue in the future.

The bill does not need Labour’s support to pass, as National and the four Maori Party MPs presently backing it will give the Government the numbers.

But losing Labour support would dent Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s bid to find general consensus on resolving the foreshore and seabed issue and his claim to have found a “durable solution”. …

The comments come as the Maori Party faces huge pressure to drop its support for the bill.

Several powerful iwi, including the South Island’s Ngai Tahu and Hawke’s Bay-Wairarapa’s Ngati Kahungunu, have called for it to be scrapped, saying it fails to address the injustices in the existing law.

Rebel Maori Party MP Hone Harawira is also opposing the bill, insisting that it sets too high a bar for Maori to prove customary title. …

I think that this is a very risky move by Labour!

If it just political manoeuvring, then it is very unwise. Yes, it puts National under pressure, and drives the wedge between National and the Maori Party in even deeper. But it means that the issue rolls on as a festering sore for Labour to inherit. I can see a future that looks depressingly like the past, with a Labour government floundering around for a workable compromise that does not exist.

More optimistically, I would like to hope that this represents a genuine change of heart from Labour. Take a side! Push the balance further towards Maori aspirations. Put together a solution that is genuinely acceptable to Maori. Ride out the Iwi / Kiwi backlash — having failed it will be much harder for the Nats to run that line again. Labour, the Maori Party and the Greens could then build a solid, enduring platform of consensus and political cooperation that would serve this country very well…

Update: Very encouraging statement from Labour.

49 comments on “No closure on the foreshore ”

  1. r0b 1

    If this is what Goff has in mind then he may have found the key to a Labour led government in 2011.

    Well, a leftie can dream – eh?

  2. Lanthanide 2

    “More optimistically, I would like to hope that this represents a genuine change of heart from Labour.”

    I doubt it. Goff said Labour were supporting it because as far as they could see, it was simply the F&S with a new name and nothing really different. They would support it because:
    1. It didn’t do anything different, and
    2. Maori supported it

    If #2 is gone, #1 by itself isn’t enough reason to support the bill. I don’t think Labour will now be saying “oh yes, lets repeal the F&S and replace it with something more generous to Maori”. As far as they’re concerned, the F&S is already final settlement and the only benefit to the new bill is that it was a way to get the MP to agree to their final settlement under a new name.

  3. Jim Nald 3

    Well, would honest John Key advise that honesty is the best policy?

    Phil Goff: examine closely the issues, reach deeply in your heart, and with your parliamentary knowledge and experience, go forth and do the honest thing.

  4. Lew 4

    This is a good decision. Goff can see what the leadership of the māori party cannot; that the compromise as proposed by the government doesn’t enjoy widespread support among either Māori or Pākehā. The issue is still live, and further public debate is needed on a solution.

    This presents a good opportunity for Labour to rebuild bridges with formerly disenchanted Māori voters by at least keeping the possibility of a better deal alive. It will drive a wedge between the māori party and National. At best it could permit the māori party leadership to save a little bit of face and back down from their support for the MCA bill. Most crucially, it robs NZ First and ACT of a crucial election issue to grandstand on — with the FSA/MCA on the back burner they will have little to rail against, especially since it’s clear that halting the MCA bill — if indeed it is halted — was Labour’s doing, not theirs.

    L

    • gingercrush 4.1

      That is simply naive from you Lew. It plays entirely in the hands of ACT and New Zealand First because they can completely play the racist card and tell New Zealand voters that a coalition between the Maori Party and either Labour or National and the foreshore and seabed won’t be settled. And that eventually the only agreement that will be reached is Labour and/or National giving into Maori demands.

      • Lew 4.1.1

        They lack credibility on that topic, though, since both major parties will, by that time, have failed to capitulate. Besides which, if the collapse occurs sooner rather than later, it’ll be a dead letter by election season. Nothing else is keeping either party relevant now.

        L

  5. Bright Red 5

    “But it means that the issue rolls on as a festering sore for Labour to inherit”

    yeah but that could be the case anyway if the Maori Party was determined to not accept this as the final settlement.

    Now, if anything thhe Maori Party’s support for the Bill means even more. It can only pass with their support, therfore they have to take ownership of the outcome and not simply say ‘its’ good enough for now but we’ll be back’.

    If the Maori Party back the new law, with or without Labour supporting it, then they’re going to have a bloody hard time getting the issue back on the agenda any time in the foreseeable future.

    Of course, if this all collapses, then the issue will remain unsettled.

    • Lew 5.1

      And even if the māori party would accept it as such (in spite of their statements to the contrary) it’s crystal clear that Māoridom at large will not. You can’t simply legislate over those cracks. So while the party might have a hard time getting it back on the agenda, opposition would be apparent in other ways.

      L

  6. I heard a suggestion that Goff thought that we should revert to pre 2004 FSBA law and let the Courts sort it out.

    Treaty of Waitangi settlements can continue.

    This has a certain attraction to it. It is less complex and less upsetting to many.

    National in the meantime has to deal with a situation of its own making. I bet Key realises now that leadership is not as easy as Helen made it look.

    • Jim Nald 6.1

      Hmm ok.
      Nats planted iwi/kiwi division and if Key can’t take the country forward, then it is not unreasonable for Goff to rewind to pre-2004 and allow the Courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
      Voters – left, right or centre – should then decide from that point to leave it at that and should no longer rise to any political baiting.

    • insider 6.2

      I’m not sure “haters and wreckers” and “last cab off the rank” and the rush to legislate in panic will go down as examples of making leadership look easy .

      • mickysavage 6.2.1

        insider

        There was no rush. The bill was introduced on April 8 and assented on November 24. ANd there was a full select committee process. Compared to current practice this was absolutely leisurely in comparison.

        • insider 6.2.1.1

          My memory was that there was a very hasty decision to legislate away rights of Maori rather than allow the status quo to remain. I think they also had the Privy Council option but chose not to for political reasons (as they were getting rid of it)

          • Lew 6.2.1.1.1

            Insider, what micky says is half right. The FSA was a full-scale process, but the decision to legislate over the Court of Appeal had been made (by Clark) before the consultation had even been announced, so consultation after that point was somewhat hollow.

            In the MCA case the early deliberation stages — the panel, most notably — were far more robust and equitable, while the latter stages have been just as bad (especially since barely any of the panel’s recommendations were taken up, and the bill as proposed manifestly fails to fulfill what the panel named as any resultant legislation’s cardinal purpose).

            L

            • mickysavage 6.2.1.1.1.1

              Lew

              What I sais was completely correct.

              Of course the bill provided for the effective overturning of the Court of Appeal’s decision. You cannot have a select committee process without a bill and you cannot have a bill without making some initial decisions on what legal changes are proposed.

              You then put it out for submissions, consider those submissions and then make a call.

              You cannot put out a blank bill and ask “what do we do now?”

              • insider

                CoA judgement came out on 19 June. Clark was publicly discussing legislating it away on 20 June. no dispute on the subsequent processes.

                • r0b

                  Sounds like a Kiwiblog lie. Reference to what Clark actually said please insider.

                  • insider

                    Oh for goodness sake rob, don’t be so offensive at the drop of a hat just because something is said you don’t agree with. Why not do one minute of checking before kneejerking?

                    The court document is dated 19 June. Look it up. Then look at the multiple news items that quickly followed such as this one http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3509075

                    • Insider and Lew

                      The thought processes would go like this:

                      Do we do something, yes or no.

                      If yes legislation will be required. We can work out what it does later.

                      If no then no legislation will be required.

                      And the argument was about freehold title, not rights. Many do not seem to understand this.

                    • r0b

                      Oh for goodness sake insider, don’t be such a Kiwiblog drone.

                      You said Clark was “was publicly discussing legislating it away on 20 June”. The Herald piece you link to says no such thing. It says that aspects of the law need to be clarified to explicitly represent the assumed interpretation. That is very far from legislating anything away.

                      So what did she actually say on 20 June please? Hint – I know what she said in her earliest (verifiable) statement, and it isn’t anything like what Kiwiblog has told you.

                    • insider

                      I note the Standard Rocky seemed to think the same. I couldn’t see you objecting at the time (may have elsewhere)

                      Foreshore and Seabed – where to from here?

                      My original source was a cite of this but I couldn’t find the orginal so used a similar live link. If you have anything that refutes the cite please present it.

                      NZCity News 20 June 2003
                      The landmark Court of Appeal decision giving the Maori Land Court the right to rule on seabed and foreshore claims has been described by the Prime Minister as’ very narrow and technical’. Helen Clark says decisions on such things are the preserve of Government policy and not the courts. Miss Clark says the Government will legislate if necessary to preserve the status quo.

                      And legislating for the status quo when the the court is telling you it’s not what you thought it was tells me she was planning on legislating potential rights away.

                      [lprent: The Standard does not think. It is a chunk of code on a server. Only an idiot would think that it has an opinion. The post you linked to was written by rocky. Her opinions are not mine and I also write here. I write here and she doesn’t agree with my opinions (and tells me so in both comments and in person).

                      Before you persist in attributing a mind to a dumb machine, the I’d suggest you read the policy so you understand why I’ll ban you for it.

                      In the meantime I’ve adjusted your comment to reflect reality. ]

                    • r0b

                      I note the Standard seemed to think the same. I couldn’t see you objecting at the time (may have elsewhere)

                      I know it’s complicated insider, but “The Standard” doesn’t think anything. The author of the post you refer to is Rocky [huh – Lynn beat me to it while I was writing], and on the point cited, yeah I disagree with her.

                      You cite:

                      NZCity News 20 June 2003
                      The landmark Court of Appeal decision giving the Maori Land Court the right to rule on seabed and foreshore claims has been described by the Prime Minister as’ very narrow and technical’. Helen Clark says decisions on such things are the preserve of Government policy and not the courts. Miss Clark says the Government will legislate if necessary to preserve the status quo.

                      First up, that’s a second hand account, not what Clark actually said. Second up, there’s nothing there to support your claim that there was a rush to “to legislate away rights of Maori rather than allow the status quo to remain”. Here is the first actual verifiable statement from Clark on 22 June:

                      Ministers comment on Court of Appeal decision

                      Prime Minister Helen Clark and Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said on Friday that the Court of Appeal decision pertaining to the legal status of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed has no immediate practical effect on either the current use or the regulation of the foreshore and seabed.

                      “The decision is a narrow and technical one relating to the jurisdiction within which claims to the foreshore and seabed may be considered.

                      “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown, and the Crown has made provision for regulation of its use in the national interest.

                      “In a democracy, citizens are free to explore what their legal rights are through the court system. The government respects attempts to explore legal rights through the courts, but also acknowledges that issues of ownership and use affect all New Zealanders.

                      “The government will be giving consideration to how these issues are best resolved, “Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson said.

                      Now, can you tell me which parts of that statement support your claim that by 20 June Clark has announced that she would “legislate away rights of Maori rather than allow the status quo to remain”? For extra credit, would you like to apply the same analytical skills to National’s position on the issue?

                      Maori Gain Control Of The Beaches

                      Thursday, 18 December 2003, 2:48 pm
                      Press Release: New Zealand National Party
                      Dr Wayne Mapp MP National Party Constitutional and Treaty of Waitangi Issues Spokesman

                      “The Government’s decision to create customary title for Maori to sit alongside ‘public domain’, sets a time bomb ticking,” says National Party Constitutional and Treaty of Waitangi Issues spokesman Wayne Mapp.

                      “Far from guaranteed public access, the public right will be slowly eroded. The Government has clearly broken its promise to guarantee access.

                      “Title means control. The customary title will allow commercial development that will inevitably mean reduced public access.

                      “The proposals go far beyond the Court of Appeal, which concluded customary title would be very difficult to prove,” says Dr Mapp.

                      “All that is now required is “mana and ancestral connection”. It is likely most of the coastline will now end up subject to customary title claims.

                      “In addition, the 16 new committees will allow Maori co-management of the entire seabed and foreshore,” Dr Mapp says.

                      “In order to bring peace with its Maori MP’s, the Government has sold the birthright of all New Zealanders.

                      “For more than 160 years we all believed Crown title ‘vested the foreshore and seabed in the people’.

                      “National fears this will only serve to create a greater injustice and set New Zealander against New Zealander,” says Dr Mapp.

                    • Lew

                      R0b, the press release you quote was dated 22 June on beehive, but was actually released on 20 June (and was indeed the source for the NZPA story on which the NZ City story insider quotes was based. Hard to substantiate this, but you’ll have to take my word for it — I was researching it at the time. The PR appears on Scoop with the 20 June date. On the same day there was another release by then-minister John Tamihere which, like the Clark/Wilson release, says practically nothing of substance but gives some hints as to the government’s direction on the topic. There was also a press conf at the time where the question was put more clearly. A few days later Wilson came out and said that the Cabinet had decided to legislate (though I now can’t find this referenced anywhere other than the Rec Access nutters website).

                      While it’s true that the media and opposition at the time over-egged the government’s statements (which were carefully circumspect), it was pretty well known that the call had already been made; and in fact legislating over the court is exactly what happened. It also pays to note that Mapp’s response which you quote wasn’t in response to the initial statements in response to the CoA decision, but in response to the policy proposal released the day before, which — the Nats of the day would argue — was fair game because it mentioned the words “customary rights”. This was undoubtedly the platform for Orewa, and thence iwi/kiwi. That’s not hugely relevant to the current state of the National party, though — since they’ve moved on a bit since then. So, too, have Labour — and that is good to see.

                      L

                    • r0b

                      Thanks Lew, you’ve filled in some pieces of the timeline puzzle I was missing. I’m not fussed about a day or two here or there, but I am about the interpretation that Labours opponents have retrofit to these events.

                      The main point of Clark’s initial statement was: “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown”. I quoted the National press release in large part for their matching quote: “For more than 160 years we all believed Crown title ‘vested the foreshore and seabed in the people’.

                      Labour subsequently went on to use this as a bottom line, in effect saying that the court was wrong to say that the law was unclear. Whether you call that “legislating away Maori rights” or “legislating away potential rights” or “maintaining the status quo” or “clarifying the law” depends on what agenda you’re trying to push.

                      But those trying to push the negative interpretation, “legislating away Maori rights”, had better acknowledge that National’s position on ths status quo was the same. And their position on the whole was fact much worse, as they went on to build an entire racist campaign out of hysteria.

                      Fascinating stuff from a historical perspective, it has dominated our politics ever since. Very good that, as you say, both parties have moved on since 2004. A pity that some of the commentators haven’t.

                    • Lew

                      Yes, the analysis and interpretation is key. I think the balance lies with the government having decided as a matter of principle that the court’s ruling was untenable, then working out the details later, because (even though it wasn’t made explicit) that’s how the tea-leaves read at the time, that was the eventual outcome, and moreover because it fits the Clark government’s political culture. I don’t want to overstate this to the extent that Clark’s enemies have, to say that, because the decision was made in principle, the whole thing was a farce from that point onward. I have no doubt the topic was hotly debated in caucus, in cabinet and with other stakeholders both in the beltway and elsewhere before any further steps were taken. But it wasn’t thrown out to the public until after the policy was mostly formed, and that meant the formal consultation throughout 2004 was hollow. That was a mistake, probably an understandable one given the circumstances, but very crucial. With hindsight it’s easy to say Labour should have front-footed and kicked off the constitutional debate which Brash eventually did; but that would have taken simply unprecedented political nerve.

                      Incidentally the latest rumours, being put about by Shane Jones, are that Rahui Katene is going to cross the floor with Hone Harawira and vote against the MCA bill. That’ll make it 61-61 by my calculations. Interesting times.

                      L

                • r0b

                  Isn’t that just 62 v 60? But if you’re right, in the event of a tie the vote is lost. Interesting indeed…

                  • Lew

                    You’re probably right, I’ve tried and failed to run the numbers on this a couple of times now. Anyway, plenty more to come on this topic. Will be a long summer.

                    L

              • Lew

                No, but you can have a consultation or expert deliberation process to determine what the options are. Labour got that wrong so what they came out with was always going to look like what Clark wanted it to look like. National got it right, so there was an opportunity to make good honest law. But they got the rest of it mostly wrong, and didn’t.

                L

                • Lew.

                  You accused me of telling half the truth, I responded by saying that everything I said was true and you seem to be responding by saying that everything I said was true but I should have also said something else.

                  National got it right

                  Is that before or after the iwi kiwi billboards were put up?

                  • Lew

                    Micky,

                    I should have been clearer, but I’ve been very pushed for time. Your statement ‘Compared to current practice this was absolutely leisurely in comparison’ was the half which was wrong. The FSA reviewe panel received their mandate in March 2009 and reported back in July. An initial decision was announced by the govt in November, the MCA bill was introduced the following September and consultation is ongoing. We’re 18 months and counting; a slightly longer timeframe than that between the Appeal decision and the eventual passage of the FSA. But it’s a relatively trivial matter since the quality of the process matters more than its length. I think both processes were flawed; in different ways but for the same ultimate reason: that the political principals of both began with preconceived notions of what they hoped to achieve, and disregarded almost all advice and discourse which conflicted with that. The result: bad law which doesn’t have buy-in from those whom it’ll effect, and as a result is not durable.

                    The Iwi/Kiwi billboards are salient context, but I’m not sure why you think I’m defending the Nats. You won’t find a harsher critic of that campaign than me; but bny the same token they did undertake a robust review of the options, which Labour did not. Labour stands to gain an awful lot from this scenario if they return to the FSA Review panel’s report and pledge a solution based on its recommendations.

                    L

                    • Lew and insider

                      The indecent haste that you talk about needs some context.

                      The CA decision came out on June 19 2003

                      The bill was introduced on April 8, 2004

                      It received the royal assent on November 24, 2004.

                      There was a full consultation process before the bill was introduced. There was a full select committee process after the bill was introduced.

                      Please point out where the indecent haste occurred.

                    • Lew

                      Micky, you’ve missed my point. I never argued there was indecent haste. I just argued that the substantive decisions about what the law would do were made before consultation had even begun, and then the due process was engaged to produce that outcome.

                      There’s one (and only one) difference with how the Nats did their replacement: and that’s the F&S Review Panel investigation. They went and ignored its findings anyhow, but at least they did it.

                      L

    • Michael 6.3

      Looks like Goff is working with other parties to send the matter back to the courts:
      http://labour.org.nz/news/enduring-foreshore-and-seabed-solution-needed
      “We are already in talks with the leaders of other parties about an alternative plan that will guarantee public access in law, recognise Māori customary rights and allow Māori to take all aspects of their claims to the courts.”

      Probably a majority in Parliament for this given Greens, Act and at least some of Maori Party seem to support this view.

      If only Labour had done this in 2003!

      • r0b 6.3.1

        This is very clever!

        If Labour can broker a deal from opposition it will be a real coup. And the Nats have even less opportunity to revert to Iwi Kiwi bullshit — they simply can’t drum up that sort of backlash while they are in government.

    • Jenny 6.4

      More good news Mickey.

      capcha – “considerably”

  7. SPC 7

    “My island. My foreshore. My seabed”. ‘No, my island, my foreshore, my seabed.” Good night children and remember just because you have different fathers does not mean that one day you cannot be in one team and wear my silver fern.

  8. Well I spose at least the maori labour MP’s will maybe feel better about following their voting instructions now – it always seems weird that they and their team were supporting the repeal of labours own act. And if it becomes a festering sore for labour to inherit they can always do what they did before, can’t they – but it will depend on how many votes they think they will get or lose, as per usual.

  9. John Laurie 9

    I’m pleased Labour is pulling out on this ridiculous Bill and I hope this is the death of it. I don’t know when some of you left-wingers decided that identity politics trumped public ownership but I won’t be following you there. Keep public assets in public ownership. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is bad enough. Chris Finlayson was already negotiating withWhanau a Apanui to require non-locals to apply to Whanau a Apanui for a permit to fish under the F and S Act.

    Anyone getting extra rights in part of the country under the F and S Act or the Coastal and Marine Area Bill should lose their rights to enjoy the benefits of public ownership around the rest of the country.

    • millsy 9.1

      Hear hear John.

      Public ownership of the beaches and outdoor recreation estate (esp. the TE UREWERA NATIONAL PARK – Tuhoe can go to hell) is the only guarantee of free and universal access for all New Zealanders, from the 16 year old Maori solo mother, to the elderley retired wealthy pakeha couple.

      This is a bread and butter issue for the left, FFS. Frankly I dont care if Maori were denied access to the court sytem. The thought of the iwi elite tying up the court system because they want to get their greedy mitts on our holiday paradise with the left cheering them on sickens me.

      • NickS 9.1.1

        /facepalm

        Yes, because there’s no legal obligation on the Crown to honour Te Treati O Waitangi at all…

        (esp. the TE UREWERA NATIONAL PARK – Tuhoe can go to hell)

        And it’s not like Te Urewera was illegally taken from Tuhoe, who have made it clear they wont restrict access to the park, nor change it’s status.

        This is a bread and butter issue for the left, FFS. Frankly I dont care if Maori were denied access to the court sytem. The thought of the iwi elite tying up the court system because they want to get their greedy mitts on our holiday paradise with the left cheering them on sickens me.

        Get the fuck over to Kiwiblog, were such racist fucking bullshit belongs, because as a student of history the iwi elite meme and denying Maori the right to air their land claims in court, along with treating Maori like thieves has parallels with some the accusations and treatment levelled at Jews. More pathetic though is your ignoring of the long term costs of the Crown’s failures to honour Te Treati and mistreatment of Maori, which helped contribute to the economic and social issues Maori face today, as though colonialism didn’t have any massive negative impacts. That, and it seems you want the history of Maori utilisation of the foreshore and sea bed to not exists, because as per prior international rulings, aboriginal land ownership is conferred by long term occupation and use of an area.

        But hey, what more can I expect from a racist fucktard?

    • NickS 9.2

      I don’t know when some of you left-wingers decided that identity politics trumped public ownership but I won’t be following you there.

      lolwut?

      It’s about honouring Te Treati O Waitangi, i.e. the legal obligations the Crown has under it. Ironically enough the identity politics you accuse the left of, are actually behind the bullshit F & S Act, which sort to preserve and appeal to the “national” identity in an attempt to defuse Brash’s racist Kiwi/Iwi crap.

      Chris Finlayson was already negotiating withWhanau a Apanui to require non-locals to apply to Whanau a Apanui for a permit to fish under the F and S Act.

      [Citation Needed]

      Also, so fucking what? If the Iwi wish to police their fishing grounds that’s well within their rights to do so. It’s basic property rights.

      Anyone getting extra rights in part of the country under the F and S Act or the Coastal and Marine Area Bill should lose their rights to enjoy the benefits of public ownership around the rest of the country.

      The Stupid, It Burns.

      There’s no provision under the law, let alone to the Human Rights Act to do that, and for good reason, as it denies others access to public resources and utilities on utterly spurious and ill defined grounds. And funnily enough it’s more of that identity politics thingy that you claim to dislike.

      So please, gtfo back to talk-back, where you can listen to those sharing you pathetic stupidity, you racist douchebag.

  10. ianmac 10

    It is true that Attorney-General Chris Finlayson spent a huge amount of time consulting with iwi around the country. Jolly good. But it seemed to me that the take it or leave it declared by John Key started a slow rot as the AG changed nothing from their original plan.

    When does a consultation become a dictate?
    Would the agreement have been different without key’s tough statement?

  11. ghostwhowalksnz 11

    Remember the Treaty of Versailles was a great deal for the nations of Europe that emerged from the wreckage of empires.
    But not for the Germans, those nations found out in 1939 that the defeated didnt like it so much.

    Yes the Germans belief was illogical and irrational and it took another round when they did even worse.

    The reverse happened of course for the remains of the Ottoman Empire and it all hasnt been sorted out yet.

    Ahh Nationalism where would we be without you. You have a lot to answer for

  12. BLiP 12

    This is better work from Labour. Its been a good week, so far.

  13. John L 13

    Reply to NickS

    “Chris Finlayson was already negotiating withWhanau a Apanui to require non-locals to apply to Whanau a Apanui for a permit to fish under the F and S Act.” “[Citation Needed]”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/yvonne-tahana/news/article.cfm?a_id=345&objectid=10495239

    “Anyone getting extra rights in part of the country under the F and S Act or the Coastal and Marine Area Bill should lose their rights to enjoy the benefits of public ownership around the rest of the country.” “The Stupid, It Burns.”
    This is obviously impractical – it’s a moral argument. When the government of the time assumed ownership of beaches, rivers and seas 170 years ago, it was because they were key transport routes. What any hapu lost in ownership of their own small area they gained in a share of the the resources of the whole country and the ability to use transport corridors as of right. If they now are to get special rights in the original areas again it would seem at least arguable that they should lose (in the case above) the right to fish without a permit at Whakatane or Devonport.

    “colonialism didn’t have any massive negative impacts”
    I would argue we have ignored the positive impacts for too long. At least this sort of thing doesn’t happen any more since Maori became Christians – part of the colonial impact I suppose.

    “They shot another poor Slave yesterday, and ate her–a girl about ten years old. The brother of Tettee shot at her with a pistol, and only wounded her; when one of Shunghee’s little children knocked her on the head! We had heard of the girl’s being killed: and when we went to dress the wounds of Tettee’s widow we inquired if it was so, when they laughingly told us that they were hungry, and that they killed and ate her with some sweet potatoes, with as little concern as they would have shown had they mentioned the killing of a fowl or a goat.” Missionary Register 1823, p 68. Online at http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz

    Also no-one has managed to correlate the most obvious negative impacts – war and confiscation – with Maori disadvantage today. See Gould, J. 2005. Socio-economic gaps between Maori and Maori. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 114(1) 29-44. Online at http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz

    • NickS 13.1

      /yawn

      Okay, first things first, you see the acronym “XHTML” bellow the comment box? The tags for formatting what you type are in there, of particular frakking importance is the “blockquote” tag which allows you to quote a segment of text, and an tags you use are usually closed with .

      Please use it in future to make your posts less bloody eye-bleeding.

      This is obviously impractical – it’s a moral argument. When the government of the time assumed ownership of beaches, rivers and seas 170 years ago, it was because they were key transport routes. What any hapu lost in ownership of their own small area they gained in a share of the the resources of the whole country and the ability to use transport corridors as of right. If they now are to get special rights in the original areas again it would seem at least arguable that they should lose (in the case above) the right to fish without a permit at Whakatane or Devonport.

      What? Even mainlining caffeine this doesn’t make sense. As what you’re arguing is that giving Maori back fore bed and seashore ownership, as the Crown is required to do so under Te Treati O Waitangi is somehow grounds to deny them access to common utilities etc. With private land the general role of the government when public access and infrastructure is required/wanted, is to negotiate or buy (or compensate, depending on how irrational the land owner is acting) the land from the land owner. Total confiscation is obviously not needed in order to insure this, especially when owners have indicated they merely

      Then there’s the Queen’s Chain bullshit, which conveniently ignores the private ownership of 30% of the NZ coastline, along with private ownership of numerous stream and riverbanks, important parts of freshwater quality and ecological health. Should those owners also be denied access to public utilities etc?

      Fundamentally though, the basic argument your using is little different from that used by those who advocate blocking people who don’t pay “net tax” from accessing public utilities, or on the basis of religion, ethnicity, or ideology.

      As for the particulars of your “example”, it’s most amusing actually, given that they’re letting local pakeha fish without a permit, with the Iwi not administrating the permit, only checking for it.Combined with the new relationship with those already managing local fisheries, it’s obvious that what the Iwi want to do is preserve local fish stocks. Of which ye olde tragedy of the commons shows, that once you get locals involved in management of local resources, it usually leads to less over-exploitation as information about the impacts of over-harvesting get made more apparent.

      And I’m to tired to finish off.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
    Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
    Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruakura Inland Port development vital infrastructure for Waikato
    The Government is investing $40 million to develop an inland port at Ruakura which will become a freight super-hub and a future business, research and residential development for the Waikato, Urban Development and Transport Minister Phil Twyford, and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The funding has been has ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Appointments made to Defence Expert Review Group
    Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today the establishment of an Expert Review Group to review a number of aspects of the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) structure, information management and record-keeping processes.  The Expert Review Group’s work arises out of the first recommendation from the Report of the Government’s Inquiry ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • No active community cases of COVID-19
    There are no active community cases of COVID-19 remaining in the country after the last people from the recent outbreak have recovered from the virus, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “This is a big milestone. New Zealanders have once again through their collective actions squashed the virus. The systems ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Clean energy upgrade for more public buildings
    More public buildings will be supported by the Government to upgrade to run on clean energy, the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. Minister Shaw announced that Lincoln and Auckland universities will receive support through the Clean-Powered Public Service Fund to replace fossil fuel boilers. Southern, Taranaki, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Schools back donations scheme for the second year
    More schools have opted in to the donations scheme for 2021, compared to 2020 when the scheme was introduced. “The families of more than 447,000 students will be better off next year, with 94% of eligible schools and kura opting into the scheme,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “This is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruapehu cycle trails gets PGF boost
    The spectacular Mountains to Sea cycle trail in Ruapehu District will receive $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund for two additional trails, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today. “This is an exciting development for the local community, and one that will provide significant economic opportunities ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Update to air border order strengthens crew requirements
    Additional measures coming into effect on Monday will boost our defence against COVID-19 entering New Zealand through the air border, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “As part of our precautionary approach and strategy of constant review, we’re tightening the requirements around international aircrew,” Chris Hipkins said. The COVID-19 Public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • A true picture of Māori business activity
    A better picture of the contribution Māori businesses make to the economy will be possible with changes to the way information is collected about companies and trading enterprises. Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Small Business Minister Stuart Nash have announced a new option for Māori enterprises who are part ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • PGF funding for Taranaki projects
    The South Taranaki museum, a New Plymouth distillery and a Pasifika building firm will benefit from a Government investment totalling more than $1 million, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones says. The $1.05m in grants and loans from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) will help the recipients expand and create ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Fijian Language Week 2020 inspires courage and strength during COVID-19 pandemic
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says the theme for the 2020 Fijian Language Week reflects the strong belief by Fijians that their language and culture inspires courage and strength that is strongly needed in times of emergencies, or through a significant challenge like the global COVID-19 pandemic ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Trades training builds on iwi aspirations
    An investment of $2.025 million from the Māori Trades and Training Fund will support Māori to learn new skills while making a positive difference for their communities, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “K3 Development Limited Partnership will receive $2,025,000 for its Takitimu Tuanui apprenticeship programme, which will support the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Conservation Minister plants two millionth tree in Raglan restoration
    A long-term conservation project led by the Whaingaroa Harbour Care group in the western Waikato reaches a significant milestone this week, with the planting of the two millionth tree by the Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage. “Planting the two millionth tree crowns 25 years of commitment and partnership involving Whaingaroa ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Seniors – our parents and grandparents
    International Older Persons Day is a chance to think about the individual older New Zealanders we know and to confront ageism, Seniors Minister Tracey Martin said today. “What happened around COVID-19 is a reminder that our over-65s are a very large and diverse group of people and we need to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago