Iwi now argue against property rights
June 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Maori will refuse to forgo their rights to the foreshore and seabed and see it vested in the public domain unless private owners do the same, says Mark Solomon, Ngai Tahu chairman and member of a Maori iwi leadership group.
If this really is the position of Iwi, then I say the Government should simply repeal the FSA and let courts decide, rather than have a negotiated package.
There is a fundamental difference between existing private owners of parts of the foreshore & seabed, and the Iwi’s claims.
Existing private owners already have title, which is not in dispute. That title has generally been paid for incidentally.
Iwi do not hold title to any parts of the foreshore & seabed. All they had was a Court of Appeal decision that said they could argue for title in court if they could prove continuous usage of a discrete area of the foreshore and/or seabed since 1840.
Now I accept Iwi may have a sincere belief that they do have title, based on them being here before 1840. But that is not the law of the land, and is not what the Court of Appeal found. All the Court of Appeal found was a right to make a claim for discrete areas.
What is especially disappointing in the position of the Iwi, is how unprincipled their stance is. Many groups opposed the FSA (such as ACT and the Business Roundtable0 because it removed their rights to go to court, and supported Iwi as a matter of principle in upholding property rights. Now Iwi are arguing that the Government should confiscate fee simple titles off 12,000 persons, while giving Iwi the right to gain customary title. It is an entirely unprincipled position to take, and risks burning off support for an alternative to the Foreshore & Seabed Act.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
IWI = I WANT IT
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
HAPU = HOW ABOUT PAYING UP.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
What a surprise: Stone Age people rejecting Modern World concepts!
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I agree DPF is not the law of the land. But Solomon has a entirely principled position I would have thought no one should own the NZs foreshore & seabed.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
This is much bigger than this. (Though the fact that a judicial activist in Sian Elias rewriting hundreds of years of law is bad enough).
The core is what is an “indigenous person”?
If you mean only Maori then the claims of the activists that they own the country and the rest of us are interlopers or colonists and can never be indigenous unless we marry into or are born out of “Maori”.
If an indigenous person is someone born here, then it is a different matter as the Tangata Whenua concept as advanced by some Maori activists and our white guilty liberal academia and some government departments is therefore null and void and then we move to another level of question.
Who is a citizen of New Zealand?
The answer to these questions sorts out who has access to the foreshore and seabed.
My position is clear, it is owned by all New Zealanders which means you are a citizen no matter when you or your forebears got here or not.
While we’re at it lets tell the UN in no uncertain terms to get stuffed (with their interfering ways in a sovereign nation) and rescind our singing of the indigenous peoples (whatever it is supposed to mean) document”.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Delicious Johnboy, just delicious.
How about?
IWI = I Want It.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Trumped by Muzza!
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Does he claim the right to speak for all Maori? I would have thought that would be offensive to some tribes, given the antipathy that apparently exists between them. For example, when John Key joked that it was good he was having dinner with Ngati Porou rather than Tuhoe, as he would be dinner there, part of the reason it was claimed to be offensive was that the two tribes had not had particularly good relations in the past. Oh, that’s right, Maori are a separately united people all of the same opinion and beliefs – depending on the strategic position and narrative that is being employed in order to get more benefit.
It keeps coming back to this: “As individuals, men believe they ought to love and serve each other and establish justice between each other. As racial, economic and national groups they take for themselves, whatever their power can command.”
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
WHANAU= WHITE HONKIES ARE NOT ANY USE.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
*Sorry, “Maori are a united, separate and distinct people all of the same opinion and beliefs”
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
WHAKAPAPA= WHITE HONKY ANCESTORS KILL ALL POSSIBILITY ANY PAYOUTS AVAILABLE
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Someone should produce a map of how much foreshore and seabed is in private hands. Some is harbour board, marina etc and a lot is due to coastal erosion. Some of it is just inaccessible.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Just walk away and leave things as they are. Resign froim the UN and let the chips fall where they may.
I am tired of drivel about the Treaty, and the whole grievance based industry. Let’s just get on earning our own way in the world.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Indeed. Take a square meter of land anywhere in central Europe and ask who is indigenous to that bit of land. The answer, of course, is nobody. The whole idea of land ownership in perpetuity is simply nuts, but it’s espoused by the Marxist leaning crowd as a cornerstone of their continued assault on private property rights.
In the NZ context, if indigenous refers to ‘first peoples’ then someone needs to do a better job of convincing me that Maori where the first human inhabitants of our islands 1000 years ago, when the neighbouring aborigines have been calling their turf home for more than 50,000 years.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
In other countries, the indigenous question is solved by proportion of racial heritage in terms of blood?
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
The claims not based on “I was here first” so much as “I was smart enough to sign a treaty saying you can’t take my stuff away from me and I will retain special rights as a trade for giving you the power to govern NZ” (or the English were dumb enough to sign it).
Morally right or wrong and whether they have any place in modern NZ, the claims are based on a legal property right, which has to some extent been taken away.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Here indigenous to the Maori Party is in terms of if your on the Maori roll or not.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
“Morally right or wrong and whether they have any place in modern NZ, the claims are based on a legal property right, which has to some extent been taken away.”
Surely they have exactly the same right to paddle their little tootsie at the beach that I have as a citizen of NZ. That’s what the treaty grants them, the same rights as the rest of us.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
@ theodoresteel 2.33pm
“I was smart enough to sign a treaty saying you can’t take my stuff away from me and I will retain special rights as a trade for giving you the power to govern NZ” (or the English were dumb enough to sign it).
So based on the above statement then,sovereignty has been ceded then, and Tuhoe has no claim against the NZ govt.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Mark Solomon is white, he is a rich powerful arrogant white man
Vote:like Tipene O’Regan is a white rich Irish man.
see how much money they spread around Ngai Tahu,
don’t hold your breath Maori
June 7th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Hmm interesting, David seems to be saying that a Pakeha whose land was stolen from Maori should have property rights that should never be broached.
OK, boils down to this, want one law for ALL, or should property rights only apply to the Pakeha ?
Now you Pakeha would agree that another Pakeha should be able to tell you to piss off his beach would you not ?
But, Maori should never expect to have property rights, who was ranting about equality ?
[DPF: No you misunderstand entirely. You do not solve one grievance by creating a new one. Stealing property off Pakeha in 2010 is just as wrong as stealing property off Maori in 2010]
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“Existing private owners already have title, which is not in dispute. That title has generally been paid for incidentally.
Iwi do not hold title to any parts of the foreshore & seabed. All they had was a Court of Appeal decision that said they could argue for title in court if they could prove continuous usage of a discrete area of the foreshore and/or seabed since 1840.”
Important contrast you seem to have missed, given your argument.
I like how you separate it out into “us and them”. Very constructive and representative of reality.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
JiveKitty You will notice David stated generally paid for.
So using some of that logic it would be the right thing for Maori to take that land back ?
Or does having a piece of paper wipe out any crime ?
There are Pakeha squatting on Maori land, and yes it is in title to Maori, should Maori toss those Pakeha off the land, or should the law only apply one way ?
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
The main issue here is the name over the beach/ foreshore: NZer or tribal affiliated NZr. A name has tremendous psychological value.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Belief in title does not equate to proof of title. That is why David is not advocating for the law to only apply one way.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
@ theodoresteel 2:33 pm
I don’t believe any article of the treaty allowed for special rights.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
If the people on this board are to be consistent to the rule of property rights I expect there to be a full measure of support for Tuhoe being granted full title of the Uwerea National Park (sp?) and allowed to charge admission to the park and grant access as they see fit…
They didn’t sign the treaty
There are extensive records of land being confiscated without compensation
They still occupy the land
JK’s rejection of even shared title between the Crown and “an ancestor” was an insult to the notion of property rights…
The foreshore issue is clear to me, if their is no current owner, Maori can establish pre 1840 ownership or extensive use and an Iwi wasn’t compensated by the Crown they should get full ownership…
For property rights (the main principle of wealth creation) to have any worth they must apply universally – not just to white people after 1900…
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“Existing private owners already have title”…
Whose title then? Title over purchased land? Or stolen? Or land leased in perpetuity from the original owners, who may have had no say in the leasing?
Why, if you are going to deprive one group of land rights, should you not be even-handed, and force open public access to the whole seashore, whoever may own it? You talk about the law of the land as if it were immutable – the whole point of the Maori stance is to attempt to change the law of the land to a new one – perfectly legal.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
rouppe have you read the fucking treaty, shit, it is easy enough they put it out in three fucking languages, Maori, English, and for crackers.
I suggest you try the cracker version it has got cartoons through it .
Fuck,spare the world from dumb fucks who make no fucking effort to learn the fucking facts.
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
You’re a pretty wise fellow grumpy so tell me how did your ancestors read the treaty written in maori seeing none of the dumb bastards knew how to a: write, b: read.
Vote:I hope they didn’t get some slimy missionary bastard to read it to them he could have told them a crock and the stupid buggers would have signed it anyway.
June 7th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
the foreshore & seabed is land below high water mark, can you tell me who these 12000 people are that own land below this level, I thought you could only own to high water mark.
Vote:I would like to know if anyone can tell me
June 7th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
[DPF: No you misunderstand entirely. You do not solve one grievance by creating a new one. Stealing property off Pakeha in 2010 is just as wrong as stealing property off Maori in 2010]
David ,what you are stating is that getting property BACK which had been stolen is wrong.
Your other argument is that because Pakeha set up a parliament making sure Maori had sod all votes and which passed so called land titles which made theft legal in Pakeha eyes that should always stand.
Great system it was, steal land then get a so called land title which gave you the right to keep all others off it including those it was stolen from.
One has to laugh at the so called settlements, Maori get $3000 per person, but a Pakeha farmer squatting on Maori land gets paid out full market value of land and buildings.
Now, who believes equality should reign in this little green land ?
Vote:June 7th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Johnboy Why am I not surprised you have read no NZ history.
Vote:Keep believing no Maori could read and write in 1840
June 7th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
johnboy is john-old-man..
think old school old white reactionary-racist…(provincial..)
..and you’d be pretty close..
ignorance as wide as it is deep…
..gets pissed off about ‘uppity maari’….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 8th, 2010 at 12:02 am
So the Maori (who once owned everything, btw, until it was largely conned/stolen from them) are expected to just hand title over to the public domain, but it is an outrage if they expect others to show the same generosity that is expected of them. Those bloody unprincipled Maoris eh?
Just another day in “I know my rights” ville…
Vote:June 8th, 2010 at 9:24 am
OK grumpy I concede some could read.
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/making-the-treaty/signing-the-treaty
Note.
“For several months in 1840 the Treaty circulated around the country for Maori to sign. Missionaries, traders or officials explained the terms of the Treaty at 50 or so signing meetings between February and September 1840, from the far north of the North Island to Ruapuke Island in Fouveaux Strait.”
And.
“same in each document. Some copies have the government seal, and one was signed by Willoughby Shortland instead of William Hobson. Some signatures and moko are readable, but others are not. The names of some chiefs do not have a mark of any kind beside them, or they are mixed with the names of hapu.”
Pretty dodgy stuff to base claims for billions on today.
Phool. Your stupidity never fails to impress me.
Vote:June 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
In 1840 there were believed to be 60 to 70,000 (or maybe 100,000) Maori in NZ and about 2000 Europeans. The carrying capacity was limited by a lack of food species (before Europeans arrived there was only kumara – a subtropical tuber. Major food species had been hunted to extinction). Maori chiefs had no idea how many colonists were about to arrive and the British side gambled that Maori would be assimilated. At that point there was no chance there would be a lasting agreement on sovereignty and hence a treaty with two versions. The alternative was no treaty (and the negotiators didn’t get to go home …it wasn’t their idea after all). Colonisation would have continued one way or another by hook or by crook. Today with a population of 1.4 million decedents of .1 million think they should own the sea land around the coast.
Vote:June 8th, 2010 at 9:52 am
What’s more a return letter to the other side of the world by sail took at least 6 months.
Vote:“Treaty educators” don’t point out the above, just “bad coloniser”.