web analytics

The compensation that is and the compensation that is not

Written By: - Date published: 7:40 pm, July 7th, 2009 - 55 comments
Categories: maori party - Tags:

Key has claimed the foreshore and seabed issue is not about compensation.

Tariana’s answer?

This has never been about money says Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia

“I am astounded and disappointed that some critics of and commentators on the report of the ministerial review panel have chosen to highlight the possibility that compensation may become liable under some circumstances.”

“From its very beginnings the foreshore and seabed debate has been about rights. Customary rights and legal rights – and the review report points that out,” says Mrs Turia. “It has never been about money and compensation.”

“The report points out how prejudicial the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been towards Maori, how it amounted to the biggest legalised ‘land grab’ the country has ever known. It talks about the need to recognise the customary rights of hapu and iwi in the coastal marine area, which amount to a property right. It also talks about the ‘interests of the general public’ in the coastal marine area and the need to respect that.”

“And yes it does talk about the potential for compensation. But let me ask the people who are criticising the report because of that aspect. Do they expect that the people who will lose their homes in the path of the new motorway in Auckland will be entitled to compensation?”

“So if Maori hapu and iwi lose their property to the government, should they not also be entitled to compensation?”

“But as I said at the beginning of this statement, this issue has never been about money and compensation. The forty thousand people who marched on Parliament weren’t looking for money or compensation. They were marching for their rights and that is why we in the Maori Party and they, will welcome the repeal of that awful law and we look forward to participating in the discussion to find a fair, logical and lasting way ahead.”

I don’t like the idea of anyone but the public owning the F&S but if Maori have been dispossessed of it they should be compensated.

My problem is I can’t tell if the Maori Party agrees with this or not. I may be missing some clever postmodern synthesis of paradox here but it seems that in Tariana’s view the matter both is and is not about compensation. Simultaneously. Can someone please clarify this for me?

Hattip: Maggie

55 comments on “The compensation that is and the compensation that is not ”

  1. Zetetic 1

    With all the chaff taken out:

    “I am astounded and disappointed that some critics of and commentators on the report of the ministerial review panel have chosen to highlight the possibility that compensation may become liable under some circumstances… From its very beginnings the foreshore and seabed debate has been about rights… It has never been about money and compensation … yes [the report] does talk about the potential for compensation… if Maori hapu and iwi lose their property to the government, should they not also be entitled to compensation? …But as I said at the beginning of this statement, this issue has never been about money and compensation.”

    Unbelievable.

  2. toad 2

    IB said: I don’t like the idea of anyone but the public owning the F&S but if Maori have been dispossessed of it they should be compensated.

    I actually like the idea of iwi/hapu owning it, where it can be demonstrated their customary title has not been extinguished. Because that would be the just solution – the Crown never acquired it by any legitimate Treaty-based means – they did it only becasue they has the numbers in Parliament.

    But if it does revert to iwi/hapu ownership, we need to ensure that the customary title cannot be converted to fee simple title with the inevitable privatisation that would follow that as financial pressures are exerted on iwi/hapu.

    And if there is a good reason that a particular parcel of foreshore or seabed should be in public ownership, then I agree with you IB that those from whom it is nationalised should be entitled to compensation.

    • IrishBill 2.1

      Agreed. However I want to know what the Maori Party’s position is. Any thoughts?

      • Ari 2.1.1

        I imagine the Maori Party sees rights as far more useful in the long-term than compensation and would rather retain any rights it can for Maori than settle for compensation, even if it were on offer.

        I can’t say I’d feel any differently about any right of mine, so despite not really being able to empathise I think I’m generally supportive of their position.

    • ak 2.2

      But if it does revert to iwi/hapu ownership, we need to ensure that the customary title cannot be converted to fee simple title with the inevitable privatisation…

      Say he aha? Am I missing something or isn’t this an incredible and atypically patronising statement for you to make toady? Who’s “we”, palegreenface?

    • Toad

      I agree that the rights of iwi over the foreshore and seabed ought to be able to be recognised. If however these rights can be converted to exclusive rights to access of parts of the coastline then it ought to be able to be “nationalised”. If this happens then compensation should follow.

      This is a conventional situation, all land is subject to the power of state purchase. Why should the foreshore or seabed be different?

      I agree also that the “right” should not be able to be converted to title. Title is a European concept that is inappropriate in this situation.

      Funny thing is that the current Act arguably achieves this. The recognition of “rights” is a bit weak, negotiations were ordered rather than a legally binding decision but it was not that bad.

      National bitterly opposed it. Their current about face is interesting to watch.

      • Lew 2.3.1

        micky, the only people who think the FSA was ‘a bit weak’ are those who wanted the whole issue swept under the carpet in the name of a Labour electoral victory in 2005, or the whole thing thrown out for a National victory. It does as close to nothing to protect indigenous rights as it is possible to do without declaring alienation by conquest.

        As to the question of title: whether it’s an ‘European concept that is inappropriate in this situation’ is for Mãori to decide. It seems they’ve decided that way, but the point remains: the problem with the FSA, beyond its egregiously expropriative nature, is the impression that it is for the Crown, of Labour, or some other bunch of well-meaning but morally hazardous honkeys to decide what is best or most appropriate for Mãori. It ain’t so. History has shown it never was.

        L

        • mickysavage 2.3.1.1

          Lew

          I have been reading parliamentary debates this evening. This from Michael Cullen at the third reading of the FS Bill,

          “What is in this legislation is not an invention of the common law test for territorial customary rights or aboriginal title; it is a codification in statute of the best expert advice we have had as to what those tests should be. In other words, they are the very tests that the High Court should have had to apply if somebody had applied to that court under its inherent jurisdiction, and the very tests, in combination with the tikanga test, that the Māori Land Court should have had to apply if there had been an application for customary land status.”

          The debate really calls out for technical analysis and understanding. I agree that the impression is the problem but I struggle to know what to do about this.

          • Lew 2.3.1.1.1

            micky,

            they are the very tests that the High Court should have had to apply if somebody had applied to that court under its inherent jurisdiction

            Except that this isn’t the case. The onus was always on the crown to prove alienation (by sale, gift, conquest, ‘abandonment’, or whatever). In any case, Cullen was simply gainsaying the Court of Appeal’s judgement, which had already been made to the contrary.

            L

            • mickysavage 2.3.1.1.1.1

              Lew

              When you get expert advise that the law is x what right do you have to ignore that advice and say the law is y?

              This really is the nub of the problem. The disgruntled had a clear view of what the law was, the Labour Government had clear advice that was contrary to this.

              They tried to work out a middle position. The nats at the time lambasted them for it.

              Current (ill informed) statements suggest they got it wrong, if so the Nats under Brash got it doubly wrong.

            • Lew 2.3.1.1.1.2

              micky,

              When you get expert advise that the law is x what right do you have to ignore that advice and say the law is y?

              Do you really, genuinely think Labour got advice which said “legislate now to overrule the Court of Appeal”? No, they decided to legislate and then asked “since we’re legislating to overrule the Court of Appeal, how would we best go about doing this?”. You asks your stupid questions and you gets your stupid answers. Also contrary to Labour’s protestations, the law didn’t break any new ground; as the FSA review panel stated:

              The main point is that the Ngāti Apa decision did not introduce anything radical or new. Rather, it restored the law to what it had been until an aberrant court decision in 1960 confused the legal landscape.

              So, we’ve got duelling expert advice. I’m picking the advice of a panel of eminent indigenous rights, land law and tikanga Mãori scholars over anonymous advice from a ministry given to a government already intent on legislating away jurisdiction.

              Current (ill informed) statements suggest they got it wrong

              If you consider almost everyone outside the Clark government who knows the second thing about this issue to be “ill informed”, then I guess you’re right.

              if so the Nats under Brash got it doubly wrong.

              No objection here, but if “we weren’t as wrong as the Nats under their most divisive leader in modern memory” is your only defence, I have to ask: why are you defending that position?

              L

  3. toad 3

    Sorry, IB – don’t rally know.

    Hone has been a good mate of mine for many years (going back to Auckland University student days, He Taua, and the engineering students’ racist “haka party”). I think I know what his position would be – same as mine.

