A Bay of Plenty iwi has filed the first case under the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Whakatohea is seeking customary rights and guardianship over 40 kilometers of coastline between Whakatane and Torere. This may ultimately result in some or all of the foreshore in question being co-managed as part of a foreshore and seabed reserve.
So, I guess we should batten down the hatches for a renewed outpouring of angst from righties outraged at the thought that brown people might be allowed even limited property rights...
6 comments:
What are Maori seats for?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/27/2005 06:24:00 PM
tut tut..
Whether their opposition is right or wrong you are misrepresenting their position and you know it.
Posted by Genius : 3/28/2005 11:24:00 AM
How much did the tribe pay for the land? Where is their fee simple title?
Posted by Anonymous : 4/01/2005 10:07:00 AM
Genius: Hardly. There's an enrmous double-standard operating here; the right accepts without question the right of rich Pakeha to own parts of the foreshore, but is outraged when Maori claim that same right. It's not about the idea of ownership, but who the prospective owners are. And it's not just the foreshore. Look at the outrage in Waitara over the town being returned to local Iwi (despite the fact that it would not change the rights of leaseholders one iota), or in Motueka over Maori landlords wanting to raise rents. There is a clear discomfort with Maori holding and exercising the same rights of private property which everyone else enjoys and expects.
(And they have the gall to call for "one law for all"...)
Then there's the people in Ohope who think that "we should just have a big shoot-out"...
This is not about the existence of property rights; it's about who has them. And the attitude of the right on this question is simply appalling.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 4/02/2005 11:07:00 AM
Anon: I'm sure you're as aware as I am that Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed are not based on post-Treaty purchase under the tenure system imported by the settler government, but on pre-Treaty use and occupation. Tikanga does include a system of (communal) land ownership, based on a number of take or rights, including gifting, inheritance, and conquest, as well as ahi kaa - "keeping the fire burning". (There's a summary here). There's no receipts or paper trail, but there are still recognisable property rights.
According to the doctrine of aboriginal title - a well-established piece of common law - these property rights survived the Treaty's transfer of sovereignty, until they were extinguished by statute or purchase. That's without even looking at the Treaty's guarantee of continued ownership, BTW.
Since the 1860's, successive New Zealand governments have made sustained moves to recognise Maori property rights through the tenure system - this is what the Maori Land Court was established to do - investigate aboriginal title and replace it with a crown grant. But that does not mean that any rights which have not been investigated are null and void.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 4/02/2005 11:08:00 AM
> the right accepts without question the right of rich Pakeha to own parts of the foreshore
they accept the right of rich asians to own foreshore too right? And probably also any rich maori businessman (who bought it himself with his own money). Why do you intentionally obscure that?
> or in Motueka over Maori landlords wanting to raise rents.
everyone makes a fuss when people want to raise their rents. Im sure maori make a fuss pretty identical to the one white guys do.
Yur other example doesnt seem to relate to your point.
> Then there's the people in Ohope who think that "we should just have a big shoot-out"...
Bet they'd shoot the asians too and all the "half breeds". Speaking of us needing a shoot out........
Posted by Genius : 4/02/2005 05:56:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).