Hard News: Must Try Harder
81 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Why was Tame Iti there at all? His tribe didn't sign the Treaty.
-
In other news, Tim Shadbolt is still a dick
But he's still got the funniest voice in politics. Very Goofy. If Banks could get a Donald Duck going when he's angry, he might steal the crown, though.
-
If Banks could get a Donald Duck going when he's angry
I thought he had.:-)
-
Why was Tame Iti there at all? His tribe didn't sign the Treaty.
</chuckle>
-
The position had to be clarified. Whether right or wrong in the status that was created by the act it allows easier acces to redress and as such it should be looked at as a vehicle for solution rather than a land grab.
The Court of Appeal's position was quite clear: Iwi could take a claim to the Maori Land Court.
Over time, tests would have been developed and common law would have been established.
I would prefer property rights over "redress" any day. Wouldn't you ? Instead of a partnership-based resolution to this issue, we got an authoritarian property rights confiscation in climate of outright racist rhetoric.
I/S is correct, this dismal law has done much to damage relations between iwi and the Crown.
I thought Maori TVs coverage yesterday was great, and they didn't buy into the awful MSM meme of endemic conflict at Waitangi. The review of the political debate wherein MPs from most parties were asked to outline their positions on the Maori seats was illuminating.
It was good to see NZ First state that although they thought the seats should go, it was up to Maori to decide. Jeanette good a cheer for the Green's position (they stay until Maori want them removed).
At least John Key was up front about a policy position: they'll ditch them first chance. His reasoning was flakey - the Maori seats were no help in the Foreshore & Seabed Bill - ergo the seats are useless - was plainly desperate.
Parekura predictably indicated Labour's continued support, and I don't think any other party was there.
I certainly hope that National never get the numbers to remove the seats. Being forcibly disenfranchised from guaranteed (and quality) representation in parliament would seriously annoy me.
-
Exactly. The position had to be clarified. Whether right or wrong in the status that was created by the act it allows easier acces to redress and as such it should be looked at as a vehicle for solution rather than a land grab.
I think what you've called 'clarification' was actually pretty clear to everyone when the issue came up. The problem was that all of a sudden a court had indicated that Maori could pursue, through legal action, ownership of the FS&SB. Now Maori are tied up having to pursue through negotiation something that it looked very much like they already owned, because white people suddenly learnt that the beach might not actually be theirs.
160 something years of taking stuff off Maori and then having them fight to get a little bit of it back didn't teach us anything as a country.
How does it violate article 3?
I think you'd say that given that we have courts to enforce laws, until it looks like Maori might have rights to things that Pakeha want to keep, at which point we change the laws to screw them over... pushes the equal legal rights bit.
-
Now Maori are tied up having to pursue through negotiation something that it looked very much like they already owned, because white people suddenly learnt that the beach might not actually be theirs.
This white man thought the beaches were everyone's including Maori. That they could become the property of some particular Maori group (not Maori as a whole), was an alarming prospect. In hindsight it was a grossly inflated prospect. But I expect that Brash would have continued to inflate it, following up on his fantastic Orewa surge. With 20/20 hindsight it is obvious that the FSA did huge damage to Labour's Maori support. It is unknown whether they would have fared better if Labour had left things as they were and Brash had swept in on a racial fear ticket.
-
Totally off topic but regarding the loss of 5? undersea cables in the Middle East, have a look at this
-
On the FSA
I think it is a matter of significance. To the average Pakeha the seaside is a place to take the familly on a nice day, to Maori it has a much greater significance. So to treat everyone equally on this was never going to work. The "violation" of Article 3 could be quoted from both "sides" for totally diferent reasons and perspectives.
I think that even though the FSA "Ruffled Feathers" historicly it will be seen as a way of coming to terms with these differences. -
Now Maori are tied up having to pursue through negotiation something that it looked very much like they already owned, because white people suddenly learnt that the beach might not actually be theirs.
It's the "all your foreshore are belong to us" rhetoric that helped get white folks' backs up, including mine.
The right to explore customary rights which might not have been specifically extinguished in the Treaty and which might in some circumstances equate to freehold title is not the same as, in the words of the placards, "Maori have always owned the foreshore." The hyperbolic rhetoric wasn't all one way.
I'd have preferred to see it go through the courts and wind up in something similar to the Ngati Porou deal, but Labour got spooked by the likes of the sky-is-falling editorial in the Herald, and by the traction National's "Iwi versus Kiwi" pitch was getting on the issue.
-
Without wishing to relitigate the FSA, it is perhaps worth reiterating that 30% of the NZ Coastline was already under private title. And that it hasn't been nationalized since.
The LINZ Foreshore Project reported: "6,032 kilometres (30.4%) of the coastline is bounded 12,609 privately owned land parcels." The overwhelming majority of these parcels (about 12,300) extended to, or beyond, the mean high water mark.
Over 2000 of the parcels are Maori land.
-
I'd have preferred to see it go through the courts and wind up in something similar to the Ngati Porou deal, but Labour got spooked by the likes of the sky-is-falling editorial in the Herald, and by the traction National's "Iwi versus Kiwi" pitch was getting on the issue.
Yeah, it was clearly a case of politics trumping other considerations. I just think we should admit that, some people seem to think that Maori didn't get a bum deal. Presumably they'd argue the same thing about some of the land grabs of the second half of the 19th century as well.
-
I'd have preferred to see it go through the courts and wind up in something similar to the Ngati Porou deal, but the angry rhetoric wasn't only coming from one side
Agreed, it's easy to crank out a slogan.
But your position does not reflect the excellent solution-building that was taking place amongst Maori groups who were serious about finding a compromise that we all could live with.
One such proposition was an act that disabled any right to subdivide or otherwise sell FS&SB land, keeping it iwi/hapu-owned in perpetuity, plus some kind of negotiated kaitiaki arrangement (I do concede that aboriginal title would have given Maori an upper hand in the negotiations, but is that such a bad thing ?).
Instead, we now face the prospect of a future government being able to sell off our coastline.
-
" The overwhelming majority of these parcels (about 12,300) extended to, or beyond, the mean high water mark.
The FSA is restricted to the area between mean high spring tide and the Territorial limit. It also covers riverbeds and some lake-beds. Hardly valuable parcels of land. Unless they are of cultural significance.
-
In the battle of cliches, it's hard to see if the FSA queered Labour's pitch more than it stole National's thunder. The clearest effect to my eyes is that it launched the Maori Party. I think that is a good thing even though I seldom actually agree with the Maori party about anything. It just seems better for politics that historical Maori grievances now have a clear political voice, rather than relying on Labour to do it for them.
I will be surprised if the Maori Party can work with National, but that could be because they have been under Labour's wing for so long that there is a feeling that they are more aligned than is actually the case. When I hear the Maori Party speak on social policy I often wonder how they were ever in bed with Labour.
-
totally off topic but regarding the loss of 5? undersea cables in the Middle East,
despite the incredible unlikelihood of such an event happening it does seem to be pure conincidence. Iran, which is supposedly the 'target' of whatever conspiracy is underway (as pointed out in a Wired column I read today, phone-lines all over the world are no doubt lighting up with calls from the tinfoil hat-wearing brigade), is actually still online.
The internettrafficreport site reports on that one router in Iran, but there are obviously other ways of getting data in and out on the ol' intarwebs. (Which was the whole idea of the thing in the first place, wasn't it?)
-
Totally off topic but regarding the loss of 5? undersea cables in the Middle East
Iran is totally cut off. Do you think it might have anything to do with Iran's intended opening of its oil bourse? *s*
-
When I hear the Maori Party speak on social policy I often wonder how they were ever in bed with Labour.
There are some that would force me to Godwin this thread if I were to comment.
-
Steve - my point about private ownership was in response to claims and counter-claims about "who owns the beaches". Such as those sandy things that people like to lie on in summer, and walk across to go for a swim, or look at from their executive holiday homes.
Along about 30% of the coast there is no publicly-owned reserve (Queen's Chain) landward of the MHWSM, and indeed private title can extend seaward of this mark onto land occasionally, regularly, or in rare cases permanently, inundated by the sea.
Those parts of the beach below the MHWSM but above, say, the mean low water level can, presumably, be extremely valuable?
-
-
Those parts of the beach below the MHWSM but above, say, the mean low water level can, presumably, be extremely valuable?
To whom and how would you calculate value?
I presume, as I have not done or read any study, that most of this 30% would be in the South Island? -
Alluding to Godwin is Godwinning.
Again in hindsight, I guess I should not be surprised. A party whose main point is to represent Maori has no real left-right affiliations. And I guess the "traditional" leadership structure and set of beliefs would probably be classified as "conservative". It's almost the definition of conservative.
-
Iran is totally cut off.
Or not, as the case may be.
From the slashdot thread I linked to...
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran [onlinenewspapers.com] finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran [www.iran.ir] and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. [google.com] (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in .ir does not mean the site is necessarily physically in Iran, but you can easily verify [arin.net] that nearly all of them are.)
-
To whom and how would you calculate value?
To anyone trying to cross it, and I guess how much they would pay is a fair estimation.
-
To whom and how would you calculate value?
Or how much <stereotype> a rich American </stereotype> would pay for it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.