    Tariana, by contrast, is still trying to get over the way despicable way she was treated by the Labour Party, And she’s not doing it very well. I think it’s well past time she should put that in her past and move on.

    Mind you, Trevor Mallard is far from extending the olive branch, but seems to be trying to further alienate the Maori Party from the prospects of forming an alliance that could create a progressive left-wing anti-racist Government of Labour/Green/Maori parties after the next election.

    • Toad

      Agreed again (wow I should not make this a habit).

      Tariana ought to build a bridge.

      Also her intellectual firepower is not extraordinary.

      Hone Harawira has performed well. I never thought I would say this.

      • Nick 3.1.1

        How beautifully put “her intellectual firepower is not extraordinary”, beggars belief Turiana gets an audience.

      • Ari 3.1.2

        I’d say the Labour Party should start building a bridge too if they want Tariana to do anything. There’s no such thing as a one-sided reconciliation.

  4. Pascal's bookie 4

    Toad, re the concerns about conversion to fee simple and sale…

    is article two of the treaty no longer applicable:

    …but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

    Wouldn’t that mean that if they wanted to sell, crown gets first dibs?

    • toad 4.1

      That’s exactly where I was going PB.

    • But are the foreshore and seabed “lands”?

      Hence the problem.

      • Anita 4.2.1

        I think you’ll find the answer in the Māori version of the treaty. Quibbling over the meaning of the English version is pointless.

        • mickysavage 4.2.1.1

          Good point Anita.

          Article 2 of the treaty preserves to Maori “control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain”.

          This is much wider than “land”.

          • Lew 4.2.1.1.1

            micky,

            Well, that’s still the English version. I think the custom Anita is referring to is the rule of contra proferentem, which holds that ambiguities be interpreted against the party who drafted them. Choice of language is the largest (and ugliest) such source of ambiguity possible; it is on this basis that the English version is generally subordinate to the Mãori version.

            L

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1.1

              Actually, under international law, which is based upon the same English laws that our laws are based upon, the English version doesn’t even exist.

              But, it still comes down to the question – did they actually hold the seabed and foreshore when the treaty was signed?

            • Anita 4.2.1.1.1.2

              Lew,

              Years ago I was told that there’s an established principle than in treaties between colonisers and indigenous people the indigenous language version takes precedent. I’ve always guessed it’s simply an extension of contra proferentem, but it may come from somewhere else.

            • mickysavage 4.2.1.1.1.3

              Agreed Lew and Anita that the indigenous version ought to overrule the English version, especially when (Henry Williams I think) told Hobson about the difficulty with the treaty and especially Article 2.

              The English version states that the Crown guaranteed to Maori “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties”.

              Even the English version appears to stretch to cover foreshore and seabed.

              Lew

              “I’m picking the advice of a panel of eminent indigenous rights, land law and tikanga Mãori scholars over anonymous advice from a ministry given to a government already intent on legislating away jurisdiction.”

              Fine but I do not know how many times I have said this but the Act did not legislate away jurisdiction.

              Section 33 states:

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

              Sorry Lew this reads like a codification. Do you have any analysis to show that it is not?

              The Ngati Apa decision was not legislated away. It was affected in that public access to the foreshore was guaranteed. Compensation would then be payable. Claims of “theft” and “doing away with rights” are, with respect, over the top.

            • Lew 4.2.1.1.1.4

              micky,

              Section 33 doesn’t convey anything like the same rights as native title. It’s very weak, access to it is unreasonably difficult, and it doesn’t grant any/many useful rights in any case. See my more fulsome comment here.

              L

            • Lew 4.2.1.1.1.5

              Dtb,

              But, it still comes down to the question did they actually hold the seabed and foreshore when the treaty was signed?

              No, this question has been settled for decades by the Waitangi Tribunal. See here You might consider reading Wai 22 if you want to sound credible on this matter; it’s quite significant.

              L

            • mickysavage 4.2.1.1.1.6

              “Lew

              “Section 33 doesn’t convey anything like the same rights as native title. It’s very weak, access to it is unreasonably difficult, and it doesn’t grant any/many useful rights in any case. See my more fulsome comment here.”

              Well with all due respect the major problem with the debate is the that the phraseology used by most is somewhat sloppy.

