Review recommends repeal of Foreshore law
The foreshore and seabed review panel has reported back. The report is 163 pages.
I blogged in March that I thought the appointment of the panel would lead to a recommendation the law be toasted, and I was right.
They make the point that the Government should have appealed the case to the Privy Council – something I have always said. Clark and Wilson ruled that out and decided to legislate (after just four days!) because they didn’t like the politics of appealing to a court they had said they would abolish.
They recommend the Act be repealed, and offer four options for consideration:
- Do nothing further – leave the Court of Appeal decision intact and allow claims to be made to the Maori Land Court. This option is not favoured.
- Have a staged settlement with negotiations between Hapu/Iwi and the Crown – basically add this to the historic grievances to be settled. They say if this happens, there needs to be provision for public input to safeguard rights of access etc.
- A national settlement along the lines of the fisheries and aquaculture settlements.
- A mixed model that combines a number of discrete components: a national settlement, allocation of rights and interests, local co-management, and an ability to gain more specific access and use rights. This is preferred.
I’ve only skimmed the report but they seem to have gone to great lengths to stress that any settlement must guarantee access for all.
There are probably some considerable fish-hooks ahead, but at first glance the panel looks to have come up with a workable way forward. Legislating to remove property rights should be a last resort, not a first resort – as it was for Labour.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Can someone elaborate please on how much of the seabed is at issue? Is it just to the low-water mark, or does it extend to the sea floor of the whole economic zone?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Where is your direct link to Tumeke on this issue farrar,
July 1st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
No, Labour got the law exactly right.
I am sick of being told that bits of the country belong to a special interest group because they have a drop or two of mouldy blood.
Its time the grievance industry fucked off and mouldy realised we are all in one wokka and its time to look ahead, not behind.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
MNIJ,
Apart from your first sentence, I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed in your comment.
Having read the court of appeal decision I felt that the Privy Council would have reversed it in an eye blink.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I agree with MNIJ……now I feel that I need a wash.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Hear Hear Time the majority told the trouble maker TOW industry and its supporters to FOXTROT OSCAR..
2009 is long past where we need to have this pathetic separate and apartheid crapola.
Time to move on.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“I am sick of being told that bits of the country belong to a special interest group because they have a drop or two of mouldy blood.”
Aren’t you just saying that if you are Maori you can’t inherit your ancestor’s property, but if you are Pakeha you can?
Are we going to colectivise all the property held by ‘special interest groups’ who happen to have inherited just because they were related to some rich white dude?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The poem on the front of the report sets the tone. It’s by Hana O’Regan, of the family who led Ngai Tahu when National under Graham gave them first and second refusal rights to all South Island crown assets sold – in perpetuity.
Struggling young whites and struggling young South Island Maori of other iwi any day just might start feeling they are racial under-classes.
And Sam: some of the land was sold by Maori.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
its all right big bruv, any minute now redbaier will be along to tell me that i should takwe my commie ideas of people getting along as one elsewhere.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Not at all Sam.
What I am saying is that the ancestors gave the property away, traded it away or sold it. Move on. You don’t get it back.
What mouldy want is no different to me (or you) losing at the casino, then going back later and demanding a refund.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
This issue is going to drive Key crazy and is a real test of his leadership. What does he do?
1. Repeal and enrage most of his supporters?
2. Not repeal and watch his reputation as a centerist as well as the coalition deal with the Maori Party go up in smoke?
There is no middle path here.
This will be an interesting couple of weeks.
Who said honeymoon?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Get used to the idea that Neville Key will give the apartheid party whatever they want guys, get used to the idea that you will have to pay a toll or ask permission from you local tribe to go fishing or take a swim.
Watch Labour sweep back into power at the next election.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“What I am saying is that the ancestors gave the property away, traded it away or sold it.”
When did Maori sell the seabed and foreshore?
What about all the land that was ‘confiscated’ by the governemt or taken for public works that never happened or ‘defence purposes’ that it was never used for? What about all the agreed reservations that were never reserved?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act? Clearly what this needs is ANOTHER HIKOI DOWN QUEEN STREET TO STOP THE IMPOSITION OF THE ENCROACHING FASCIST MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL JUGGERNAUT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND OUR RIGHT AS PEOPLE OF THE LAND FOR REPRESENTATION IN MATTERS WE NEVER HAD REPRESENTATION FOR TO START WITH. I THINK.
Anarcho-idiot mode OFF
July 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Review board states the bleeding obvious. Film at eleven.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I would have thought option one to be the most preferred. It provides for the greatest degree of simplicity and common sense. Aaaaaah Adolf. NOW you know why it is not preferred.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
It should be option one as Adolf says. Lets not forget why the Act was put onto the statute books. Labour got spooked when maori wanted to test their rights in court. They may well have been told no at this point, but labour got an itchy trigger finger and shot them in front of the court house.
Why would they do this, years of settlements for this that and the other made them think this would be a fait de compli. They didn’t want this damage as they fought to retain absolute power, so sought to nip this in the bud.
I would doubt the courts would anymore grant the sea than it would the air. Lets not forget that the Nats not the courts gave away all the other settlement items in the 90′s.
I say in spite of all else, those who wish to make a claim should have their day in court, we have fought in wars to preserve such rights. If the courts agree, no doubt they will have their wish as all non maori head to the airports to come to Oz.
I also agree with Adolf, that recommendation one is probably not recommended as it is the simplest, so will probably be ignored
July 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Option One may not be so attractive if you take into account who comprises the Maori Land Court, and how it operates. The Court is unlikely to find against Maori rights because upholding these rights seems to be the purpose of the Court.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
How can they claim the seabed? dose a group of people get to claim it because they where the second wave of the boat and they managed to eat the first wave so that gives them right by conquest?
If so then they can fuck off they have been conquered and the democratic country we live in says the ocean is communal, any time them and their kin want to go round two they can feel free.
On a slightly lighter note, the maori who own the foreshore and seabed are going to be incredibly rich in the coming century, the amount of wealth down there ready to be exploited will certainly humble arrogant honkeys like me.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Let’s not forget te real victims of all this….http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/
Lee – MWT
July 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
big bruv said:
“..get used to the idea that you will have to pay a toll or ask permission from you local tribe to go fishing or take a swim..”
my understanding is the plan is write that right of all to unfettered beach/water access..into law..
..wouldn’t that answer the concerns you express..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Sam Buchanan at 4.27 posted: “…Aren’t you just saying that if you are Maori you can’t inherit your ancestor’s property, but if you are Pakeha you can?”
But Sam the concept of land ownership entails the idea of land title and land registry. Maori didn’t have that. Did they have any concept of ownership? The concept of inheritance entails wills and deeds and law. Did they have those? I think not – just the concept of occupation by right of might.
What of offshore coastal water. Did Maori have a concept they owned that?
Surely you can see why those of us who don’t identify as Maori see the foreshore claims as a bit of a rort, and a race-based one at that.
It seems to me we are headed for brown apartheid in NZ, with Key the white uncle tom likely to enable it.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Oh the complaints when labour was going to demand access to about 10 white owned farms so the public could access publicly owned rivers and lakes oh the howls of outrage when the public demand access to high country land that is leased from the public at extremely low rates (so as to subsidise the mostly white and foreign owner).
I expect most of you would respect the right of a land owner in England to charge access to his river or section of coast even though he most likely inherited it from his ancestors who would have gained it by the usual dubious means.
Remember private property is the corner stone of most of your arguments and historical control would give a group of people a pretty good case to ownership. About time we took the Todd family down I think they just control too much.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
National needs to make a decision. Are they going to bend to the will of a party that got around 2.5% of the vote in the election and piss off the National supporters that have followed the party for decades, or are they just going to keep the foreshore and seabed as it is and as it should be.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Re Kiki’s post at 7.29.
Re high country. The high country provides a valuable export commodity, merino wool to which much value can be added. Helen Clark and her Wellington civil servant, weekend hikers have helped drive thousands of merinos from the high country so they can indulge in their thrice-yearly tramping holidays more conveniently.
Re private property. Maori base their rights to the beaches and foreshore on private property, but they didn’t have this concept at the time of the treaty.
You also have to admit some claims have been dubious, such as to radio frequencies, and even to the Moon I believe. Ngai Tahu got money from an electricity generator because a dam flooded part of a river beach where ancestors had rested on their way to gather greenstone.
Kiki perhaps you can clear up a so far unanswered question in this string: how much seabed are Maori claiming? Is it just to the low-water mark or do the claims go further?
July 1st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
kiki
Public property is the corner stone of my argument, that and the seemingly outdated concept of one rule for all in this rapidly emerging third world nation.
Or are you in favour of apartheid?
July 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
MNIJ & big bruv: -
Hell, that is the FIRST thing I have ever heard you agree on.
And even though you are on opposite sides of the left-right political spectrum, you both reveal yourselves as a pair of big racist pricks in doing so.
Um, just as the Labour and National parties collectively did after the Court of Appeal judgment!
I’m with DPF’s approach here (although I think he protests too much in trying to excuse National’s complicity in the racism that resulted in the FSA following the Court of Appeal judgment).
This is an issue that needs to be negotiated – it is too big to have winners and losers, because the losers will never give up when they have a legitimate grievance. We went there very often in the last 150 years with the Government abrogating Tiriti rights (foreshore & seabed ownership is not actually a Tiriti right anyway, it a basic property right, regardless of Te Tiriti), and we’re still dealing with the consequences of that today.
Let’s try, for once, to get it right this time around.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Toad at 7.35 throws accusations of racist pricks….
Who wants race-based land ownership? Who wants race-based prisons? Race-based schools? Race-based justice systems? Race-based health systems? Who wants race-based electoral systems, locally and nationally? Who wanted to send a race-based sports team that was rejected by South Africa on this very ground?
Can’t you see the parallels behind Maori Party demands and South Africa’s apartheid system?
You use the word “we” so I think you identify as Maori. For goodness sake stop being hypocritical and throwing around insults like racist pricks. It’s a bit like Verwoerd calling black Africans racists.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
jack
Toad does not have an argument, like most from the left he thinks that an accusation of racism should be enough to silence anybody who does not agree with the ways of the Green party.
Of course Toad is blinded by a very bad case of sickly white liberalism, Toad cannot see that what we want is one rule for all.
Toad refuses to blame Maori for ANY of the ills that face them as a people, he has been sucked into believing that the reason Maori kill their kids in record numbers is because of colonisation.
Toad also believes that Maori should have an easier ride through our justice system simply because they are Maori and Toad thinks that being Maori means that you should be eligible for a life time of sucking from the nations tit.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Jack5
More like the Romanovs claiming divine right over the serfs because they work the land.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
D’ya think that toad could actually be Metiria Turei?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
IV2
I suppose it could be Meteria, there is the same lack of argument, the same speed to label those who disagree as racist, the same mental instability that one would associate with a chick.
You could be right.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
big bruv said: Toad cannot see that what we want is one rule for all.
The problem is, bruv, that actually you don’t.
If the Courts had decided, on the basis of the law as it stood before the FSA, that Maori haapu had ownership to significant areas of the foreshore and seabed, you would have supported the nationalisation of that property.
One rule for all means every New Zealand citizen has the right to go to Court to claim what they believe is rightfully theirs. You supported, and still support, that right being abrogated when the plaintiff happens to be Maori.
I don’t throw the label “racist” around lightly, but the behavour of the Labour and National parties following the Court of Appeal judgment, as well as your and MNIJ’s comments above, legitimately attract that label imo.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Toad
You can throw around whatever you like, to be called racist by you is hilarious, you are the one who supports separation (apartheid), you are the one who thinks that we should have two justice systems in NZ and you are the one who thinks we should have two classes of citizen while expecting the lesser of those two classes of citizen (in your eyes) to pay for everything.
Call me what ever you like Toad, I am not going to cower away simply because you label me, frankly I could not give a shit what you call me as I know who the real racist is and it certainly is not me.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Mike12
Is that really the best you can come up with?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
You are right BB, telling you to fuck off to the national front was a little polite I feel
July 1st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Mike
What is it about one rule for all that you dislike so much?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Toad
The moral high ground is a great place to be but the issue is not as simple as you make out.
The FSA actually allowed for maori to go to court and try to establish the existence of a right. If it was found that the right existed they could either seek a reserve management plan for the area or enter into negotiations. Ngati Porou did this and were granted rights over the foreshore in their area.
To advance matters we need a checklist and I suggest the following:
1. As a matter of principle do we declare that all kiwis ought to be able to access the coast?
2. Does a right exist to iwi to exclusive control of a particular part of the coast?
3. If so and if 1 contradicts with 3 what compensation should be paid?
4. Should iwi be allowed to alienate any rights under 2?
5. If not then what further compensation should be paid to iwi?
Any further refinements?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
BB, I’m all in favour of ‘one rule for all’ – but this political hot potato can go a long way to deciding the next election.
If it helps keep labour in opposition and I get free access to the beach I don’t give a flying f* what deal is done behind the scenes.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
So you would rather be told lies by that nice Mr Key than by that nasty Mr Goff?
Such is the “logiic” of the tribal voter.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
im sure nz’ders who died in ww1 and ww2 were protecting our country?
maybe their families could claim from the tribes for protecting their country.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
BB – I know which one I prefer to make decisions that effect me.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I am at a loss as to why white people can be racist and mouldy people are never racist….. It leaves me very much perplexed……
July 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Was the original assertion intended as a foot in the door towards asserting a much larger claim: partial mineral rights under NZ’s Exclusive Economic Zone?
If so, that would mean partial rights to the Great South Basin, amongst others (BTW, GSB is the largest unexploited oil/gas field in the Southern Hemisphere).
By comparison, things like marine farming are trivial.
Public access to beaches was never and will ever be an issue. No doubt however this is the only thing the idiot media will ever focus on. IMO, the reason it’s never been the issue, lies in two juxtapositions of the Maori mind.
(1) The recognition of whanau, of which by virtue of time, pakeha have become partial, but not full, cousins
(2) The astute shrewd intelligence of this warrior people, who naturally practice the art of war in ways than even Sun Tzu would find interesting and original.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
It is interesting and original isn’t it reid, too bad it relies on complacence which is being shattered rather quickly.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
This is all blowback from the 2005 election. New Zealand had its on chance to get it right back then and it failed.
New Zealand is now a funeral pyre and its citizens are the kindling.
BURN baby BURN!!
July 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“too bad it relies on complacence which is being shattered rather quickly.”
I’d suggest banana, that complacence borne of ignorance is well in place and is continuing apace, amongst the reef-fish.
Does your mileage differ on that?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
mickysavage said: The FSA actually allowed for maori to go to court and try to establish the existence of a right. If it was found that the right existed they could either seek a reserve management plan for the area or enter into negotiations.
Um, I don’t think it is as simple as that micky. As a socialist, I’m a great believer in public ownership.
But when it comes to abrogating existing property rights without compensation, sorry, I won’t go there. Your “reserve management plans” or “entering negotiations” are bullshit.
The law should have been left to run its course. The Crown never bought or otherwise acquired by treaty or conquest the foreshore and seabed from its previous owners. The FSA is in legal terms a confiscation – pure and simple.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
It depends on your world view, if the systems put in place continue to fail then we will see alot more people getting up off their hind legs.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I quite agree, toad. But where were you and your ilk when Hulun was doing all of this?
Were you silent because overall, the cause was more important, or was there some other reason?
BTW, when I ask about “you and your ilk” I emphasize I’m also asking about not just you personally but all of your political ilk into which surely you have insight.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
reid said: I quite agree, toad. But where were you and your ilk when Hulun was doing all of this?
Opposing it. Didn’t you read the Parliamentary debates at the time. The Greens and Act were the only parties to come out of that with their principles and integrity intact. They stood up for property rights. Labour failed to. So did National, because their opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill – under Dr Dunny Brush’s racist doctrine – was based on it not going far enough extinguish Maori rights.
As I have said before, the nice Mr Key might just sort this. He’s not, from what I’ve seen, a racist like Brash.
But he does need the suport of the Maori Party (and possibly the Greens) for a second term.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
toad
See, the green’s can do their bidding with their integrity intact. Keep doing this and the Green’s might get my vote.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“Opposing it.”
It’s just that I didn’t exactly hear it shouted from the roof-tops, toad.
Although I did hear ACT.
Brash is not a racist based on everything I’ve ever heard him say, surprised you imagine he is. Please point me to a single statement that supports your contention.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Toad, if New Zealand were to be a republic, what would happen to the Treaty of whaitangi?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
reid
The Green’s were the most passive opposition I’ve ever seen, hell they made poodle Anderton look like a rabid coyote. Shameful really but I would hate to talk them out of growing some sack, so I’m going easy on them for now.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
He advocated free market economic policies.
He advocated equal treatment under the law.
He advocated state assitance targeted on the basis of needs rather than race.
All of these things are blatently racist, as is anything else that stands in the way of kakariki toputanga-a-iwi.
Your flawed understanding of the term “racist” is somewhat disturbing. Please do not resist when the social correction group arrive at your door.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 am
ahahaha Key is going to give the beaches too the niggers, bet you wish you hadnt voted for him now suckers, your not even going to be able to use your boats next summer!
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Can someone please elighten: What is a Tiriti? Is it some kind of forest bird eaten into extinction before the second wave of immigrants arrived?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
racer1 – I find the content of your comment abhorrent. What a load of racist babble. And can I add your grasp of spelling and grammar is embarrassing. I suggest you study harder at your primary school.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Brash wasn’t racist. His handlers were just intensely cynical.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
I rather hope that if the government has to compensate Maori landowners for lost property rights then it might create a precedent for compensation for the rest of us for compensation for the loss of property rights when Forest and Bird and DoC take our property rights through the District Plan process.
You might like to read my paper on the web site:
http://rmastudies.org.nz/documents/foreshore.pdf
Equal treatment under the law was Don Brash’s message and still is.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
What a bunch of racist comments. If you can’t make a logical argument without names and denigration please don’t bother.
I consider myself centre right with views pretty much in line with National party policy.
SO …
This country has a history. We NEEDED the Maori to be partners because the British Empire was too weak in this part of the world to take the country by force and the French were within a hairs breath of grabbing it. We made deals, signed treaties, etc etc to secure NZ for mother Britain.
The history of Auckland alone is more entwined than this again… but that’s another story.
Sure many settlers were lying cheating land grabbing hypocritical pricks, but we don’t have to carry on the family tradition. There is a danger that between all the hysteria and arm flailing that some sensible and honourable arrangement can be made.
Labour as the control freaks they are fucked this law up big time and got there arses burned as a result, this was a source of immense amusement to me. Let’s not fall into the same trap.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
we we we we we lance?
No, the we who are here now are not the we that was here then.
How long does a treaty have to hold us in bondage?
Isn’t it time that the we of the here and now free ourselves from the shackles of the past, threw off the yoke of colonial oppression and dumoped the treaty?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
The real problem is that this is a diversion from the much more important issue which is the settlement with Tainui over the Waikato river which has unknowable impacts on every landowner in the Waikato.
The Deed of Settlement in Relation to the Waikato River, dated 22nd August 2008, certainly appears to undermine the principles of the secular state, and to impose the beliefs of an officially sanctified religion on many who do not share those beliefs. The declaration of the Relationship between Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato River opens with:
Te Mana o te Awa
“1.41. To waikato-tainui, the Waikato River is a tupuna (ancestor) which has mana (prestige) and in turn represents the mana and mauri (life force) of the tribe. The River has its own mauri, its own spiritual energy, its own powerful identity, It is a single indivisible being.”
These claims to belief are not modified in any way by words such as “for some” or “for many”.
These statements are repeated in the Bill and in particular in Part 2, the statement of significance of Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui.
However, from then on the Bill is written in standard legislative language. But the purpose of the Bill is to implement the Deed. And the Deed records the Crown’s acknowledgement of the same faith-based claims, as for example:
“1.100 The Crown acknowledges the importance to Waikato-Tainui of the principle of te mana o te awa arising from their relationship with the Waikato River. To Waikato-Tainui the Waikato River is a tupuna which has mana and in return represents the mana and mauri of Waikato-Tainui; and to Waikato Tainui the Waikato River is a single indivisible being that flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka to Te Puuaha o Waikato and includes its waters, banks, bed, (and all minerals under it) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, floodplains, wetlands, islands, springs, water columns, airspace, and substratum as well as its metaphysical being with its own mauri.”
This statement would appear to imply major impacts on the property rights of virtually all landowners and resource users in the Waikato Region, and includes Lake Taupo and artificial lakes such as Lake Karapiro .
This Deed of Settlement even impacts on Auckland City because it is an important element of the City’s water supply. The “indivisibility” of the Waikato River may be something Watercare Services will no doubt have to deal with. It may also become an issue for Auckland’ electricity distributors.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
“We NEEDED the Maori to be partners because the British Empire was too weak in this part of the world to take the country by force”
Wrong Lance. It was deemed unlawful by the House of Commons to take it by force because of the declaration that gave Maori full sovereignty in 1835, this was ratified by the British. So the only lawful suggestion was to hand sovereignty over by treaty. It had nothing to do with the empire being too weak, they wanted to take it by force if they granted that permission.
I don’t think the Maori anti-government rebel tribes should get anything back tbh.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Frightening when you agree in principle with something MJIN says. I didn’t steal anyone’s land, and no-one alive today had any land stolen in the 19th century. My family lost ALL it’s lands, etates and income derived from that land in 1945 when Yugoslavia was given a great chunk of Italy. Should I be protesting and demanding reparations from Slovenia now? Get on with life. Live in the past and that is where you will stay forever.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
The treaty was pretty much ignored up until the 70′s. We’re paying the price for the liberal left state right now. Spineless politicians don’t help either.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Lance posted at 9.21:”..What a bunch of racist comments. If you can’t make a logical argument without names and denigration please don’t bother…”
Then he goes on “… many settlers were lying cheating land grabbing hypocritical pricks”
Also he says “…We NEEDED the Maori to be partners because the British Empire was too weak in this part of the world to take the country by force …”
One element in the British establishment wanted Britain to establish sovereignty in NZ because of the mayhem white whalers, sealers, pirates, slavers, and escaped convicts were causing to the Maori by plying them with muskets and booze. Britain certainly wasn’t too weak to take NZ. It didn’t even send its top-line regiments to take part in the land wars.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
Let’s not forget that National were just as complicit as Labour in this dispicably racist chaper in our nation’s history.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
remind me which party voted against it – wasn’t it ACT?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Toad said “The Crown never bought or otherwise acquired by treaty or conquest the foreshore and seabed from its previous owners.”
Please clarify. The basis of much of the argument seems to be that colonial oppressors have put maori in a rough position, I don’t want to debate that. What I would question is this. If someone colonises and oppresses, do they not take property by conquest in the process.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
For those needing some education in these matters (MNIJ and big bruv spring to mind from opposite sides of the political spectrum), there is an excellent blog today on No Right Turn Prendergast is dead. Get over it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Sam Buchanan (65) Vote: 7 11 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“What I am saying is that the ancestors gave the property away, traded it away or sold it.”
When did Maori sell the seabed and foreshore?
Sam, to own something you need to be able to prove exclusive occupation. Please tell me how maori occupied the sea bed? Maybe you could show us all.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Lance, Having just read you comment, you have no idea of NZ history.
I suggest you read about it before opening your mouth and spouting ignorance. That could go for a lot of the commentators on this subject.
I would strongly recommend that you do not read anything by James Belich. He is not a historian, he is a historical revisionist. The difference is that a Historian does not need to revise anything already published, he reports on what has happened and corrects what may have been wrong. (and he has been correctly critised by many more knowledgable people than me)
Lastly we would not be even discussing this if Labour in the statues, and the courts hadn’t kept referring to Treaty principles. There are no principles except from the courts decisions. The treaty deals with property rights and sovereignty.
Read it closely in either Maori or english (or maori version translated into English). Partnership is NEVER mentioned.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Yup Oz looking better all the time. Pollies who argue over a $5000 rust bucket ute. Priceless. NZ EVERYONE argues over property nobody has ever occupied (unless the lost world of Atlantas is off the Taranaki Coast). Pointless.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If you think this is about the seabed and foreshore you are wrong. It is about money and to a lesser extent power. In that order. The Maori want money (that they don’t have the desire to earn by buying and selling stuff) so that they can further establish themselves as a nation apart. The fact that for generations now successive governments have given them welfare for all sorts of flimsy claims only perpetuates their belief that they can push the handout envelope even more.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Jack5 wrote:
“Britain certainly wasn’t too weak to take NZ. It didn’t even send its top-line regiments to take part in the land wars”
So is that like why they got their butts kicked by a bunch of savages in grass skirts?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
When did that happen Lance? You have already proven your lack of historical knowledge, better to quit while you’re behind.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Response to Lance at 7.38…
Butts kicked? That must be why they are trying to keep English alive in England where the Maori language is the main official language.
But seriously, the land wars never ranked as much more than skirmishes on the scale of international wars. The British soon dominated the set piece battles. Maori had excellent defences in their pa, but these couldn’t withstand cannon fire. If the British regulars who were sent to NZ weren’t as good as bush fighters as Maori, the white colonial irregulars under the Prussian officer von Tempsky soon did match Maori and frequently more than match them.
Maori usually fought bravely, but they were never a serious threat to the domination of the British military, the Royal Navy, and later, the colonial soldiers. And of course, many Maori fought alongside the British, notably I think, Ngati Porou.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
EverlastingFire..
Have you EVER read about what happened in the battles.. at all, at anytime?
The British learnt hard lessons. Cameron committed treason by refusing to fight the Maoris’ anymore as he understood the morality of what his side was doing. The Maori referred to scripture as to why they were being wrongfully treated, and they were correct. Have a read of what Bishop Selwyn had to say sometime.
Jack5 is closer to the mark.
The point I was really trying to make it wasn’t the wars but the disease and effective isolation policies that defeated them.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
The British consistently defeated the rebels in many of them. There was never one battle that was considered “Maori victory”. only, Stalemate, indecisive or British victory. Reading from James Belich? lol The fact that you think they were too weak and that’s why they created the treaty is testament to your stupidity.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hey EverlastingFire.. i’ll type this slowly just for you…
Treaty first.. Maori wars came later. Make the mental adjustment, stretch those brain cells.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
EF
Here is a nice simple outline…
http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Reference/TreatyofWaitangi/
So why did the settlers need protection if Britain was so strong?
Why were the French a danger if Britain was so strong?
And why do you laugh at James Belich? You a superior historian, or just a legend in your own mind?
BTW my information comes from Uni of Waikato thesis on academic research involving detailed dairies etc from the conflicts, bloody interesting and stuff you don’t see in main stream publications.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
“Treaty first.. Maori wars came later” – A good it seems you’re finally getting it.
The article claims no mention of the Maori rebels being defeated because of disease or policies during the land wars. More than twice as many Maori rebels than British were killed during the battles.
Do you know what “protection” means? Why would an ordinary citizen not need protection? We all need it, even today. In those days Maori were still attached to their savage life style, I’d want protection as a settler too. Not to mention some truly brutal attacks were carried out on defenseless people by Maori in 1800′s.
Maori had made a plea to King William to seek protection from the French initially. The French had planned to establish a colony. The declaration was one of the reasons to stop the French from declaring sovereignty.
James Belich is not a historian, but a revisionist.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I just came back to see how many demerit points I got and was supprised to see so few. Lance on the other hand, take my advise and do some reading. In open battle Maori rebels were defeated more often than not.
In pitched forest battles, they were able to win many fights, but after a few disasterious attacks on Pa, Government forces (Note to you your ignorant muppet, that includes imperial army, colonial militia/armed constabulary and friendly Maori forces) defeated the fortified Pa positions by siege.
Jame Belich cherry picked his arguements and referrenced everything, yet everything he came to the conculsion about was biased to his opinion. You are an idiot Lance. I started to type some examples of the land war battles and tactics, but I think they’re wasted on you.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Jack5
Maori usually fought bravely, but they were never a serious threat to the domination of the British military, the Royal Navy, and later, the colonial soldiers. And of course, many Maori fought alongside the British, notably I think, Ngati Porou
You are spot on. Ngati Porou were lead by Major Ropata, who had a European Capt who served under him in the armed constabulary. Also with large contributions were lower river Wanganui under the Rangitira Major Kemp, and Te Arawa.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
gravy train, choo choo, money ,money ,money