Rotorua lakes
I love the Rotorua lakes, having spent five days canoeing across most of them, and camping by the lakesides. They will always have very fond memories for me, as it is on that trip I met a very special person, Anna, who was visiting from Germany.
I think it is entirely fair the Government pay $10 million compensation to Te Arawa to compensate for the 1922 settlement not being inflation adjusted.
But giving them compensation, plus the title to the lakes, is a bit like picking both the money and the bag when asked to choose by Selwyn Toogood.
I am very sympathethic to treaty settlements based on breaches of property rights. That is why I have some unease over legislating on the foreshore issue – that should have been Labour’s final resort, not its first resort.
But awarding title on the basis of ghosts of Maori warriors on a phantom canoe spiritual beings, taniwha, kaitiaki [guardians] which appear as lizards, eels or floating logs is mumbo jumbo nonsense.
I also regard it as offensive to have Anaru Rangiheuea state “It’s a matter that is not up for debate unless you are a descendant of Te Arawa or in Government.”
It is up for debate, and I think Lake Taupo serves as a lesson about the pitfalls of giving away title to lakebeds, even if one tries to protect public access. Over time it inevitably leads to more friction, with claims for airspace rights also.
Lets pay the compensation, but lets stop handing out title to lakebeds and seabeds. They must remain for all NZers.
October 12th, 2004 at 11:14 am
So you are on the side of Tuwharetoa when it comes to property rights then.
The airspace is only that of any landowner, just let a neighbours tree have a branch reach over your boundary and block your view and out will come the saw to establish your proerty right.
The nonsense put about by dimwits like Holmes that they can charge the airlines flying Auckland wellington-( actually they fly over Mt Taranaki)is just what we expect these days. And this from a supposed pilot who had to land in an emergency on someones paddock.
Like a bulding in Queen Street selling its air rights, you can only claim something that you can enjoy, which is the immediate area above the land.
The Crown owns the mineral rights beneath the ground though so if there is oil 2000ft below its not yours
October 12th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
So is there a maximum height above the property at which I may exercise exclusive possession? I understood the common law says that it extends to the “heavens and beyond” but charging airlines for flying over your property is against public policy. Similarly charging for someone bungy jumping over your property is against public policy. If not the case, this will create a major precedent.
October 15th, 2004 at 10:27 pm
ztev – if owning a lake bed now includes the air space above, the simple solution is to keep lake beds in public ownership.