A useful article

March 11th, 2011 at 9:36 am by David Farrar

has done an article in the Herald, which includes this graphic above. You can click on it for a slightly larger version. We learn how similiar the positions of the six parties plus to a degree even Hone is. Here’s the summary:

  1. Repeal Labour’s 2004 Act – all 7 parties support
  2. Allow Iwi to claim customary title through the courts – 6 parties support. Hone’s stance is court not necessary as Maori already have customary title to 100% of coastline
  3. That the proposed test for customary title should be continous use and occupation since 1840 – National and UFNZ support. Maori Party say it should be easier and Hone says there should be no test. Labour, ACT & Greens say leave it to the courts to set the test
  4. Allow for negotiated settlements with Iwi, and ratified by Parliament – National, UFNZ, Maori, GreensĀ and Labour all yes but Labour wants a court to ratify. ACT against and Hone says Maori own it all anyway
  5. A ban of selling customary title – all seven parties support
  6. Guaranteed public access to areas under customary title – all seven parties support
  7. Any change to the 12,500 private titles to the foreshore which have been purchased – no change from National, Maori, UFNZ, Laboru & ACT. Greens want private title to also be unable to be sold and guaranteed public access. Hone says it should all be put in Maori title.

I found this very helpful, because it shows that the areas of dispute are not in fact large – primarily just about what the tests should be, and whether the courts should be further involved.

Tags: ,

9 Responses to “A useful article”

  1. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    No mention of that public access being free.

    Is Hone really suggesting expropriating the existing titles on the foreshore? Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    If the F&S bill is past as proposed then Maori will be pitted against Maori. Just watch the jealousy arise when many tribes in NZ see others take hundreds of millions in royalties, while they rely like the rest of NZ on what scraps the government will throw their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scorpio (417 comments) says:

    makes you wonder why Labour are voting against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. si_rangi (60 comments) says:

    Agreed SSB

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/4755565/Editorial-Maoridoms-huge-mining-opportunity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Farrar (1,902 comments) says:

    Labour have had five different positions on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Scorpio (417 comments) says:

    My position is that the original act passed by Labour should be repealed. If Maori have a legitimate claim, then they can prove it in court and get freehold title to what is rightfully theirs. If not, then they will lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    How about doing a graph on the submissions.
    Not the arse covering positions of MPs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DPF: I found this very helpful, because it shows that the areas of dispute are not in fact large

    Really? National giving away title in “negotiated settlements” to Maori isn’t a big deal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,634 comments) says:

    The questions in the graphic address issues of process but not of definition and this is the key, which hasn’t been explicated not by anyone. Not by the media not by the politicians of any side.

    This is the question of what does “customary title” entitle one to? Specifically. Does it for example entitle one to setup a marine farm with special rights or privileges or to expel or take-over or levy an existing one?

    These are the critical questions and Key’s silence and Finlayson’s skillful deflections when the question is raised by the (very rare) astute journo, hasn’t filled me full of confidence the answer’s going to be a good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote