< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Question 11

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Question 11

Adolf has highlighted Parliamentary Question 11 of May 31st as relevant to the billboard issue.

11. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the Government intend to recognise "legal ownership interests" in parts of the East Cape foreshore and seabed claimed by East Coast iwi, as outlined in the terms of negotiation with those iwi?

UPDATED: From the uncorrected transcripts:
11. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the Government intend to recognise “legal ownership interests” in parts of the East Cape foreshore and seabed claimed by East Coast iwi, as outlined in the terms of negotiation with those iwi?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): The Foreshore and Seabed Act gives the Crown full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed. The terms of negotiations set out each party’s perspective of its foreshore and seabed interests. The terms also include a statement that the Crown maintains its legal ownership interest in the foreshore and seabed. The way in which these interests will be reconciled will be a matter for substantive negotiations.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Government is maintaining that it has ownership, what is it negotiating about?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is negotiating around a number of matters. Clearly, both Ngāti Porou and Whānau-a-Apanui have particularly close linkages to the foreshore and seabed, not least because, in terms of Māori land that is owned down to the foreshore and seabed, the great majority of it is actually within those two iwis’ areas. Therefore, we are talking about how we recognise what, in effect, if they had gone the High Court route, would have been their territorial customary rights.

Gerry Brownlee: Have either of those iwi accepted the Government’s position that the Government, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, owns that foreshore and seabed; if so, what are they negotiating about?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The issue is not whether they accept the Crown’s assertion of its legal ownership; the issue is what kinds of processes will be in place to enable the genuine customary interests of Ngāti Porou and Whānau-a-Apanui to be worked through. Even the member’s leader said that there were customary interests that should be properly recognised.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Government continuing to negotiate with a group that will not accept the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What is recognised by Ngāti Porou and Whānau-a-Apanui does not affect the actual legal position, which is that the Crown does have legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed. In the same way, the Crown is not recognising that Ngāti Porou or Whānau-a-Apanui own the foreshore and seabed; we recognise that they assert they have ownership interests. Ngāti Porou once used to be strong supporters of the National Party; they have tended to change their minds on that matter, but I am sure that their hospitality would still extend to trying to explain exactly to the member their connection with the foreshore and seabed, should he care to go there.
Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act directs the High Court to recognise Maori Land Court customary rights orders on coastal areas, including beaches. Labour claims the coastal areas and seabed remain legally owned by the Crown, which is technically correct. However if an iwi or hapu is awarded customary rights over a section of land or seabed, then I imagine the public no longer has full access. Yet again Labour has acted duplicitously, and this time the public will notice, especially when National erects billboards bringing it to their attention.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 5/31/2005 05:56:00 pm

8 Comments:

Blogger reid said...

Well lets hope so but:

Public stupidity + Govt duplicity = Duh, Foreshore what? It's all a bit complicated, eh?

5/31/2005 06:40:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

I hope so too. I don't want a system resembling feudalism to emerge in New Zealand.

5/31/2005 07:46:00 pm  
Blogger Ally said...

Ngati Porou already own a lot of that part of the foreshore - just like a few other people own parts of the NZ foreshore privately.

Separate from Ngati Porou claims, Customary rights DO NOT give a tribe title over the foreshore. To claim customary title one has to prove that they have been using the land according to Tikanga Maori undisturbed since 1840. In other words, they have to have been collecting seafood etc etc, in the same way since 1840.
However there has been some case law to negate this principle but I guess the Foreshore and Seabed Act may have over ridden it

6/01/2005 08:57:00 am  
Blogger t selwyn said...

Feudalism! Families owning property is feudalism?

6/01/2005 01:30:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

What I was trying to say is I don't want a situation where the Government owns the land in perpetuity, but aspects of the use of the land are transferred to a group controlled by an elite, rather than owned by individuals or a group representing all individuals equally (ie some sort of shareholding organisation).

6/01/2005 01:37:00 pm  
Blogger t selwyn said...

Why do you think a Maori group is controlled by an elite? The only elite groups in Maori society are the duly elected ones. A single titular head of the Tainui who appoints one member to a twelve member council does not a feudal system make. This feudalsim stuff is misinformation of a Franksian generalisation variety and does the dissementator of such no credit.

Maori society consists of families and groups of families and the political structures where they have not been set up by the Crown/Pakeha are democratic. They have to be or else the families or groups of families will leave the structure to found another one - which is what has happened through the ages bost pre and post Pakeha/1840. If you could give me an example of how Maori are substantively feudal in the arrangements of their polities then please show me.

Your other point about assuming that the Crown "grants" rights to Maori rather than Maori holding them in their own right I shall comment on on my blog once I figure out how to discuss it in under 10,000 words!

6/01/2005 10:36:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Yes I'm aware the elitist comment could be wrong. Will look it up, though you are welcome to post a link here to your own post on the matter.

If you could write about specific large Maori groups then we can put it up as a SH post, though links as evidence would be great.

6/01/2005 10:42:00 pm  
Blogger t selwyn said...

AL:
I have posted a reply to your feudalism query here.

6/02/2005 01:24:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home