Foreshore and Seabed review

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Long on March 8, 2009 at 4:38pm

I'm afraid I can't think of any cogent reply beyond, "You are correct!" and "Thanks".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Wilson on March 8, 2009 at 10:44pm

If Labour had left Maori to go through the Courts, they would have been left with nothing. The Foreshore debate was badly managed in lots of ways but the Act that finally resulted was a significant improvement on what Maori could have claimed through the courts. Tariana Turia talks as though she hasn't even read the Act, and the same for a lot of the commentary in this thread!

Labour got the politics wrong, ie how it was done; but what was done, ie the actual law that resulted, that was an improvement.

(This should stir things up a bit!)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John LANGDON on March 9, 2009 at 8:04am

Michael Me Lad

We dont know what the courts would have said...The real issue is that the Maori were denied the right to find out what the courts thought

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Wilson on March 9, 2009 at 10:56pm

And what if they had lost? Gone back to square one? Had no right to claim anything? Those who are familiar with the case law could see almost no chance that any would succeed, or if any, only one or two small tracts of foreshore. If Labour had said "go on, go to Court" with the best legal advice saying Maori would win almost nothing, would that have been responsible government?

On the other hand if they had won it would have been one beach, maybe, and it would have been in private hands, able to be sold. I'm not sure that was desirable either.

The Act means that Maori can have control without being able to sell it off, with the foreshore reserves under the Act, and that more beaches can be controlled by Maori, without being exclusive. Why do you think the National Party are opposed to the Bill? Its not because they agree with the Maori Party. They want Maori to have nothing.

I almost hope the review causes the Act to be repealed. Then the Tories will have to deal with it, and Maori will see them for what they are.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John LANGDON on March 10, 2009 at 8:12am

The issue, as seen by the United Nations when it condemned the actions of the NZ Government, was that the Maori were denied their right to go to Court..No amount of sophistry can get away from that basic fact..What the Courts would have decided, and what Governments might have done after the Court decision, are all hypothetical..Let's keep to facts : The Maori were denied their legal rights..and Maori seats have moved away from Labour..that is another fact, that no amount of sophistry can explain away

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Julie Berriman on March 10, 2009 at 9:07pm

I think that the Maori party is going to get its comeuppance, they have no idea how dangerous this is to them. We protected the S&F for all NZers and the NAts will take it away, I say serves them right, except it is not good for anyone. Just watch how much will get sold off once it is out of public hands. There was no right to go to court, how can a land court hear a case about an entity that they are arguing is not land?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John LANGDON on March 10, 2009 at 9:48pm

Who has sold iron sand exploration rights off the Waikato coast to foreign interests? Conspiracy theorists claim this was the real reason for the Seabed and Foreshore Act -so the Government itself could sell off the coasts to foreigners...The Maori NEVER EVER suggested that anyone would be denied access and NEVER EVER suggested they would sell anything off to foreigners...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Long on March 10, 2009 at 10:52pm

Right on, Julie. In my opinion, now (or soon) is the time

I think that the Maori party is going to get its comeuppance,
I agree. And when this happens, I hope Labour has the kahunas to say so publicly and loudly. Labour could do well enough out of this (alone) to turn the tables in three years.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Julie Berriman on March 11, 2009 at 9:13am

John LANGDON said:

Who has sold iron sand exploration rights off the Waikato coast to foreign interests? Conspiracy theorists claim this was the real reason for the Seabed and Foreshore Act -so the Government itself could sell off the coasts to foreigners...The Maori NEVER EVER suggested that anyone would be denied access and NEVER EVER suggested they would sell anything off to foreigners...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Julie Berriman on March 11, 2009 at 9:19am

My replies keep getting lost in ether so I will try again. I do not think the MAori people want any of the S&F sold off, but I know that if the NAts decide to say the S&F is owned by the government then down the line someone will try and sell it off, not what anyone in Maoridom or of sane mind would want. We got it right!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John LANGDON on March 11, 2009 at 2:03pm

My understanding is that the last Labor Government sold off the mining rights to the iron sands on the foreshore off the Waikato..A former Labour Government sold off the oil drilling rights off Taranaki?...We produce 35% of the oil we consume, but it is all refined in Singapore and all owned , and profited from, by foreigners....The record is bad for Labour Governments..How could Maori ownership be any worse??

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kelvin Davis on March 12, 2009 at 5:56pm

A couple of points:

1. The Act isn't perfect and the handling of the issue was done badly.
2. We need to await the report from the Review panel and not pre-empt the decision.
3. The Maori Party have put a stake in the ground saying they want the Act repealed - nothing less. They have raised expectations.
4. The review may say; a) repeal the Act; b) repeal parts of the Act; c) keep the Act as it is.
5. Considering point 4 above, the Maori Party may find itself in a pickle if; 1) the Act is repealed, but then the pre-Ngati Apa decision status quo remains and Maori interests are marginalised as before; ii) the Act is repealed and Maori aren't eventually awarded Customary Title; iii) only parts of the Act are repealed, or the Act is kept as it is, thereby the Maori Party fail to achieve a full repeal as they said they would.
6. National are in a position where they need to balance the goodwill with the Maori Party and the goodwill with their constituents, who would generally oppose concessions to Maori - note the Lake Ellesmere issue.
7. When the dust settles it's possible Maori may end up worse off.

The pressure is on the Maori Party and National.

Kelvin

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page