              You previously said it “legislat[ed] away jurisdiction”. It did not. The jurisdiction remained to consider such cases. The remedy was affected but the intent was that breaches would result in compensation rather than rights being able to be enforced.

              And I am not surprised that there have been no applications to date. It seems that very few people know about section 33. Besides that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not a right exists does not depend on people exercising that right in Court.

            • Lew 4.2.1.1.1.7

              micky,

              I agree that the complex issue is made more complex by poor understanding, but the simple fact is that s33 (and the other ‘out’ clauses in the FSA) come nowhere near the rights of full native title, which is what the Court of Appeal found was potentially up for grabs. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you equivocate, the gap between the rights and remedies provided by native title and the rights and remedies provided for in the FSA were legislated away. That’s the bottom line.

              As for your last comment, arguing that the reason few groups have applied for recognition under the FSA because they don’t understand it – that’s delusional. The problem is that they understood well enough that the clauses were drafted such as to make it bloody hard to prove a case (by reversing the burden of proof), and to grant nothing but the most scanty rights to redress even in the unlikely event a claim was successful, and that such redress was to be enforced by a government who had shown such bad faith in drafting and passing the act that it wasn’t worth them bothering, and in most cases the path of least resistance was campaigning for full repeal of the act. That has since been proven true.

              This isn’t just some shit I’m making up – these are (some of) the findings of the FSA review panel.

              L

      • Nick 4.2.2

        My forebears owned water front property in UK, fished the sea out front, by Turianas logic we should lay claim to that seabed. Im in favour of it extending as far as Antarctica including NZ becoming my exclusive family property

  5. Pascal's bookie 5

    Not that for a second I imagine sale is on the agenda.

  6. CJ 6

    It doesn’t seem to me as though there is anything mysterious about the Maori Party’s position from Turia’s statement. She has said that the issue isn’t about money, it is about the recognition of Maori rights. But, if those rights are taken away, then compensation should follow. That’s pretty clear to me and seems to follow quite logically. What is not to understand about that position?

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1

      Of course it’s about money – as soon as the rights, if there are any, are up held they’ll be looking at ways to commercially exploit them.

  7. deemac 7

    I heard Turia and Sharples make contradictory statements on this issue – but that is hardly a new situation. Clarity would be helpful to the public but perhaps not in the political interests of the Maori Party. Just when it looks as if a mutually agreeable solution is in reach, politicians just can’t resist point-scoring – it’s a habit.

  8. gingercrush 8

    Seems to me the left just wish to play politics over this issue. Of course that is their right and its not like the right didn’t play politics in 2004 or 2005. But the idea that the Maori Party and the National Party are contradicting themselves is in my belief wish-making by the left. I don’t think many of you wish to settle this properly. You’re just wanting things to get stuffed up in some belief that will make it easier for you lot to get back into power. Speaks volumes about the desperation of the left at the moment.

    • Pascal's bookie 8.1

      No, it only speaks to what you reckon. Your entitled to your reckonings of course, but seeing your knowledge of what goes on in lefties heads is close to zip, and that’s all your reckonings are based on, the rest of us needn’t pay them much mind.

      JFTR though, are you saying that it is your belief that National’s position in 04 05 was purely politics; that they did not in fact believe what they were saying and were deliberately and willfully stirring up racial conflict, and denying Maori property rights that they knew in fact existed, and that you voted for them regardless of that fact?

      Oh my.

  9. ak 9

    Overheard on a bus:

    “But mind you, they are saying that anyone can still go there….and that they don’t want any money out of it or anythink – ”

    “So what the heck do they want then?”

    “Weeellllllll……just the right to go to court and all that, I think…..”

    “What the heck for?”

    “Ahhhh………weeeellllll, so they can prove that they don’t want anythink I suppose! heh heh heh……..heh”

    “Heh. heh heh heh”

    “Mmmmmmmmm………”

  10. Tom Semmens 10

    Lew said:
    “…As to the question of title: whether it’s an ‘European concept that is inappropriate in this situation’ is for Mãori to decide…”

    And therein lies the your consistent error and usual flaw – your refusal to recognise the demographic facts of New Zealand in 2009.

    To paraphrase Stalin “The Maori? How many votes have they got?”

    • lprent 10.1

      Ummm doesn’t sound like the man at all. Wasn’t it something like how many guns or armies ??

      • Lew 10.1.1

        Lynn,

        Yeah, armies. But the principle remains: might makes right.

        Except it doesn’t – it just makes ability.

        L

    • Lew 10.2

      Tom,

      To paraphrase Stalin “The Maori? How many votes have they got?’

      Nice to see a Marxist who’s honest about their principles.

      L

  11. burt 11

    IrishBill

    When you take away all the bluster and BS, any stance appears to be better than Labour’s was. I don’t get where you think you can claim some high ground on this. Key could flip flop and pontificate for months and that would be better than Labour’s angry elephant in the room.

    • IrishBill 11.1

      You seem to be confusing me for the Labour Party. For the record I never supported the disgraceful legislation (and behaviour) Labour answered the foreshore and seabed issue with.

      I was however a supporter of the Maori Party and want to know what their answer on this issue is. I’m hoping it is either that iwi get customary title or that they are compensated if it is lost. However they have made no clear statement of what they want.

  12. Tom Semmens 12

    lprent – do you not know what to “paraphrase” means? It seems one would struggle to imagine the authors of the Standard sitting about smoking Gitanes and drinking cheap vin ordinaire. The Standard needs to do something about the quality of it’s intellectual underpinnings.

    The actual quote was in relation to some complaint from the Pope, to which the ever-charming Mr. Stalin replied “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?” The point is that Lew can can sit in his bath in the morning and enjoy thinking through purity of his system, But relevance of his arguments to the real debate beyond his front door is a big fat zero.

    • lprent 12.1

      Paraphrase usually involves similar situations.

      There is a major difference between peaceful voting and spreading peoples guts all over the landscape, not to mention S’s other political habits. I was surprised to see you use it in the context of the local iwi/kiwi context.

      Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of paraphrasing?

    • Spectator 12.2

      That was a misquotation, not a paraphrase.

  13. Maggie 13

    I don’t think it matters finally what the Maori Party says or what it wants.

    We pakeha seem to have the strange belief that a political party can speak on behalf of an entire race. We would never believe the Nats or Labour can speak on behalf of all non-Maori but seem to be believe the Maori Party represents all Maori.

    The Maori Party can do a deal with the government that individual iwi could then ignore if they wanted.’

    As much as I dislike saying it I am rapidly coming to the position that a settlement imposed by legislation is the only solution and that maybe Labour got it right from the beginning.

  14. John 14

    When the foreshore and seabed was nationalised – lets say in 1840 – every little hapu lost something but they gained something of much more value – an equal share in every other little hapu’s foreshore and seabed. This was especially important given that foreshores were the main roads all over the country.

    Do we really want to reverse this decision now?

    What customary rights have been forbidden on the foreshore and seabed?

    I am voting NZ First over this outrageous attempt on the public estate.

    • Lew 14.1

      John,

      When the foreshore and seabed was nationalised lets say in 1840

      When the Germans won the Great War … oh, wait, they didn’t. Nor was the Foreshore nationalised. Nobody argues this. Not even NZ First.

      But hey, it’s a democracy. You can vote for whomever you like, no matter how misguided.

      L

  15. John 15

    The effect of bringing in British law was nationalisation.

    Everyone believed that the foreshore and seabed belonged to the country. Going back as far as I can remember and having lived and worked as a fisherman in a remote Maori area, no-one ever asserted anything different. Two statutes asserted crown ownership.

    No living Maori has lost anything on the foreshore and seabed. And I am arguing that whenever in the 19th century these vital transport arteries were nationalised the former owners gained as much as they lost.

    By the way, what “customary activities” are the proponents of hapu and iwi ownership interested in pursuing – and why aren’t they defined.

    Ethnic Maori nationalism is about as deplorable as other ethnic nationalisms – Sudetenlanders maybe. Lowest common denominator stuff but an easy way to set up politically.

    • Lew 15.1

      John, funny, I haven’t heard one single constitutional expert arguing this case. Not one. Not since Prendergast, anyhow, and his analysis has been thoroughly discredited for a very long time indeed.

      L

  16. John 16

    And after 100 years of Crown ownership, surely “customary” now means public ownership!

  17. Lew 17

    John,

    Not unless the crown can demonstrate that the land was alienated from its customary owners. That’s what the Court of Appeal found.

    L

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand boosts support to Fiji for COVID-19 impact
    Aotearoa New Zealand is providing additional support to Fiji to mitigate the effects of the current COVID-19 outbreak on vulnerable households, Foreign Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta announced today. “Recognising the increasingly challenging situation in Fiji, Aotearoa will provide an additional package of assistance to support the Government of Fiji and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 hours ago
  • Round 2 of successful energy education fund now open
    $1.65 million available in Support for Energy Education in Communities funding round two Insights from SEEC to inform future energy hardship programmes Community organisations that can deliver energy education to households in need are being invited to apply for the second funding round of the Support for Energy Education in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 hours ago
  • New Ngarimu scholarships to target vocational training
    Associate Education Minister Kelvin Davis today announced three new scholarships for students in vocational education and training (VET) are to be added to the suite of prestigious Ngarimu scholarships. “VET learners have less access to study support than university students and this is a way to tautoko their learning dreams ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Recognising the volunteers who support our health system
    Nominations have opened today for the 2021 Minister of Health Volunteer Awards, as part of National Volunteer Week. “We know that New Zealanders donate at least 159 million hours of volunteer labour every year,” Minister of Health Andrew Little said in launching this year’s awards in Wellington. “These people play ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Drug Free Sport supported to deal with new doping challenges
    Drug Free Sport New Zealand will receive a funding boost to respond to some of the emerging doping challenges across international sport. The additional $4.3 million over three years comes from the Sport Recovery Fund announced last year. It will help DFSNZ improve athletes’ understanding of the risks of doping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Government support for South Auckland community hit by tornado
    The Government is contributing $100,000 to a Mayoral Relief Fund to support Auckland communities impacted by the Papatoetoe tornado, Acting Minister for Emergency Management Kris Faafoi says. “My heart goes out to the family and friends who have lost a loved one, and to those who have been injured. I ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Celebrating World Refugee Day
    World Refugee Day today is an opportunity to celebrate the proud record New Zealanders have supporting and protecting refugees and acknowledge the contribution these new New Zealanders make to our country, the Minister of Immigration Kris Faafoi said. “World Refugee Day is also a chance to think about the journey ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Face to face meeting delivers significant progress on NZ-UK FTA
    New Zealand and the UK have committed to accelerating their free trade agreement negotiations with the aim of reaching an agreement in principle this August, Trade Minister Damien O’Connor announced. “We’ve held constructive and productive discussions towards the conclusion of a high-quality and comprehensive FTA that will support sustainable and inclusive trade, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government taking action to protect albatross
    New population figures for the critically endangered Antipodean albatross showing a 5 percent decline per year highlights the importance of reducing all threats to these very special birds, Acting Minister of Conservation Dr Ayesha Verrall says. The latest population modelling, carried out by Dragonfly Data Science, shows the Antipodean albatross ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Adoption laws under review
    New Zealand’s 66-year-old adoption laws are being reviewed, with public engagement beginning today.  Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said the Government is seeking views on options for change to our adoption laws and system. “The Adoption Act has remained largely the same since 1955. We need our adoption laws to reflect ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Wider roll-out of cameras on boats to support sustainability and protect marine life
    Up to 300 inshore commercial fishing vessels will be fitted with on-board cameras by 2024 as part of the Government’s commitment to protect the natural marine environment for future generations.  Minister for Oceans and Fisheries David Parker today announced the funding is now in place for the wider roll out ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Plan for vaccine rollout for general population announced
    New Zealanders over 60 will be offered a vaccination from July 28 and those over 55 from August 11, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. The rollout of the vaccine to the general population will be done in age groups as is the approach commonly used overseas, with those over ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New Zealand introduces Belarus travel bans
    New Zealand has imposed travel bans on selected individuals associated with the Lukashenko regime, following ongoing concerns about election fraud and human rights abuses after the 2020 Belarus elections, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta has announced. The ban covers more than fifty individuals, including the President and key members of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ economy grows driven by households, construction and business investment
    The Government’s efforts to secure the recovery have been reflected in the robust rebound of GDP figures released today which show the economy remains resilient despite the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Grant Robertson said. GDP increased 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021. The Treasury had ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Milestone 250th tower continues to improve rural connectivity
    The Government has welcomed the completion of the 250th 4G mobile tower, as part of its push for better rural connectivity. Waikato’s Wiltsdown, which is roughly 80 kilometres south of Hamilton, is home to the new tower, deployed by the Rural Connectivity Group to enable improved service to 70 homes ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Quarantine Free Travel pause with Victoria to lift on Tuesday
    Following a further public health assessment of the COVID-19 outbreak in greater Melbourne, New Zealand’s Quarantine Free Travel pause with Victoria has been extended to 11.59pm on Tuesday 22 June, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins says. It has been determined that the risk to public health in New Zealand continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Prime Minister mourns passing of Dr Sir Ian Hassall
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is mourning the passing of Dr Sir Ian Hassall, New Zealand’s first Children’s Commissioner and lifelong champion for children and children’s health. As a paediatrician Sir Ian contributed to a major world-first cot death study that has been directly credited with reducing cot deaths in New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • APEC structural reform meeting a success
    APEC ministers have agreed working together will be crucial to ensure economies recover from the impact of COVID-19. Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs David Clark, chaired the virtual APEC Structural Reform Ministerial Meeting today which revolved around the overarching theme of promoting balanced, inclusive, sustainable, innovative and secure growth ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Digital hub to boost investment in forestry
    A new website has been launched at Fieldays to support the forestry sector find the information it needs to plant, grow and manage trees, and to encourage investment across the wider industry. Forestry Minister Stuart Nash says the new Canopy website is tailored for farmers, iwi and other forestry interests, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government continues support for rangatahi to get into employment, education and training
    Over 230 rangatahi are set to benefit from further funding through four new He Poutama Rangatahi programmes, Minister for Social Development and Employment Carmel Sepuloni announced today. “We’re continuing to secure our economic recovery from COVID by investing in opportunities for rangatahi to get into meaningful employment, education or training ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • NCEA subjects up for consultation
    The education sector, students, their parents, whānau and communities are invited to share their thoughts on a list of proposed NCEA subjects released today, Education Minister Chris Hipkins says. This is a significant part of the Government’s NCEA Change Programme that commenced in 2020 and will be largely implemented by ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Major investment in plantain forage programme aims to improve freshwater quality
    The Government is backing a major programme investigating plantain’s potential to help farmers protect waterways and improve freshwater quality, Acting Agriculture Minister Meka Whaitiri announced at Fieldays today. The Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures (SFFF) fund is contributing $8.98 million to the $22.23 million seven-year programme, which aims to deliver ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • America’s Cup decision
    The Minister responsible for the America’s Cup has confirmed the joint Crown-Auckland Council offer to host the next regatta has been declined by the Board of Team New Zealand. “The exclusive period of negotiation between the Crown, Auckland Council, and Team New Zealand ends tomorrow, 17 June,” said Stuart Nash. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Food and fibres sector making significant strides towards New Zealand’s economic recovery
    The Government is backing the food and fibres sector to lead New Zealand's economic recovery from COVID-19 with targeted investments as part of its Fit for a Better World roadmap, Forestry Minister Stuart Nash said. “To drive New Zealand’s recovery, we launched the Fit for a Better World – Accelerating ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to He Whenua Taurikura – New Zealand’s annual hui on countering terrorism and violent...
    Check against delivery Can I begin by acknowledging the 51 shuhada, their families and the Muslim community. It is because of the atrocious violent act that was done to them which has led ultimately to this, the start of a dialogue and a conversation about how we as a nation ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Cost of Government Southern Response proactive package released
    The Government has announced the proactive package for some Southern Response policyholders could cost $313 million if all those eligible apply. In December, the Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission, David Clark announced a proactive package for SRES claimants who settled their claims before October 2014. It trailed the judgment ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • First period products delivered to schools
    The first period products funded as part of the Government’s nationwide rollout are being delivered to schools and kura this week, as part of wider efforts to combat child poverty, help increase school attendance, and make a positive impact on children’s wellbeing. “We know that nearly 95,000 9-to-18 year olds ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New support to reduce emissions from public building and construction projects
    Government agencies are getting new support to reduce carbon emissions generated by construction of new buildings, with the release of practical guidance to shape decisions on public projects. The Ministers for Building and Construction and for Economic Development say a new Procurement Guide will help government agencies, private sector suppliers, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • He Whenua Taurikura: New Zealand’s first Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism
    The Prime Minister has opened New Zealand’s first hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism, which is being held in Christchurch over the next two days. The hui delivers on one of the recommendations from the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to inaugural Countering Terrorism Hui
    E aku nui, e aku rahi, Te whaka-kanohi mai o rātou mā, Ru-ruku-tia i runga i te ngākau whakapono, Ru-ruku-tia i runga i te ngākau aroha, Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe, Ngai Tahu, nāu rā te reo pohiri. Tena tātou katoa. Ki te kotahi te kakaho ka whati, ki te kapuia, e ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Campaign shines a light on elder abuse
    A new campaign is shining a spotlight on elder abuse, and urging people to protect older New Zealanders. Launched on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, the Office for Seniors’ campaign encourages friends, whānau and neighbours to look for the signs of abuse, which is often hidden in plain sight. “Research suggests ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Farewelling sports administrator and philanthropist Sir Eion Edgar
    Sport and Recreation Minister Grant Robertson today expressed his sorrow at the passing of Sir Eion Edgar – a leading sports administrator and celebrated philanthropist who has made a significant impact both within and beyond the sport sector. “Sir Eion’s energy, drive and generosity has been truly immense. He leaves ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government to apologise for Dawn Raids
    The Government will make a formal apology for the wrongs committed during the Dawn Raids of the 1970’s. Between 1974 and 1976, a series of rigorous immigration enforcement policies were carried out that resulted in targeted raids on the homes of Pacific families. The raids to find, convict and deport overstayers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Humanitarian support for Bangladesh and Myanmar
    Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta today announced that New Zealand is providing NZ $8.25 million in humanitarian assistance to support refugees and their host populations in Bangladesh and to support humanitarian need of internally displaced and conflict affected people in Myanmar.  “Nearly four years after 900,000 Rohingya crossed the border ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Poroporoaki: Dame Georgina Kamiria Kirby
    E Te Kōkō Tangiwai, Te Tuhi Mareikura, Te Kākākura Pokai kua riro i a matou. He toka tū moana ākinga ā tai, ākinga ā hau, ākinga ā ngaru tūātea.  Haere atu rā ki te mūrau a te tini, ki te wenerau a te mano.  E tae koe ki ngā rire ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Feedback sought on future of housing and urban development
    New Zealanders are encouraged to have their say on a long-term vision for housing and urban development to guide future work, the Housing Minister Megan Woods has announced. Consultation starts today on a Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD), which will support the long-term direction of Aotearoa ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Clean car package to drive down emissions
    New rebates for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles start July 1 with up to $8,625 for new vehicles and $3,450 for used. Electric vehicle chargers now available every 75km along most state highways to give Kiwis confidence. Low Emission Transport Fund will have nearly four times the funding by 2023 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Progress towards simpler process for changing sex on birth certificates
    The Government is taking the next step to support transgender, non-binary and intersex New Zealanders, by progressing the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill, Minister of Internal Affairs, Jan Tinetti announced today. “This Government understands that self-identification is a significant issue for transgender, non-binary and intersex New Zealanders, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Crown speeds up engagement with takutai moana applicants
    The Crown is taking a new approach to takutai moana applications to give all applicants an opportunity to engage with the Crown and better support the Māori-Crown relationship, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Andrew Little says. Following discussions with applicant groups, the Crown has reviewed the existing takutai moana application ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment (AODT) Court opens
    The Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, and the Minister for Courts, Aupito William Sio, have welcomed the opening of a new Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment (AODT) Court in Hamilton. The AODT Court (Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua) addresses situations where substance abuse and offending are intertwined. “New Zealanders have told ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago