Ngati Porou on FSA
June 11th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarI blogged on Monday the statement by the Ngai Tahu Chairman:
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.
I labelled this as unprincipled and unacceptable.
It seems the statements of Ngai Tahi were not the agreed position of the iwi leadership group. I’ve been sent a copy of a press release from Ngati Porou:
The Chairman of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou, Dr Apirana Mahuika, said today that more dialogue between the Crown and iwi was the way to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue.
Dr Mahuika said he was dismayed by reports over the last few days that the Iwi Leadership Group and the Government have reached an impasse over the issue of private title and the proposal to putthe foreshore and seabed into the so called Public Domain.
“Media reports that the concept of Public Domain was being rejected outright by the Iwi Leadership Group are incorrect.
“At the Iwi Leadership Group hui last Friday there was no resolution passed rejecting the idea of public domain and there was no resolution passed mentioning any challenge to private title,” he said.
Dr Mahuika said that discussion on these issues had been counter productive and unhelpful when in fact the resolutions passed by the ILG were much more conciliatory than what had been reported over the last few days.
This included:
- Recognition that what is currently on the table is an improvement on the 2004 position.
- Support for aspects of the Government’s proposal – such as the removal of Crown ownership
and ensuring the foreshore and seabed is inalienable.- Recommendation that there be further discussion and negotiation with the Crown.
I am glad to see that the suggestion that existing holders of title should have it removed from them, is not a formal position from the iwi leadership group.
Related posts:
- Iwi now argue against property rights
- The Foreshore and Seabed Act
- The Foreshore & Seabed proposals
- Agreement reached on Foreshore & Seabed
June 11th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Am I the only one who is wondering why the foreshore and seabed issue is such a big deal these days? It was never in my consciousness when I was at school in the late 70′s, when I went on my OE in the 80′s and when I returned and started working in the late 80′s through to about 2000. Now we have a political party formed solely to get the foreshore and seabed “returned” to Maori and iwi leaders saying things on the fly that are not official policy. What happened? What have I missed? Can someone tell me what and when the defining moment was that made this a major issue for maori?
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 10:03 am
According to land information of the 12,500 titles privately owned:
General land
9,693 (20.05%)
Maori land
2,916 (10.35%)
Unresolved
273 (.45%)
========
The number of parcels that adjoin the foreshore is 33,712. Of these parcels:
30,449 are land parcels;
2,726 seabed parcels; and
501 are parcels that have completely eroded.
(Note that while 501 parcels are fully eroded, 4,881 of the land parcels are partially eroded).
Some of the seabed parcels were issued in the 1840 and 50″s.
—————————-
This is worth a read
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest189.htm
COASTAL COALITION
Vote:- committed to retaining the Foreshore & Seabed in Crown Ownership
http://www.nzcpr.com/CoastalCoalition.htm
June 11th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Apart from Te tiritti and being of indigenous decent (inheritance) the third leg of the argument re customary rights and interests is the (alleged) extent of the practice of kaitiakitanga:
“ Living in a particular geographic area for centuries allowed the tangata whenua to compile a huge variety and quantity of detailed knowledge related to the land, its resources and its inhabitants. That knowledge has been transmitted to their grand children (mokopuna) by the grand parents (tipuna) along the generations. It allows a rigorous evaluation of the mauri of their ancestral lands”
.
and hence we are lead to believe that Maori are the experts.
.
It is also alleged that Maori behaviour (culture) is constant and predictable with beliefs such as:
.
“The assistants of the gods are kaitiaki. They can be spirits, like the taniwha who take care of the waterways, or the spirits of dead ancestors, and they can be living creatures like trees, animals and human beings. The role of the assistants of the gods is called kaitiakitanga. ……the Tawhito are the protectors of the creatures of the earth. Thus the person or the community who holds the mana whenua of a land is responsible for it.
.
……….
