Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 12:13PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Does this, er, sound a bit like the Foreshore and Seabed Act, at least in principle?

Yes - but note that they later say that the judicial remedy should always be available. What they're proposing is repeal, legislation to provide a framework for the recognition and exercise of customary rights (which will look a lot like the existing provisions), and then short-circuiting the judicial pathway through a series of settlements. Those who choose not to settle can always go to court, but if the settlement is done right, no-one will want to waste time on that avenue pursuing what the government will give them much cheaper.

Posted at 12:25PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

The irony of a conservative government dealing with multiple flip-flops on extended property rights shouldn't be lost on anyone

Posted at 12:36PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Yes - but note that they later say that the judicial remedy should always be available.

You're right, of course. But it does seem oddly like an afterthought.

Posted at 12:46PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

In So Inevitable It's Not Even News news, some comments from the usual suspect.

Posted at 12:50PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Man you could have warned us - saw the pic of the Georgester and reflexively killed the page.

Posted at 12:54PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

"But is simply playing nice going to settle the issue?"

Wow, so due process and good faith aren't any way to treat Maori?

Let's remeber alot of our coastline is in private, even foreign hands and they can contest their rights in law, but not Maori.

This came from the pommy mayor of Marlborough successive denial of aquaculture applications in the Marlborough sounds to Maori while allowing subsequent applications to non-maori.

Posted at 1:08PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Man you could have warned us

Agreed ... especially when there are statements like this:

When will the taxpayers of New Zealand be freed from having to watch hundreds of millions of public dollars being shovelled at Maori, who make up less than 15 per cent of the population? (In the 2006 Census, there were 565,329 people who identified with the Maori ethnic group, and 643,977 who were of Maori descent.)

Where on Earth was the sub? Writing 565,329 for 565,326 I can understand, but the number of New Zealanders of Māori descent was 721,431 - nearly 18%.

Posted at 1:11PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

May be a bit off topic as it seems ultimately most involved will be only interested in what they will financially receive or lose, but the main risk of having any ownership or control, or words to that effect, to any one group, allows those without knowledge of the entire legislation to act on those words only and restrict access. This won't of course happen at any of your well populated beaches but will happen in remote coastal areas. Similar to the issues hunters face in Urawera's.
example: I and others like to surf at the Motu river mouth in the east cape but local Moari will no longer allow surfing there. I could go into detail as to why but bottom line is access is restricted and it is to far from anywhere to get police intervention ( nor I guess would they want to intervene).
I don't care if the government spends my taxes on righting the wrongs of the past but can everyone just agree so we can all be happy and I can go to the beach. It's a beautiful day outside.

Posted at 1:21PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

@Just thinking:

Let's remeber alot of our coastline is in private, even foreign hands

Have you got a reference for that? I've heard that claim before, but never known where to look to verify the claim.

("I read it on a blog" doesn't cut much mustard)

Posted at 1:33PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

("I read it on a blog" doesn't cut much mustard)

Is "I read it in the Herald" better?

[I suspect there will be some debate :-) ]

Posted at 1:41PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Have you got a reference for that? I've heard that claim before, but never known where to look to verify the claim.

This Herald article is the closest I can get to the source of this claim.

Posted at 1:50PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Thanks.

Hmm, looks like whoever titled that article got their maths backwards..

Posted at 2:01PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Resorts & Ports come to mind as private & offshore owners.

Here's one lovely spot.
http://www.travelplanner.co.nz/referral.cfm?site=http://www.cavallibeachhouse.com

Bluewater title exist for pre-1840 settler families.

Posted at 2:06PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

That didn't work as intended here's www.cavallibeachhouse.com

Posted at 2:08PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

In the Marlborough Sounds some people have Raparian rights which means that you cannot touch any part of the land above high tide. I was roundly abused once for attempting to run a stern line from yacht to a tree overhanging the beach which you do in the Sounds when in water which is deep right up to the shore. (A line from stern to shore and an anchor from bow.) It still rankles that "they" have ownership to the water.

Posted at 2:13PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

I've done some googling to try and find an answer to how much of NZ coastline is privately owned. LINZ did a report for the gummint back in 2003, but it would take a bit more patience than I have to do the sums.
The Green Party Foreshore and Seabed FAQ of 2004 says

The Government estimates that approximately 30% of land adjacent to the foreshore is privately owned.

Of course that might not include land owned by the crown, or a local council and under lease to a private individual or company.

Posted at 2:18PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

There's a better links to the Land Access report here. It's mostly about all land, but the second link goes straight to the water section, which seems to back the headline of the Herald article.

Posted at 2:28PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Where on Earth was the sub?

Spending his or her redundancy payments or working split shifts at Pagefuckers.

George's copy goes in unedited I would imagine, possibly unread.

And didn't he retire?

Posted at 2:44PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

George's copy goes in unedited I would imagine, possibly unread.

Heh.

Posted at 3:11PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

My personal feeling is there are two major and quite different issues.

The first is the one that most folks think about which is the idea that people brown or white should be able to wander along a beach in summer without anyone telling them to "F off my land". The reality of just how much or little of our beaches is already private has little or no bearing on people's feelings about that idea.

My sense is that Maori have no interest in denying kiwis the right to wander along a beach, be those kiwis of Maori, European or whatever decent.

It seems to me that it is the second part of the issue that is the difficult one for everyone. That is the right to use foreshore and seabed to make money. If anyone is going to be allowed to use the foreshore/seabed to make money, should Maori be given some specific and different right?

Personally I can see both sides to the discussion in that Maori have historical rights granted to them in The Treaty. Equally I don't feel it appropriate for Maori to be the only group allowed to make money. I don't see this as a simple decision and I have a horrible feeling that really each case is probably subtly different depending on the exact use, the history in that area, the environmental impacts and the other uses for a given area.

I suspect Russell's title is one of the understatements of the year.

Posted at 3:16PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

And didn't he retire?

I understand that his Garthness retired from curmudgeonly filtering of letters to the editor, but not from blessing us with his weekly wisdom.

Posted at 3:18PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

Garth's column is wrong in so many ways, of course, but there's one thing that really leapt out -- a reference to "this vast wealth" handed out to iwi after Treaty settlements. I wrote about Ngai Tahu last year, ten years on from their $170m settlement. I had a par that went:

Did $170 million seem a lot of money? Not to Mark Solomon. He remembers that, as far back as 1988, Tipene O'Regan warned that Ngai Tahu couldn't expect to get more than 1 per cent of what their lost assets were worth. The Crown's 1980s value was to put Ngai Tahu's loss at between $12 billion and $15b. Ngai Tahu gave the same documentation to Credit Suisse First Boston, which came back with a value of between $18b and $20b. So O'Regan was about right: Ngai Tahu got 1%.

Posted at 3:20PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

I'm no expert on this, but isn't the central entitlement about common law rights not the Treaty? Iwi just happen to have been around longer to form customary attachments to their rohe. And their attitude about access could even vary from hapu to hapu i imagine.

Posted at 4:04PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

I'm no expert on this, but isn't the central entitlement about common law rights not the Treaty?

I think that is spot on, Sasha. We'd be having all these debates with or without the treaty. It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's the vibe.

Ngati Apa, and I haven't read it in a while, basically re-affirmed the common law doctrine of radical title -- in 1840 the Crown got title subject to pre-existing aboriginal titles as opposed to terra nulius in Aussie.

The case also said that the foreshore and seabed was land (as opposed to gas or water, I suppose) and said that Maori could go to the Maori Land Court to test their title to it because, like, that is what the bloody Maori Land Court is for.

This entire debate is about a piece of legislation that precluded an entire race from accessing the courts. It was an offensive piece of legislation on that basis.

Posted at 4:35PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

In So Inevitable It's Not Even News news, some comments from the usual suspect.

Meh... the usual suspect that has my ulcers bleeding is (guess) Winston Raymond Peters -- enabled by the other usual media suspects who really need to get therapy for their co-dependent abusive bromance with the shit. Could someone point to anything he said on Q&A containing anything that could be mistaken for actual news value?

Posted at 4:52PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

And before anyone thinks I've got my own BDSM thing going on with Peters, what really pissed me off was that this is a big and complex story -- and the leader of an irrelevant party that got kicked to the curb at the last election is not a relevant hook. Focus, people -- it really matters that you get this one right.

Posted at 5:04PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

their co-dependent abusive bromance with the shit

Damn fine explanation - the sucking up goes beyond anything rationally explainable.

Posted at 5:10PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

The introduction to the Report says "[w]e conclude that the Act should be repealed, and the process of balancing Māori property rights in the foreshore and seabed with public rights and expectati ons must begin again." Russell must be right: there is no reason to believe that a considered balancing process is going to be straighfoward or proceed with consensus. The repeal of the Act is surely good law. At the moment it also seems like good politics. But it is early days yet.

Posted at 5:33PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

The repeal of the Act is surely good law. At the moment it also seems like good politics.

really?

Doesn't that depend on the beltway political class creating a consensus to shut down the debate? What if Labour were to pick this up and rabble rouse for all its worth? And why shouldn't they? If they don't, one Winston Peters certainly will. Why let him vacuum up the 10% of votes there are in this issue if you play the cards properly?

As Chris Trotter points out - on this issue power is lying in the gutter, but who will pick it up?

And besides, getting teh anger going in talkback land would bring a certain cosmic justice to the Kiwi/Iwi crowd currently in power.

Posted at 5:36PM on 9 Jul 09. Permalink.

mistaken for actual news value?

Music...Da dadaaaadaaaa dededdeddededde
Logo swirls across screen.
Cue.;... Serious face (or was it just voice over full of the gravitas)

" Winston warns New Zealand headed for division and apartheid......

Music up Da dadadaaa .. and fade....

Or summint like that..
OH you mean news that wasnt manufactured and is of value.