Hard News: Right This Time?
378 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
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.
nah not all beaches and not all new zealanders. some of you commoners have no restecp :)
-
Murray McCully and Crosby-Textor think enough of us do to be worth pandering to.
To be honest, as someone who now works a bit in the 'Treaty industry', I think it's pure ignorance that's allowing the less, erm, 'enlightened' people to hold sway over this discourse. The merest skim of any of the original documents relating to Maori land alienation anywhere in NZ in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shows a hugely cynical Pakeha apparatus bringing full power to bear on Maori. 'Land taken for public works... land taken for failure to pay survey lien debt... land taken for scenic reserves...' It's so deliberate and overt that it's almost laughable. Is learning about this at school completely beyond our education system, or something?
-
Tom: that's what the previous government did. Worked out well, didn't it?
The problem you fail to grasp is that no matter how many times you stamp your foot and say "we legislate", "this is it", "no more", "this is final", that doesn't make the issue go away. The only thing that makes it go away is justice. And as we've seen over Treaty settlements, Maori are willing to wait a long, long time for that to happen, making their case again and again for decades until justice prevails.
Repeating the mistake of 2005 means a repeat of the solution of 2005: relitigation through the electoral system. Except that having been screwed once, the Maori Party won't be nearly as accomodating next time...
-
Yes. But that's just an example of slower government is better government because it gives us time to stop and think.
Well, yes. That was my point. DPF was right on this - Labour did not need to panic and legislate, it could have panicked and appealed, and left legislation a year or so down the track (and un-rushed).
-
To be honest, as someone who now works a bit in the 'Treaty industry', I think it's pure ignorance that's allowing the less, erm, 'enlightened' people to hold sway over this discourse.
Pretty much. The redneck position falls apart the moment you look at the law, or actual history.
Is learning about this at school completely beyond our education system, or something?
I have no idea about the present, but it certainly was in the past. And the vast majority of New Zealanders were educated in that era of ignorance, and never bothered to learn anything more.
Of course, getting New Zealand kids to learn their real history would be "social engineering"...
-
cos i actually live here on iwi land.
Show off :) We don't need no stinkin' pictures.
-
Danielle, my feeling is you would find a only a slim majority oppose the treaty process - most thoughtful New Zealanders understand that past wrongs need to be put right, as long as it is with money and kind.
Where you run into a wall of Pakeha hostility is the idea of bi-culturalism and the relevance of the treaty as a living document. The treaty is between Maori and the British crown and its successor.
The elephant in that room are four million people who now simply call themselves New Zealanders, and who are not addressed in the treaty.I am going to be deeply un-politically correct here and say I have sympathy for the idea the treaty is the original basis for de jure government. But the realities of New Zealand 170 years on from 1840 makes the current New Zealand state de jure and de facto without need for recourse to the treaty of Waitangi. To my mind, most of the treaty is now relevant only to academics.
-
so do they teach new immigrants any 'real' history ?
-
James K. Baxter once said that if Pakeha were to use their weight of numbers and throw all Maori into jail to rot, the resulting stench would kill us all. Even Don Brash, bless his changeable heart, now appears to realise that this is so.
-
Well, yes. That was my point. DPF was right on this - Labour did not need to panic and legislate, it could have panicked and appealed, and left legislation a year or so down the track (and un-rushed).
It could have, yes. My point was more to do with the irony that David's party was screaming for the government to legislate over the decision both swiftly and brutally, and he didn't seem to have a problem with it then. Perhaps he should have said something at the time.
-
DPF was right on this - Labour did not need to panic and legislate, it could have panicked and appealed, and left legislation a year or so down the track (and un-rushed).
Of course, back in July 2003 DPF was supporting Bill English's call for immediate legislation, and urging exactly what he is now decrying...
-
We don't need no stinkin' pictures.
haha...sure you do. gotta keep your eyes on the prize. just cant have the great unwashed thinking we all have equal rights cos the fact is some of us were born more equal than others...
...true, the wall that needs broken is the bi-culturalist one and the elitist attitudes involved which often get played out as racism. i dont think most really know who the fight is between. it aint between peoples. its between cultures and the associated values.
and as long as we got a union jack in our flag the treaty is still relevent and the fight will go on...
-
@Tom
treaty of Waitangi. To my mind, most of the treaty is now relevant only to academics
Several universities have far-reaching policy statements to the effect that their employees are to be guided by Te Tiriti (or its principles), including in teaching and research. Most academics have no idea what this means as a practical matter (how would Statistics 101 look different, for example?), and therefore ignore it altogether.
-
I am hellishly confused about this issue, possibly because we were living in Wales (where they used to burn holiday cottages owned by English visitors) when it first broke. Tom suggests we make entry to NZ beaches a birthright but that leaves out the question of tourists and those here on temporary visas. Would we need to carry a birth certificate, or some form of 'local' identity (as Rotorua residents do, to get discounted entry to the Blue Baths)?
-
and the real elephant in the room is the non polynesians and non euros who call themselves NZers...
...lets hear what they think for a change eh ?
-
Where you run into a wall of Pakeha hostility is the idea of bi-culturalism and the relevance of the treaty as a living document. The treaty is between Maori and the British crown and its successor.
The elephant in that room are four million people who now simply call themselves New Zealanders, and who are not addressed in the treaty.I am going to be deeply un-politically correct here and say I have sympathy for the idea the treaty is the original basis for de jure government. But the realities of New Zealand 170 years on from 1840 makes the current New Zealand state de jure and de facto without need for recourse to the treaty of Waitangi.
Bingo. There's this gaping void between the position of now and the position of historical grievances that must be addressed. "Now" is a huge number of people who consider it a birth-right to go to the beach any time they want, to fish off wharves, boats and beaches within the catch limits, and engage in the lifestyle that is part of the Kiwi ethos.
"Historical grievances" is, if addressed in full, potentially very incompatible with "now". When you have some Maori talking about restricting access to beaches, the two positions run headlong into each other with an almighty crash. How far can the Treaty be brought into "now" without making any further progress on addressing "historical grievances" unpalatable to the majority is a very important issue. If the battle for full redress on the foreshore/seabed question is won by Maori, it will quite possibly be followed by the loss of the wider war to address any other claims because the wider populace will be so thoroughly (and, in my mind, entirely justifiably) aggrieved at no longer having assured access to areas that are totally embedded in the culture that is Kiwi. -
Several universities have far-reaching policy statements to the effect that their employees are to be guided by Te Tiriti (or its principles), including in teaching and research.
Te Whare Wananga o Waikato (University of Waikato) does have a policy that gives students the right to write their assignments/exams in te reo Maori but I have encountered this only twice in the past 10-12 years.
We do have numerous Maori students (the highest proportion of any NZ uni) and there are always Maori support folk (usually grads) to help Maori students. In my faculty we also do the same for ESL students.
But I agree that incorporating such principles into research is very fuzzy--other than providing consent forms in te reo Maori.
-
I hope Tom Semmens is wrong too, but predicting whether he is involves serious crystal ball gazing. Labour could play a very hard game here, encouraging more racism and rushed decision making, which could backfire on National. Or it could backfire on Labour, and hurt Maori.
There is an opportunity for all the parties to enter the negotiations with good intentions, and for a solution that has broad support to emerge. If it succeeds, all will bask in the glory. If it fails, that will generally hurt National and the Maori party more than Labour.
So I don't think there is inevitability about Tom's cynical outlook. Consensus government is both achievable and desirable on something as important as this, and it only works when the parties enter negotiations in good faith. This could well be the very best time for it to happen, as the Maori Party forms part of the support of a right wing government, so it's really on the left whether to help it happen, or hinder it. History could be made rather than repeated.
-
some Maori talking about restricting access to beaches
How many, I wonder? I think it's probably a vanishingly small number of Maori who are separatist in that way. Of course, it's fun to stoke the fears of the ignorant or rednecks by talking up those numbers, but I very much doubt there'll be a Ngati Whatua blockade on the road to Kare Kare any time soon.
-
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.
But, Tom, it's a legal issue. And one thing that the depressing fallout of the Brash years shows is that the majority of New Zealanders don't have the slightest grasp of the jurisprudential issues involved. Or even of the basic concept of fairness. Any political solution is going to be affected by this. And the reactionary media infrastructure (talkback; TV news; virtually all daily newspapers) that exists to perpetuate this line of public opinion ain't going anywhere.
I think we're safer leaving it up to the Courts, frankly. There's a much higher proportion of first-class minds on the bench than there is in the New Zealand voting population right now. And if that sounds elitist, well, sorry.
-
kiwi culture is a myth. it doesnt exist anymore than the traditional idyllic one maori hold dear.
the cultural war is between transplanted euro by way of the UK and indigenous polynesian.
at present UK have dominance as shown symbolically by planting their flag over every ceremony of note.
soon as the ol diggers who layed down their life for king and country die out or give us 2 more generations and we'll pwn you. POLYNIZATION i like to call it. we've already partially colonised your minds. resistance is futile. we will assimilate you all...MWAHAHAHAHAHAH...
-
Lest we forget. As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said "All property is theft"
Most especially in the case of land. Surely only an idiot can believe that they own the land, we are here for "three score years and ten" a fart in geological time. What happens when you own land by the beach and it falls into the sea and your land turns to mud and disperses around the world, do you own all the sea?once upon a time usage rights were all people had, and often they had to give scutage or 40 days military service in exchange for them to boot).
This is the point, the only way to "Own" land was through Gift, Grab or plunder, the right of conquerors? the spoils of war?
You can only have usage rights but you can, also sell those rights, making the difference to ownership both subtle and contentious.
Land ownership should be left for Kings and Gods and not used as a token of wealth by common folk such as ourselves.
The foreshore should be seen as a buffer between the land and the sea, if it belongs to "anyone" it belongs to the sea. -
ISTR big posters with English (who was National leader back then) demanding (in effect) white peoples right to go to the beach. (Provided it wasn't Michael Fay's beach, of course).
Tom is right. What's needed is for iwi to get their ownership rights back, subject to a right of access to *all* beaches and coastal strip, whether it's fronted by John Key's mansion or anything else. The only exception would have to be industrial port facilities and the like, but these would need to be scheduled and continue to justify themselves at regular review.
I'd see this as a step to having a general "right-to-roam" on uncultivated land and forest, similar to the Swedish concept of Allemansrätt.
-
Oh, and another thing whilst I rant.
The concept of Fee Simple seems to have escaped the argument somewhat. -
I think we're safer leaving it up to the Courts, frankly. There's a much higher proportion of first-class minds on the bench than there is in the New Zealand voting population right now. And if that sounds elitist, well, sorry.
Last time I looked Parliament was the highest court, and for better or for worse I prefer decisions with deep real world political implications to be made by that institution than by elite experts informed only from within the narrow blinkers of the law.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.