Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Right This Time?

378 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 16 Newer→ Last

  • Ewan Morris,

    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.

    Since Nov 2006 • 48 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Clearly, that word "remaining" was very significant.

    And unacceptable to the vast majority of Pakeha New Zealanders, who are just as convinced of the fiction of free access to all the beaches as many Maori are of the fiction they have a property right.

    A property right would be worth a lot of money, and that is just aquaculture - God knows what access would be worth. The Maori Party seems to largely reflect the views of a tribalised brown corporate elite who are happy to use race if it adds to their bottom line. They may yet decide to hang tough on the issue. As it is, there are plenty of Maori with time on their hands and chips on their shoulders who will happily shit stir by making demands for a proscriptive property right and threaten to charge campers and beach goers over the summer - demands which the media will gleefully report in detail.

    From Labour's point of view the temptation to play race politics over this must be overwhelming. They owe National nothing on this issue, given the rank racism and hypocricy of National when in opposition. Given how she takes things so personally, goading Tariana Turia would be easy to do, and pushing her into a hardline position would play straight into a Pakeha backlash that Labour would benefit electorally from. Make no mistake - get this wrong and this is an election losing issue for National with the Pakeha majority. I've noticed people seem uncommonly interested in the issue. The beach has an iconic cultural status for Pakeha New Zealanders - the concept of open access to the beaches may just be our first purely New Zealand common law right. Any perception of an attempt to modify that would to my mind produce an explosive backlash.

    I doubt though there can be a fully satisfactory solution. Maori expectations seem to have been raised to an expectation that they've got a property right, and anything less constitutes a grievance. Pakeha opinion would be radicalised if such a property right was allowed to such an extent that it would mean the end of the treaty consensus that currently exists amongst the political elites.

    National will be hoping that Labour isn't as irresponsible and opportunist an opposition as they were on this issue.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Lets remeber Kyle Chapmans last known residence is stated in the media as Paeroa. I'm not surprised such a nuanced response as a declaration of ownership has come from an Iwi located there.

    To legislate is to repeat the same problem, but differently. Let it go to the courts, as is every Pakeha & foriegn asset owners right.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I'm even prepared to smile ruefully at David Farrar's airy declaration yesterday that "Labour did not need to panic and legislate," in 2003.

    They didn't need to legislate.

    They could have appealed.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Because we're all going to get together and make it work this time, right?

    Naive as I am, I'm cautious optimistic that it will be the case because nobody has anything to win by a repeat of the last go round. I'm not silly enough to think there's going to an outbreak of group hugs all around (you could argue that's not even desirable -- because there's a whole rose farm of thorny issues that are going to have to be worked through and will inevitably piss someone off); but it is doable that everyone takes a deep breath, takes the brain out of park, and thinks before opening their gobs.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    As it is, there are plenty of Maori with time on their hands and chips on their shoulders who will happily shit stir by making demands for a proscriptive property right and threaten to charge campers and beach goers over the summer - demands which the media will gleefully report in detail.

    I really hope you're wrong. As much we we lament Labour's panic and the media coverage that fueled it, that Paeroa hui's legally unsustainable declaration of sweeping ownership didn't help either.

    The beach has an iconic cultural status for Pakeha New Zealanders - the concept of open access to the beaches may just be our first purely New Zealand common law right. Any perception of an attempt to modify that would to my mind produce an explosive backlash.

    Again, I hope you're wrong. But I do think that Pakeha feelings about the coastline are real, and were too easily waved away by many people who objected to the government's approach. That's why there was such a storm.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    To legislate is to repeat the same problem, but differently. Let it go to the courts, as is every Pakeha & foriegn asset owners right.

    No, there will be legislation. Even the Greens think that should be the case.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Were they poorly advised, or did they ignore their advice? Perhaps we'll never know.

    Thanks to the OIA, we know a little. The initial advice talked up the "risk" to the petroleum industry and of a chilling effect on land reclaimation, and laid out the possible solutions (ranging from "leave it to the courts" to "nuke the site from orbit"). Even so, the risks identified did not justify the response; it was a political decision on the part of Labour to pander to the rednecks - not the fault of their advisors.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    They didn't need to legislate.

    They could have appealed.

    And lost. Even Port Marlborough dropped its appeal to the Privy Council.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    No, there will be legislation. Even the Greens think that should be the case.

    And the reason why is that, shorn of the objectionable denial of absolute ownership, the existing framework for regulating customary rights isn't too bad a response to interests that fall short of ownership; if it didn't exist, the courts would have to invent it. Its not the full esponse, but its a useful part of it.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Naive as I am, I'm cautious optimistic that it will be the case because nobody has anything to win by a repeat of the last go round.

    As Tom has pointed out (and Chris Trotter has urged), Labour does. I am really, really hoping they are bigger than that.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Even so, the risks identified did not justify the response; it was a political decision on the part of Labour to pander to the rednecks - not the fault of their advisors.

    No. And yet, even you were happy for the government to "try and steer" the Maori Land Court on the issue (when it looked like that might be the path), and the Greens still seek a solution that precludes sale of the foreshore. So it seems to me that any solution will be more complicated than just letting it go to court like any private claim.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Yes the Greens are losing the higher ground at almost every step.

    Port Marlborough started this whole debate by their racist actions to deny local Iwi the ability to go marine farming while allowing anyone else (as long as they weren't Maori).

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    And lost. Even Port Marlborough dropped its appeal to the Privy Council.

    The reason being that the Privy Council has historically been strongly supportive of aboriginal title, and they would have no trouble at all endorsing the decision to overturn the incorrect historical precedent of 90 Mile Beach (which was considered dodgy even at the time).

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    The problem with letting it go to court is a ruling in favour of Maori would almost certainly see the electoral destruction of the current political consensus around all aspects of the Treaty Settlement process.

    Let's not forget that by and large a huge majority of New Zealanders are opposed to the idea that the treaty may have any relevance today, and I would suggest a significant majority of New Zealanders are opposed to any treaty settlement process.

    This issue requires a political solution. Abdicating that clear political responsibility and letting the courts decide would be irresponsible and risks pushing the Pakeha majority one bridge to far, and that would be a disaster for race relations.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    does anyone know whatever became of this ?

    http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3300/features/459/foreshores_lament.html

    or this

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/12/one-law-for-all-except-for-maori.html

    cos i actually live here on iwi land. i suppose i should ask our landlords 'the trust' or the grumpy old cocky down the end of the road, or get all up in nick smiths grille...heh

    to be sure, in this instance, i like the idea of having the private beach down the private road protected by iwi ownership/native title and a grumpy pakeha farmer, whose house we have to drive to and ask for the key to get access to the spit or conversely walk across the estuary at low tide.

    i'm actually more worried about the german frau who owns pepin island setting up a biotech lab/aryan hostel...nah j/k

    and fair enough not letting people drive across the estuary either. its a delicate environment and looks shit when it's all churned up by tyre marks, not to mention the cockles getting squashed and yummy cockles they are too:)

    heres a pic.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JySddEdGkVY/SrsTpWquDdI/AAAAAAAAATs/fcYsMEyLMx0/s1600-h/home-beach.jpg

    the grassy bit by the houses in the centre right is the turning circle where access to the estuary and boat ramp is, beyond that is the private road we live down.

    theres more pics here...

    http://pollywannacracka.blogspot.com/2009/10/epiphanies-in-room-wth-view.html

    ...and if you really like i'll sell you some prints of them, just dont come visit me cos you're not allowed, besides i just might eat you :)

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    And lost. Even Port Marlborough dropped its appeal to the Privy Council.

    Undoubtedly, but the time it took it all to finish could have been well-used in at least some sort of public discussion. Or even internal political discussion whereby the Government could have worked out a better compromise/ built some cross-party support/ whatever.

    Wouldn't it have been better for the initial reactionary racist response had been "this is an outrage ... dog-whistle ... human whistle ... Kiwi ... beaches ... summer BBQs ... we'll appeal" instead of "this is an outrage ... we legislate".

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    No. And yet, even you were happy for the government to "try and steer" the Maori Land Court on the issue (when it looked like that might be the path)

    I plead insufficient cynicism. And I've learned my lesson. Now I'd never be stupid enough to expect good faith from the government on anything.

    As for letting it go to court like a private claim, having delved into this possibility, I think we've got very little to fear from it. But it is more likely that the government will negotiate a national-level settlement to avoid the hassle of court cases.

    ...or at least, they would if they were operating in good faith. My inner cynic is meanwhile pointing out that the same rednecks who pushed National to appeal to racists for votes in 2003-7 (and just a few weeks ago over the RWC) will be seeing the same possibilities, and will be trying to frustrate any solution so as to force a vote-winning Maori-Party walkout. And we all lose then.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    I would suggest a significant majority of New Zealanders are opposed to any treaty settlement process

    Do we really suck that much?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Wouldn't it have been better for the initial reactionary racist response had been "this is an outrage ... dog-whistle ... human whistle ... Kiwi ... beaches ... summer BBQs ... we'll appeal" instead of "this is an outrage ... we legislate".

    Yes. But that's just an example of slower government is better government because it gives us time to stop and think.

    (Yet another reason to hate urgency).

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Yes the Greens are losing the higher ground at almost every step.

    I'm not sure how you work that out. As I noted, they're the ones who can claim to have had a consistent position since 2003.

    There are plenty of precedents for it too -- like the Taupo lakebed settlement, which accords ownership to the local iwi, but guarantees rights for non-commercial users and the government that would not apply to private property rights. Everyone seems pretty happy with that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Do we really suck that much?

    Murray McCully and Crosby-Textor think enough of us do to be worth pandering to. Personally, I prefer the Belgian solution: nothing for racists.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    yeah, im with the idiot, fuck urgency...i'm in no hurry to go anywhere and do anything these days. i'm quite happy in my private utopia.

    i'm slutted my goat died tho, especially after i chased it down the road and threw it in the back of the people mover to get it. stilll theres plenty more where he came from just roaming the hills up the back. gonna get my gun license and then watch out for sure...

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Personally, I think the best way out is a populist response of legislating to enshrine and extend a common law property right of access to all beaches for all New Zealanders.

    The representatives of vested private property interests like the ACT Party, property developers, farmers and Maori corporate interests would shriek at the legalised theft of it all and Maori sovereignty troublemakers would be outraged at the "treaty breach".

    Everyone else would agree it was a "Mom and apple pie" idea whose time had come and feel all warm inside that the Kiwi dream was alive, well and being guarded by our wise lawmakers.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    From Labour's point of view the temptation to play race politics over this must be overwhelming. They owe National nothing on this issue, given the rank racism and hypocricy of National when in opposition. Given how she takes things so personally, goading Tariana Turia would be easy to do, and pushing her into a hardline position would play straight into a Pakeha backlash that Labour would benefit electorally from.

    Labour 'goaded Tariana into a hardline position' years ago. But hey, you may be right, they might just be dumb enough to try it again.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.