1.Maori were responsible for the fastest mass extinctions of a megafauna in the history of human expansion*. It is alleged that “they would have learned from” this [Tipene Oregan] however that seems unlikely unless they all got together and said “let’s do [this] in future”. Early Europeans report that Maori knew nothing of the Moa.
2. We shouldn’t confuse lack of technology with conservation. Maori didn’t have goats (for instance) and so didn’t face the challenges of other early humans.
3. The pacific Islands had bouts of over population (and resulting war and famine and need for more migration) but the lack of food species (potato, wheat, pigs, sheep) meant Maori population could never grow beyond a certain level (on average Maori lived into their thirties (?), this is relevant because fewer people mean a smaller footprint.
4. Maori had a martial culture which is more representative of steal and plunder than stay put and conserve.
Ref
*”… human hunting and habitat destruction drove the eleven species of moa to extinction less than 100 years after Polynesian settlement of New Zealand …”
R. N. Holdaway & C. Jacomb, Rapid Extinction of the Moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): Model, Test, and Implications, Science, March 24 2000
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Instead of banging on about events of 160 plus years ago the so called Maori leadership should be more concerned as to why their children grow up to be abject failures as regards good citizens and their positive contribution to society.
Instead of contributing they take take and then take some more always blaming the white honky for their problems.
Time they were told to apply their limited intelligence to working with the white honkys to turn around the abject failures that they have nutured with a right of entitlement and a over blown opinion of their status.
Some of us are tired of their mantras and the pit that consumes increasing amounts of our hard earnt incomes and to add insult to injury the expectation that we give give give whilst they take take take.
Selfish bastards all of them.
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am
I think that the Ngati Porou statement illustrates nicely the problem with many who talk about the “Maori position”, or ask what
Vote:“Maori” want. It’s the same as saying “What do pakeha want?” or “What is the pakeha position?”. There isn’t ONE position, but many, representing the many pakeha “tribes” (NZ born or immigrants, Irish vs English vs Scottish vs Chinese vs Serbian vs Croatian … descent). There are many Maori iwi, and thus many viewpoints. To expect one united voice is unrealistic. To get general consensus is what’s desired and hoped for.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am
The more flexible position is a welcome development. But I can’t help the presence in the back of my brain of the idea that it actual would be nice if ALL the foreshore and seabed WERE in the public domain. I can’t really blame Maori for spotting the inconsistency that they are expected to forgo their (possible and subject to legal test) rights but others are not.
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Odd. I don’t have permission to edit my own comment. I did want to add that the Maori _I_ know want to get on with their businesses, their lives, etc. Most I know do NOT want or take “handouts”. To paint them all as “selfish bastards” would be the same as painting all English immigrants as selfish and grasping. Some are, most are not.
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Years ago (1960′s) I was with a group of mothers and children who used to go walking for recreation. We walked out of Lyttelton and ended up on Rapaki Beach intending to have a picnic. A group of kids came out and threw stones up at us as we walked along the track so we turned around and left. I could handle the odd beach like that as it is obvious the Rapaki has been one of a few continuous coastal settlements. However the extent of change varies from a few Rapaki’s to every stitch of coast iwi can get there hands on (Green Party/ Maori Party/ National?). My fear is that legislation would allow extensive control to enter by the back door as law lecturer David Round is suggesting.
Vote:http://www.nzcpr.com/guest189.htm
June 11th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
As for the awa and sewage , we don’t need to be told how to suck eggs.
In Aotearoa
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00068.htm
Or England during the industrial revolution
Vote:http://www.jsi.com/JSIInternet/AboutJSI/drsnow.cfm
June 11th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
This is what both the Nats and Labour call equality.
I get a maximum of $3000 in settlement dosh, while those Pakeha who squat on Maori land get paid out full market value from the taxpayer for the farms they squat on.
Bloody strange equality that.
Yet some say that two wrongs do not make a right, why not ?
Vote:June 11th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
while those Pakeha who squat on Maori land get paid out full market value from the taxpayer for the farms they squat on.
Vote:…..
where are they?
June 12th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Too much generalising.
Vote: