Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: KIlling it will be the easy part

49 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Idiot Savant,

    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.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1716 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Kemp,

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

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

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

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1609 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

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

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    "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.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    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%.

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

  • Craig Wearne,

    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.

    Mt Maunganui • Since Sep 2008 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • John Fouhy,

    @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)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    ("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 :-) ]

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

  • Ben Chapman,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • John Fouhy,

    Thanks.

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

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    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.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

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

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Ian MacKay,

    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.

    Bleheim • Since Nov 2006 • 498 posts Report Reply

  • Dinah Dunavan,

    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.

    Dunedin • Since Jun 2008 • 186 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Brickley Paiste,

    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?

    Since Mar 2009 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

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

    Heh.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • philipmatthews,

    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%.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2007 • 656 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Brickley Paiste,

    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.

    Since Mar 2009 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    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?

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

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.