Public Address - Hard News (Home)

KIlling it will be the easy part | Jul 09, 2009 11:54

I've been trying, without any great success, to determine the precise implications of the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. And I can't help but notice that I'm not the only one not quite getting a fix on it.

Even this slightly odd press release from Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, which manages to say that it's not about money, but "if Maori hapu and iwi lose their property to the government, should they not … be entitled to compensation?"

It was a few days before John Key declared that financial compensation was essentially off the table.

The review is also remarkably lukewarm on what many people thought was the key issue to emerge from the Ngati Apa decision in 2003: the right of iwi and hapu to test their customary rights to stretches of the foreshore and seabed in court. It canvasses the "judicial model" but declares that "[s]uch a process is likely to be protracted, laborious and expensive and could result in an unmanageable patchwork of litigation."

It favours a "mixed model" solution, that "takes as its starting point that entitled Māori do have some form of customary or tikanga title to all of the foreshore and seabed and that the public also have interests in access and navigation over this key area."

Does this, er, sound a bit like the Foreshore and Seabed Act, at least in principle? Why, yes it does:

We observe that the support shown for a new statutory regime implies general agreement with the government's decision made in 2004 to introduce a new statutory regime."

But:

One key problem in 2003–4, however, was not the concept of a new model as such but rather the timing and process chosen to implement it. To us the process of how a final settlement of this matter might be achieved from now on is almost as important as the substantive shape and content of that settlement."

I think this is an uncontroversial observation. Labour's panicky response deeply offended many Maori. But is simply playing nice going to settle the issue?

One of the two structures the review proposes is the creation of a "bicultural body" to sort things out by proposing "a legislative framework by which national and local solutions may be found to accommodate customary ownership, use and control, respectively." That'll be a barrel of laughs -- and some distance from that precious day in court promised by Ngati Apa.

The second suggested structure "focuses on achieving the same objective by regional and national negotiations directly between Crown and Iwi. To speed the process there are provisions for early district identification, early entity formation and direct reference of particular issues to the Māori Land Court (or to arbitration) if the parties so elect."

It seems entirely possible that Maori will end up with a lesser recourse to the courts than they currently have under the Foreshore & Seabed Act. But, as the authors say:

We observe at the outset however that those who spoke with us were so focused on establishing that the Act should be repealed that there was comparatively little debate on what should be done if it were.

It seems to me that this is a long, long way from over, and that John Roughan's happy conclusion that because the review panel recognises (if in a somewhat sniffy fashion -- would it have killed them to acknowledge that Pakeha may have developed feelings about our shoreline that run deeper than simply splashing about in the summertime?) non-Maori feelings about the beach as a recreational area, "A law can be written now with mutual respect," is optimistic.

On one hand, Maori may well be deprived of the thing they ostensibly desired -- a day in court. On the other, National's base is already rumbling.

I respect Chris Finlayson's ability and desire to bring, in the best possible sense, conservative values to bear on the issue of property rights. But the fact is that National's stance has previously been that the entire Ngati Apa decision should be legislated over without consultation or compensation, and that customary rights should be thus extinguished. You need only read any number of internet forums to conclude that many of its voters still believe that to be the correct course of action.

Doug Graham, whose judgement I also respect, has made soothing noises about the limits of customary title, and yet the review states that Maori "do have some form of customary or tikanga title to all of the foreshore and seabed."

Exactly what the Maori Party does will be interesting. Will its leaders feel under pressure to hail the Key government's solution as a victory -- even if it's not really what they want -- because victory provides the rationale not only for going into partnership with National, but for the formation of the party itself?

One thing's for sure. Killing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 will be the easy part.

(49 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Swine flu and swearing | Jul 07, 2009 10:41

There is bad news and good news about swine flu. The bad news, obviously, is that New Zealanders have died or become gravely ill after being infected with the H1N1 virus. The first victim was an apparently healthy young man whose father found him dead in the morning. An infected baby is in intensive care at Starship after suffering a cardiac arrest.

The good news is that a University of Otago team has estimated that the rate of fatalities will probably be considerably lower than the estimates based on data from Mexico. Rather than four deaths per thousand, it is more likely to be one per 10,000 or even per 100,000.

As one of the researchers, Michael Baker, told Kathryn Ryan this morning, that's the difference between about 5000 swine flu deaths in New Zealand, and a toll in the low hundreds or even tens. About 400 New Zealanders die annually after contracting seasonal flu (these aren't recorded deaths, but an estimate of "excess mortality" over winter), although it appears that the groups at risk will be somewhat different with H1N1. (It's looking like there might be twice as many people with some form of influenza this winter, which isn't trivial.)

So far, says Baker, it doesn't look like "a 1918 scenario". But some groups -- Maori and Pacific Islanders in particular -- will suffer more severely. And "these are unpredictable viruses and it may change its behaviour over the next year or two … we're definitely not sounding the all-clear at all about this pandemic."

Our government has ordered 300,000 doses of an experimental swine flu vaccine from an American company. The vaccine will arrive within a month, but, barring emergency, won't be approved for use until around December.

So … has anyone had it?
---

This week's Media7 will have some range.

I'll be talking to Tim Pankhurst about what's fit to withhold, in the context of the police bid to force John Campbell and four other journalists to give evidence as to the identity of the so-called "medal thief".

Then we're looking at disability and the media, with a panel featuring Curtis Palmer, the associate producer of Attitude; former Radio New Zealand reporter Sally Wenley; and Sacha Dylan -- yes, that's our Sacha.

And you can send the kids to bed for a panel on swearing in the media with Outrageous Fortune co-creator James Griffin, Pam Corkery, and chief censor Bill Hastings. Among other things, we'll be asking James to account for this little number:

Yes, that's all from one episode. What must his mother think?

If you'd like to join us at The Classic in Queen St, we'd need you there by 5.30pm latest. Hit reply and let me know if you'd like to come.

---

Here's another clip. The Gregory brothers are back, and you know that means more auto-tune the news:

PS: I got paid some money on Friday, and went out and bought a new bike. It's a GT hybrid from Cyco, purchased because it will be easier on my back than my old mountain bike, but I'm kind of stunned at the state of bicycles these days. Disc brakes! Front suspension I can toggle on and off from the handlebars! What will they think of next?

(156 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Totally Local | Jul 06, 2009 09:58

Labour's Phil Twyford has had splendid luck in having his private members bill drawn on the eve of a month's worth of select committee hearings on the government's Auckland Super City proposal.

The bill is a little like a mirror image of Rodney Hide's proposed reforms to the Local Government Act, requiring referendums on council spending -- except that Twyford's bill would require a referendum before the sale of "significant" Auckland public assets -- and it suffers from some of the same problems. Principally, that frequent referendums may not be the best means of formulating policy.

Brian Rudman doesn't think much of it:

I know it won't reassure the worry-warts, but four years ago the tide actually turned when publicly owned Auckland Regional Holdings, headed by Act supporter Judith Bassett, bought the 20 per cent of Ports of Auckland shares in private hands, returning the port company to full public ownership. A few weeks ago, when port company chairman Gary Judd refloated the idea of privatisation, he was unceremoniously sacked. Even more recently, the right-dominated Auckland City Council endorsed a 10-year city plan with a commitment not to sell its airport shares.

Despite this, some are still convinced that the Super City revolution is just a smokescreen, covering up a dastardly grand plan to privatise the remaining community-owned assets. The grand-daddy of the conspiracies is that Mark Ford, former chief executive of publicly owned bulk water supplier Watercare and now chairman of the Auckland Transition Authority, is a tool of the forces of evil, integrating Watercare and the local retail water companies into one, in preparation for handing Auckland's water system over to a private international water mogul.

At the risk of looking very stupid if this plot comes to pass, I'll stick my neck out and say it's not going to happen. Not unless Aucklanders vote for a mayor and council committed to such a course of action. Or if central Government orders it.

Rudman over-eggs his objections. The Auckland City Council's commitment will mean nothing by the end of the year, and the views of an Auckland Council will rely to some extent on the means of its election. Rudman declares that Hide has only "toothless ideological bark" behind his dream of hacking back councils to roads and sewers; but heis the Minister of Local Government, and the major party of government may be inclined to set him on a long leash.

And frankly, many Aucklanders do feel dictated to by Hide, and by the government, over the future of their city.

A schedule of 21 assets that would be protected under the bill includes the respective cities' water companies, remaining shares in the Auckland airport business, and Ports of Auckland. It also says "no Auckland local authority shall sell or otherwise dispose of any parks, swimming pools, public libraries, or public housing assets, except in a business as usual transaction as part of normal portfolio management."

I'm assuming any referendums would be city-wide. Could suburban South Aucklanders count on the voters of the North Shore to turn out and defend their loss-making swimming pool? If a local asset is sold to fund a regional one, won't non-local voters swamp the opposing voices?

I'm less sanguine than Brian Rudman about the possibility of asset sales in undesirable circumstances. But I'm not a great fan of frequent referendums to determine local government policy. I'll tell you who is, though: Rodney Hide.

As Twyford points out, Hide's recent cabinet paper would require councils to put any 'significant or irreversible' decisions to referendum, "If flogging off the assets Aucklanders have paid off with their rates over generations is not 'significant or irreversible' I don't know what is."

Twyford is "hoping" Act will support his bill. I, for one, look forward to Act's creative explanation for not doing so. And that, perhaps, will be the true value of the discussion around Twyford's bill.

--

Phil Twyford's bill, and a basket of other issues -- from medical marijuana to Sarah Palin's resignation -- will be up for grabs tonight at Locally Left, a version of Drinking Liberally for people who don't want to drive home afterwards.

It kicks off at 7pm this evening, at the Grey Lynn RSC, 1 Francis Street (ie: just behind the West Lynn shops at the corner with Richmond Road). The panel is Phil Twyford, Rhema Vaithianathan and myself, and the MC is Michael Keir Morrissey.

The intention is for it to be a relaxed discussion with plenty of audience interaction. I'm quite looking forward to be part of a panel discussion that I don't actually have to run. Come along.

---

Simon Wilson's diary of the Mt Albert by-election for the new issue of Metro is a must-read for anyone who watched that race. Some of what Wilson observes has been said before -- there was plenty of time for pontificating during that particular campaign -- but he creates an illuminating context for the stories.

Some of its points:

The hit-the-streets campaign carried out by Labour may be a test-drive for a nationwide strategy of "reconnecting with the community". David Shearer seemed to meander through the campaign, whilst impressing even his opponents as a genuinely nice man. Also, he smokes roll-yer-owns and is more like John Key than you think.

Act's John Boscawen was well-briefed and worked hard on his campaign -- and clearly the outstanding centre-right candidate -- but it didn't do him any good.

At a candidates meeting, the Waterview connection comes up and Libertarianz candidate Julian Pistorious declares "It is not for the government to decide where to build roads." Later, Melissa Lee utters her infamous quote about motorways, burglary and South Auckland -- and then carefully repeats is when asked to clarify: "Lee doesn't realise she's blundered. She's right on message," writes Wilson.

Keith Locke observes at the Greens' election-night party: "We have lots of people who can do things, you know, like build a website, but not many people who know how to organise other people."

Pondering the grim spectacle of National's election-night event -- given a miss by John Key in favour of Huka Lodge -- Wilson observes that "National MPs could now be excused for thinking that their leader is a fair-weather friend. The more careful thinkers among them will also know that being a Key favourite is not always a mark of quality."

And finally: Cameron Slater is "involved in all National's internal debates"? For serious?

(108 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

.... and the Rock 'n' Roll | Jul 03, 2009 12:12

To the enormous amusement of everyone who knows him (and probably a few people who don't), Karl from CactusLab inadvertently got himself caught up the mystifying business of Vodafone's disappearing HTC Magic "Google phone". That's Karl, there, with the candy floss and the topless body-painted models.

It was at the "black and white" launch party for the phone, as noted in the Sunday gossip pages and blogged about by Ben Gracewood. But Vodafone asked Ben to take down his photographs of the event, and it appears that the presence of the painted laydeez created brand dissonance for Google. The phone was suddenly withdrawn.

The phone is back now, as are Ben's pictures -- one of which in particular explains why Google might have been pissed with Vodafone: my well-thumbed copy of Rules for Using Naked Painted Ladies at Promotional Launches quite clearly says that you should run it by your powerful and important global partner before you slap its brand across the torso of a (semi) naked woman.

I presume a copy of the manual has been forwarded to the PR firm involved.

---

This is nice. Beck has convened a musicians' gathering called Record Club, where he and his mates tackle a classic album in a day. Supposedly, they almost did Digital Underground's Sex Packets, but plumped for The Velvet Underground and Nico. There are videos here and here, and MP3s here.

On Hype Machine, multiple versions of The Cure's 'Just Like Heaven', including one by Dinosaur Jr. This house emphatically loves the Watson Twins' version more than any other (yes, more than the original). There's also MP3s from a live session late last year, where they play that and a medley that includes 'Ain't No Sunshine'. Here's the video from that session:

Only You - The Watson Twins from LaundroMatinee on Vimeo.

The BBC has been busily removing clips from its Glastonbury 2009 coverage from YouTube -- it was broadcast, and can still be viewed via iPlayer but, of course only if you're in Britain. You may be able to get your friends to send it to you in very small pieces on the internet.

But fans really need to see the seriously epic version of 'Keep On Rockin' in the Free World' laid down by Neil Young. So here it is, squashed down to an 82MB .m4v file (I tried smaller versions and different formats, but they sucked -- it'll play in QuickTime or iTunes, and on your iPod or iPhone) for today only. Right-click to save the file.

(69 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!