No closure on the foreshore

49 comments on “No closure on the foreshore ”

• Comments are now closed

1. r0b 1

   9 December 2010 at 12:50 pm

   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

   9 December 2010 at 1:20 pm

   “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

   9 December 2010 at 1:40 pm

   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

   9 December 2010 at 1:49 pm

   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

     9 December 2010 at 2:00 pm

     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

       9 December 2010 at 2:13 pm

       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

   9 December 2010 at 1:53 pm

   “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

     9 December 2010 at 2:01 pm

     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. mickysavage 6

   9 December 2010 at 2:08 pm

   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

     9 December 2010 at 2:25 pm

     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

     9 December 2010 at 3:01 pm

     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

       9 December 2010 at 3:35 pm

       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

         9 December 2010 at 3:39 pm

         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

           9 December 2010 at 3:54 pm

           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

             9 December 2010 at 4:02 pm

             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 …

               9 December 2010 at 4:08 pm

               CoA judgement came out on 19 June. Clark was publicly discussing legislating it away on 20 June. no dispute on the subsequent processes.
               • r0b …

                 9 December 2010 at 4:38 pm

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

                   9 December 2010 at 4:51 pm

                   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
                   • mickysavage …

                     9 December 2010 at 5:04 pm

                     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 …

                     9 December 2010 at 5:05 pm

                     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 …

                     10 December 2010 at 3:32 pm

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

                     http://thestandard.org.nz/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 …

                     10 December 2010 at 7:44 pm

                     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 …

                     10 December 2010 at 8:49 pm

                     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 …

                     10 December 2010 at 11:34 pm

                     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 …

                     10 December 2010 at 11:51 pm

                     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 …

                 11 December 2010 at 12:26 am

                 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 …

                   11 December 2010 at 10:25 am

                   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 …

               9 December 2010 at 4:11 pm

               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
               • mickysavage …

                 9 December 2010 at 4:46 pm

                 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 …

                   9 December 2010 at 5:41 pm

                   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
                   • mickysavage …

                     9 December 2010 at 8:55 pm

                     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 …

                     9 December 2010 at 9:18 pm

                     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

     9 December 2010 at 4:14 pm

     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

       9 December 2010 at 4:49 pm

       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

     9 December 2010 at 9:00 pm

     More good news Mickey.

     capcha – “considerably”
7. SPC 7

   9 December 2010 at 2:39 pm

   “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. marty mars 8

   9 December 2010 at 3:28 pm

   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

   9 December 2010 at 5:24 pm

   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

     9 December 2010 at 9:20 pm

     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

       9 December 2010 at 10:11 pm

       /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

     9 December 2010 at 10:22 pm

     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

    9 December 2010 at 7:04 pm

    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

    9 December 2010 at 7:36 pm

    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

    9 December 2010 at 10:32 pm

    This is better work from Labour. Its been a good week, so far.
13. John L 13

    10 December 2010 at 12:46 pm

    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

      10 December 2010 at 9:49 pm

      /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

1. The Standard: posted on 8 December 2010 at 11:42 pm
2. Marilyn Morehouse: posted on 9 December 2010 at 2:56 am
3. Time for Turia to go « The Standard: posted on 11 December 2010 at 7:41 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS