Hard News: KIlling it will be the easy part
49 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
And before anyone thinks I've got my own BDSM thing going on with Peters, what really pissed me off was that this is a big and complex story -- and the leader of an irrelevant party that got kicked to the curb at the last election is not a relevant hook. Focus, people -- it really matters that you get this one right.
-
their co-dependent abusive bromance with the shit
Damn fine explanation - the sucking up goes beyond anything rationally explainable.
-
The introduction to the Report says "[w]e conclude that the Act should be repealed, and the process of balancing Māori property rights in the foreshore and seabed with public rights and expectati ons must begin again." Russell must be right: there is no reason to believe that a considered balancing process is going to be straighfoward or proceed with consensus. The repeal of the Act is surely good law. At the moment it also seems like good politics. But it is early days yet.
-
The repeal of the Act is surely good law. At the moment it also seems like good politics.
really?
Doesn't that depend on the beltway political class creating a consensus to shut down the debate? What if Labour were to pick this up and rabble rouse for all its worth? And why shouldn't they? If they don't, one Winston Peters certainly will. Why let him vacuum up the 10% of votes there are in this issue if you play the cards properly?
As Chris Trotter points out - on this issue power is lying in the gutter, but who will pick it up?
And besides, getting teh anger going in talkback land would bring a certain cosmic justice to the Kiwi/Iwi crowd currently in power.
-
mistaken for actual news value?
Music...Da dadaaaadaaaa dededdeddededde
Logo swirls across screen.
Cue.;... Serious face (or was it just voice over full of the gravitas)" Winston warns New Zealand headed for division and apartheid......
Music up Da dadadaaa .. and fade....
Or summint like that..
OH you mean news that wasnt manufactured and is of value. -
The repeal of the Act is surely good law.
Yes, killing it may be the easy part but it's a great start and National deserves ever ounce of political capital it's going to extract from it, notwithstanding how it stood behind Brash at the time.
-
I suspect Russell's title is one of the understatements of the year.
And now I feel like I came off a bit negative this morning. I was writing fast ...
I want a just and enduring solution, and it's obvious that the F&S Act had to go for that to happen. But I do think there's a shitfight coming, and I'm still struggling to get the implications.
Example: Ngati Apa originally went to court in response to the local authority's unreasonable (and on the face of it, discriminatory) approach to grant aquaculture permits. But we already have a separate structure for those rights, which took bloody ages to resolve. How does that change now?
This is a big job the government is embarking on now. As I've noted, I have a great deal of respect for Finlayson. I think this will test his skills.
-
Russell: Finlayson is a politician. He has fluffed around with the National Memorial in Wellington, and his chapter in the Bolger years was quite petulant.
-
Russell: Finlayson is a politician. He has fluffed around with the National Memorial in Wellington, and his chapter in the Bolger years was quite petulant.
Hilary: I get that the current government can do no right by you, and you're entitled to your opinion, but Finlayson didn't become Treaty Negotiations Minister and Attorney-General because he won a beauty contest. You don't have to like the man, or his politics, but sniffing that he's "just a politician" is frankly the kind of snide bitchery I expect from the damper corners of Kiwibog.
-
I hesitate to comment except for this - my tribe is involved on both freshwater & saltwater issues and the situation is very fluid- NO! That is not a joke! There are weird wee quangos like the Marine Protection Forum even now attempting to make totally undemocratic decisions - and being (thus far, ineffectually) opposed by parties wanting mataitai instead-
There is the considerable question of the CPWS and the Waitaki 'developements'-
these, obliquely, but definitely, are tied up with the rest of the water matters...What matters more than water?
Air.
What matters more than air?
Earth.
What matters more than Earth?
Nothing. -
What if Labour were to pick this up and rabble rouse for all its worth? And why shouldn't they?
Common decency?
OK, so maybe that's a bit much to expect from politicians, so we'll try something else: any hope of a future confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party?
Doing a Brash and pandering to the racists is taking a tremendous gamble. So is not doing it - Winston could motivate those rednecks and get back into Parliament. But Turia is the devil they know...
-
The FORESHORE PROJECT FINAL REPORT by LINZ (2003) to the Minister of Land Information is the best source for current land holdings at the coast.
It reports that of NZ's 19,883 km coastline:
37.64% owned by the Crown
31.42% owned by Councils
20.05% General land
10.35% Maori land
0.54% unresolved
There are 32,712 land parcels adjoining the coast, of which 12,609 are in General or Maori ownership (i.e., private).
Further to some discussion upthread, there are relatively few General/Maori parcels that extend below the mean high water mark:
16 private titles extend below MHWM (6.4km)
32 seabed parcels
208 fully eroded parcels
~1000 partially eroded titles -
@dc-red - thank you for the LINZ report summary.
I must admit to being confused by the term "General land". I wonder how much of the almost 70% of Crown/Council land is leasehold? Which can effectively mean 'private' as a leaseholder may exclude the public.
-
Doing a Brash and pandering to the racists is taking a tremendous gamble
It seems to me though the mummy at the feast of this glorious new dawn of race relaions is going to be the great unwashed Pakeha mob.
-
Carig: That is unfair. Chris Finlayson is generally liked around Wellington and I hear he has been sensitive in his arts and culture portfolio after following such a high profile previous minister. But he has got himself into some trouble around Wellington by trying to please competing interests re the memorial park, which shows he still has a bit to learn re politics.
And I did think his chapter in the Bolger Years was an unfair assessment of the settlement process. But that said, there was a bit of rewriting history in that book.
But politicians are politicians. They are balancing a lot of competing allegiances, so expecting one person to sort out something extremely complex might be setting yourself up for disappointment. That's what I was saying.
-
Does the "seabed" in this context include exploration rights to gas/oil and jurisdiction over using water/seabed for energy generation (tidal/wave generators)?
-
There's a public road (unformed) but with the same rights of access as any main road, going from state highway down to and across the Motu river about 1/4 mile back from the beach. You may have to wade down the river, legally, at that point - I don't know if a Queen's chain would apply.
Will we see a claim for customary rights over public roads as well soon. After all, the reason the beaches and rivers were public property by law was so anyone could use them as roads.
There's a lot going on that we aren't getting asked about and a lot of deliberate misinformation about private property rights on the foreshore (only 6 kilometres in the whole country) . The new agreement with Whanau a Apanui which the government has just signed under the existing foreshore and seabed Act provides for everyone except locals to have to apply for fishing permits.
The current Act, then, is bad enough. Proposals for customary title over the whole country are an outrageous assault on the public estate. If these areas have understood to have been in public ownership for 100 years that is customary ownership as well by now.
-
As someone over at the Standard notes, all the while there's a huge giveaway of our land quietly going on in the high country.
-
And I did think his chapter in the Bolger Years was an unfair assessment of the settlement process. But that said, there was a bit of rewriting history in that book.
Personally, I thought anyone would be on a hiding to nothing trying to assess an extremely complex, long-running process in, if my memory serves, a little under twenty pages. But "petulant" -- odd choice of words, and based on my contacts with the man not how he rolls either.
-
@dinah
I wonder how much of the almost 70% of Crown/Council land is leasehold? Which can effectively mean 'private' as a leaseholder may exclude the public.
Well, according to the LINZ report, Crown land is:
mainly made up of:
• National parks that run to the coast;
• Strips of Crown land reserved from sale;
• Reserves for wild life heritage; and
• Railway.And the TLA (Council) land is:
mainly made up of:
• Esplanade reserves;
• Public recreation reserves; and
• Road parcels.Not much in the way of leasehold I'd imagine.
-
There's an added problem with the Queens Chain - Erosion.
Redcliffs waterfont in Christchurch used to have a public walkway but its either been built on or fell into the estuary.
A few rambler types have tried to claim Queens Chain and walk across the waterfont properties and been given the bums rush.
On the flip side to public access is Rotten Row in Taylors Mistake & the other batches in Boulder Bay. The next bay over from Sumner Christchurch.
All private holiday homes cobbled together on public land, originally without any land rights. They're now considered part of our Heritage and worth protecting. A deathnail in itself - look for condominiums coming soon;) -
Does the "seabed" in this context include exploration rights to gas/oil and jurisdiction over using water/seabed for energy generation (tidal/wave generators)?
I imagine those might constitute some of the "competing allegiances" Hilary alludes to. I don't think there is a strong iwi presence on the Southland coast where the current oil rush is going on, so less fraught than the rich aquaculture pickings of Nelson. Tidal Cook Strait or Kaipara Harbour might prove interesting.
-
Thanks Sacha. I seem to recall the Southern Basin oil rights being discussed around the same time and wondered if the Act was a bit of pre-emptive positioning to avoid potential future conflict with that.
-
Does the "seabed" in this context include exploration rights to gas/oil and jurisdiction over using water/seabed for energy generation (tidal/wave generators)?
The Crown has given itself blanket ownership of most of the minerals etc. For example - Petroleum Act of 1937 (now probably part of the Crown Minerals Act). Assume once foreshore and seabed surface layer of ownership is argued over, who owns what is under whatever would be next line in need of settlement.
From Crown Minerals Act 1991:
Petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act or in any Crown grant, certificate of title, lease, or other instrument of title, all petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium existing in its natural condition in land (whether or not the land has been alienated from the Crown) shall be the property of the Crown.(Land includes land covered by water; and also includes the foreshore and seabed to the outer limits of the territorial sea)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.