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

  • Environment Court Judge appointed
    Prudence Steven QC, barrister of Christchurch has been appointed as an Environment Judge and District Court Judge to serve in Christchurch, Attorney-General David Parker announced today. Ms Steven has been a barrister sole since 2008, practising in resource management and local government / public law.    She was appointed a Queen’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 hours ago
  • Government moves on climate promises
    The Government is delivering on its first tranche of election promises to take action on climate change with a raft of measures that will help meet New Zealand’s 2050 carbon neutral target, create new jobs and boost innovation. “This will be an ongoing area of action but we are moving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    10 hours ago
  • Jump starting research careers
    The Government is investing up to $10 million to support 30 of the country’s top early-career researchers to develop their research skills. “The pandemic has had widespread impacts across the science system, including the research workforce. After completing their PhD, researchers often travel overseas to gain experience but in the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Project protects jobs and nature
    A Waitomo-based Jobs for Nature project will keep up to ten people employed in the village as the tourism sector recovers post Covid-19 Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “This $500,000 project will save ten local jobs by deploying workers from Discover Waitomo into nature-based jobs. They will be undertaking local ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Minister Shaw speaks with U.S. Presidential Envoy John Kerry
    Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw spoke yesterday with President Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. “I was delighted to have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Kerry this morning about the urgency with which our governments must confront the climate emergency. I am grateful to him and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs makes three diplomatic appointments
    Foreign Affairs Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta today announced three diplomatic appointments: Alana Hudson as Ambassador to Poland John Riley as Consul-General to Hong Kong Stephen Wong as Consul-General to Shanghai   Poland “New Zealand’s relationship with Poland is built on enduring personal, economic and historical connections. Poland is also an important ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Major redevelopment of Wainuiomata High School underway
    Work begins today at Wainuiomata High School to ensure buildings and teaching spaces are fit for purpose, Education Minister Chris Hipkins says. The Minister joined principal Janette Melrose and board chair Lynda Koia to kick off demolition for the project, which is worth close to $40 million, as the site ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • New expert group appointed to advise Government on Oranga Tamariki
    A skilled and experienced group of people have been named as the newly established Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board by Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis today. The Board will provide independent advice and assurance to the Minister for Children across three key areas of Oranga Tamariki: relationships with families, whānau, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • COVID-19 vaccine slated for possible approval next week
    The green light for New Zealand’s first COVID-19 vaccine could be granted in just over a week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said today. “We’re making swift progress towards vaccinating New Zealanders against the virus, but we’re also absolutely committed to ensuring the vaccines are safe and effective,” Jacinda Ardern said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New ACC Board members announced.
    The Minister for ACC is pleased to announce the appointment of three new members to join the Board of ACC on 1 February 2021. “All three bring diverse skills and experience to provide strong governance oversight to lead the direction of ACC” said Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Bella Takiari-Brame from Hamilton ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Economic boost for Southland marae
    The Government is investing $9 million to upgrade a significant community facility in Invercargill, creating economic stimulus and jobs, Infrastructure Minister Grant Robertson and Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene have announced.  The grant for Waihōpai Rūnaka Inc to make improvements to Murihiku Marae comes from the $3 billion set ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Celebrating the Entry Into Force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
    [Opening comments, welcome and thank you to Auckland University etc] It is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon to celebrate such an historic occasion - the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is a moment many feared would never come, but ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Supporting disabled people to stay connected
    The Government is providing $3 million in one-off seed funding to help disabled people around New Zealand stay connected and access support in their communities, Minister for Disability Issues, Carmel Sepuloni announced today. The funding will allow disability service providers to develop digital and community-based solutions over the next two ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Voluntary saliva testing offered to quarantine workers from Monday
    Border workers in quarantine facilities will be offered voluntary daily COVID-19 saliva tests in addition to their regular weekly testing, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. This additional option will be rolled out at the Jet Park Quarantine facility in Auckland starting on Monday 25 January, and then to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Next steps in firearms buy-back
    The next steps in the Government’s ambitious firearms reform programme to include a three-month buy-back have been announced by Police Minister Poto Williams today.  “The last buy-back and amnesty was unprecedented for New Zealand and was successful in collecting 60,297 firearms, modifying a further 5,630 firearms, and collecting 299,837 prohibited ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Jobs for Nature projects target iconic ecosystems
    Upscaling work already underway to restore two iconic ecosystems will deliver jobs and a lasting legacy, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says.  “The Jobs for Nature programme provides $1.25 billion over four years to offer employment opportunities for people whose livelihoods have been impacted by the COVID-19 recession. “Two new projects ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Public Housing Plan announced
    The Government has released its Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in Budget 2020, will go. “The Government is committed to continuing its public house build programme at pace and scale. The extra 8,000 homes – 6000 public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Prime Minister congratulates President Joe Biden on his inauguration
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has congratulated President Joe Biden on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States of America. “I look forward to building a close relationship with President Biden and working with him on issues that matter to both our countries,” Jacinda Ardern said. “New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Jobs for Nature funding will create training and employment opportunities
    A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pre-departure testing extended to all passengers to New Zealand
    To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago