This section of Waitangi Tribunal report summarises the mainly 19th century history behind the iwi residing in the greater Wellington region in the 1840s - all is clear ;-)
That was a background report before the Tribunal completed its inquiry - you can read some relevant sections of the actual Tribunal report here and here. And Ian Wards's book The Shadow of the Land, which is one of the sources Witi Ihimaera does acknowledge in The Trowenna Sea, is also worth reading on the Wellington war.
it is not just the Tasmania part of the story, nor the Whanganui links that need to be told. Few Wellington and Hutt locals know about the injustices that happened in the Hutt Valley.
True - yet, bizarrely, the fighting that Hohepa Te Umuroa was said to have taken part in, and for which he was transported to Tasmania, is about to be commemorated in the name of a Lower Hutt golf club: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/hutt-news/4031143
Can we get Legal Beagle Graeme Edgeler on the job of explaining the legal basis of the CSC's case? Normally "we don't like your figures" isn't in itself a reason for going to court. Looking at the background information on the CSC website, they seem to be alleging a breach of statutory duties under NIWA's legislation.
Russell, immediately before the paragraphs from Steven Price's article that you quote are the following words:
The arguments aren’t new, [Victoria University Law Lecturer Richard] Boast points out. “The government should’ve seen this coming.”
Indeed it should - the great mystery of the foreshore and seabed debacle is why the government got in such a panic and was so ill-prepared for a decision that was always entirely possible, in a case that had been winding its way through the courts for years. Were they poorly advised, or did they ignore their advice? Perhaps we'll never know.
A review of the disgracefully biased media reporting of the issue at the time would also be instructive. One way in which we are now better off than we were in 2003 is that the media are now somewhat better informed on the issue, and certainly writing in a less one-sided way to an assumed Pakeha audience.
On media intrusion and privacy - if anyone would like to contribute their views or experiences to a Law Commission review of privacy, check out http://www.talklaw.co.nz/privacyreview.
I don't know anything about "moving forward", but Irish writer Jospeh O'Connor has a brilliant piece on the awful phrase "going forward". He has a regular slot on the RTE Radio Drivetime programme in Ireland. My partner and I happened to hear this on the radio when we were driving around Ireland in April and thought it was hillarious. You can find it here: http://eguinan.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/when-we-started-going-forward-thats-when-we-started-going-backwards/ or here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_drivetime.xml (go to 29 April 2009).
2 piece of trivia:
1. Joseph O'Connor is Sinead's brother
2. RTE Drivetime is the equivalent of Radio NZ National Checkpoint, and like Checkpoint is hosted by a woman called Mary Wilson. True!
The Listener has well and truly jumped the shark - the fluff that is put on the covers is symptomatic of the lightweight nature of the content inside (with, as mentioned, a few honourable exceptions). I'd be interested to know if this strategy is translating into greater sales, or is actually losing readers (I know I'm never even remotely tempted to purchase the magazine any more).
"And O'Sullivan's column now reads like a wingnut blog, with all the bitter, conspiratorial muttering and graceless prose that implies."
O'Sullivan has been writing from the far right of the political spectrum for years now, though her columns do seem to be getting increasingly nutty. At least she now has the good grace to openly write an opinion column, instead of masquerading as a business journalist. It is a strange day indeed when the Herald seems more rabid than the Dom Post, which seems to have calmed down somewhat in recent years. If only someone would start up a decent, quality national newspaper....
Ben and Che - one small point, Aboriginal people aren't all concentrated in desert or outback areas - there are lots of Aboriginal people living in the cities, including Melbourne; but they make up a larger percentage of the population, and are more visible, in rural areas. (Can't provide any figures off hand to back this up.) Also, Aboriginal people do not all look the way New Zealanders might expect them to look - many are relatively fair-skinned as a result of European or other ancestry, but still identify strongly as Aboriginal.
There's no doubt that the particular form Howard's response has taken is an election stunt - otherwise, why completely ignore the recommendations of the report he is suppposely responding to, and why add in the anti-land-rights elements that have nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse?
Re economic development for Aboriginal communities - Che is right. Aboriginal people in remote areas used to have jobs in the cattle industry, but were sacked en masse when the pastoralists were forced to pay them equal wages. There is a real problem in the remote nature of some of these communities - remote from any form of income- and employment-generating activity other than mining and, to some extent, pastoralism (which is marginal at best). For information on Aboriginal economic development, have a look at the website of the Australian National University's Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research - http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/
And Michael - "Lovely country Australia, just a shame about the poeple who live there"??? As an ex-Australian, can I point out that Howard does not represent many Australians, including indigenous Australians, and stands a good chance of getting kicked out at the next election. Australians are not all rednecked bigots, and some New Zealanders could do with being less smug and self-satisfied about their supposed superiority over their Australian cousins.