Klingons On The Starboard Bow
The swamp had a visit last night from a friend from the sticks, the mangrove sticks actually. Crab, who hitched a ride into town from the country, reckons we need a perspective from the rural blocks. Here is Crab’s contribution:
The frog is essentially an urbane political observer from that small seething pond called Wellington. However us rural invertebrates from the mangrove have a unique view of the newly formed Government. From out here in the manawa it looks like aliens with extremely bad haircuts have attached themselves to the Labour Party. The Greens may well have had a lucky escape from the contaminating effects of the right wing klingons suckered on to the outside of Cabinet like petulant sea squirts.
Times are also tough in the regions. It’s a dangerous world attempting to maintain biodiversity in the mangrove. First there was the polluting rock snot of fundamentalist rhetoric, which blighted letterboxes and election platforms throughout the rural heartland. Then there was Sandra Goudie leading the haters and wreckers in orgies of “resource management� against the mangroves. However we have survived these rigours to embrace the very real gains negotiated for the benefit all citizens by the Green team in the seething pond.
In the mangrove we blame The Prime Minister and the rednecks of Marlborough for the absolutely, positively unjust legislation which confiscated the foreshore and seabed. The “last cab on the rank� could have been the ride home to progressive re invigoration but instead we have a lurch to the right pretending to be somewhere near the Centre, As we know so well in the swamp, the tide of history will erode the middle ground.
Now that the Starship Pragmatist is launched as a Government the Greens can abstain with honour. They can get on with the real job of promoting solar panels, Kiwi jobs and standing up for the environment. It may not be ministerial limos for Jeanette and Rod but we saw them on TV and we liked their dignity.
Sunday’s Herald quoted Richard Prebble saying that the Greens are toxic. No greater accolade could be given to their integrity and vision than his paranoia.
The Crab
An interesting view I thought.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Excellent, I hope the Crab becomes a regular correspondent.
On the subject of different animals, I have signed up frogblog to the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem. This tracks how popular each blog is based on the number of links to it from other blogs that have signed up. Popularity is reported on an evolutionary scale:
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php
Higher Beings
Mortal Humans
Playful Primates
Large Mammals
Marauding Marsupials
Adorable Rodents
Flappy Birds
Slithering Reptiles
Crawly Amphibians
Flippery Fish
Slimy Molluscs
Lowly Insects
Crunchy Crustaceans
Wiggly Worms
Multicellular Microorganisms
Insignificant Microbes
and I can report that frogblog is very successful, currently it is a “Marauding Marsupial”. Some other NZ politics blogs:
Large Mammals:
Kiwiblog
No right turn
Philosophy, et cetera
Sir Humphrey’s
Marauding Marsupials:
NZ Pundit
Frogblog
Just Left
Adorable Little Rodents:
Spanblather
Not PC
Aaron Bhatnagar
sagenz
Flappy Birds:
Bloggreen
October 18th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Crab:
Wonderful contibution!
Just what we needed at this time of ajustment and contemplation.
Kia ora!
eredwen
October 18th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
“In the mangrove we blame The Prime Minister and the rednecks of Marlborough..”
What is redneck about wanting to be able to use a resource in the same way as everyone else? To have a situation where groups of NZers are given exclusive use of a resource because of their ethnicity is “redneck”!
This is quite different from the *first-in, first-served* basis of the RMA, but that is another arguement altogether.
Stupid Crab!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
rednecks say unequivocally red rhetoric rod deads in the swamp, if he had tooken one single redneck kick yo bot fascist withim into those talks with helengrad 3 vomist well you have a minister by now, what the matter with this man, he turning into jeanette, we would have have said now you just listen beatch, its minister for rod or we go across to others, very bad fwwog, very bad, and no amount of croaking take it away, you had the best hand and you throw it in, and we get $12 in 2008, jeez fwwog we deaded as the dead carbon Coyote by then, told yous better off with fascist right, we use violets,
.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
No Gazza, it’s because the local iwi actually held legal title to the resource and, in typical fascist fashion, the Crown took it by force.
Whilst Crab is a welcome addition to the paddling pool, I sense that Frog was alert to how hot the water was becoming as a result of the right royal screwing the Greens obtained from Labour, and wanted to introduce a diversion.
Which at least means Frog is remaining alert. Which is good. Because Frogs that rest on their lily pads as the heat is turned up may end up on some lucky diner’s table in the far reaches of Thorndon.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
not to late fwwog, sack wod, and refuse supply,
October 18th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Cmon - the Foreshore and Seabed is about too much for the average redneck to even understand.
The Maori sovereignty activists played it as another landgrab to gain support from Maori - but for them the issue was ultimate sovereignty, which the coastline represents.
There is land ownership, commerical title, customary title and customary rights. The last is spoken for by the Treaty, the third is a matter of continued identity (which the legislation recognised and allows participation in RMA/commercial development approval procedures), the second was taken from Maori by 19th C court decision (which legislation allows courts to determine).
National was opposed to even customary title and blocks on commerical development. Whereas some Maori iwi wanted commerical title and thus a role (passive or active) in any development. Which is why MP talking to National was so so pointless.
Otherwise the very political issue of land ownership.
Why not Public Domain? This can mean Crown ownership shared with Maori (who see themselves as in relationship to the Crown), or Maori ownership shared with the Crown. Or Crown ownership shared with Pakeha and Maori, or Maori ownership shared with Pakeha - in Public Domain status. Whatever, officially there is no particular owner and this is so categorised as “public domain”. This does not negate any customary title or commercial title claim.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
SPC - yes to all of the above
plus; Maaori have had stewardship of much of our coastline for gnerations, and allowed customary use by pakeha in times of holiday celebrations.
It’s only when pakeha try to alienate land by private ownership that it suddenly becomes somewhere that people who have customarily returned to the same coastline for decades can’t access (both maaori and pakeha)
The safest hands to care for the coastal lands of Aotearoa are definitely those of the tangata whenua! Thanks for all the kai and the good times, and we’ll be standing together to keep the tiakitanga alive.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Katie, you seem to have contradicted yourself there by agreeing the SPC then saying “The safest hands to care for the coastal lands of Aotearoa are definitely those of the tangata whenua!”
I’m going to play Devil’s advocate for a minute:
…when pakeha try to alienate land by private ownership…
Was the F&S legislation supposed to prevent just that? If coastal land is under the care of tanagata whenua is that not private ownership in all but title? I am familiar with the concept of rangatiratanga but can Pakeha be expected to take ‘customary use’ on faith?
October 19th, 2005 at 1:13 am
Though I have not read the legislation I do know that among Maori, like every other culture their are some in positions of power looking to make a quick buck, I would have thought that the idea of S&F was the only legal way of ensuring their safety for generations.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:52 am
The F&S legislation was to my mind a crucial watershed. It cracked open for us the ugly seam of racism that deeply underpins much of NZ thinking.
Contrast:
1. The public reaction to the idea that “their” public access rights to the beaches would be compromised if title in any form was given to local iwi.
2. Public reaction to the idea that “their” private rights over their properties would be compromised if any form of access to the “Queens Chain” was formalised in the publics favour.
In one sense ACT took the internally consistent position that all property should be private property and they backed the Maori claim for full private title to the F&S. Consistent as the position may be, it was also consistently rejected by most New Zealanders. Such a position for instance would have no defence to all of our National Parks being claimed by Maori, nor indeed the next logical step for iwi to assert full private title to all of NZ, arguing that their customary title precedes and supercedes any titles issued by an illegal colonising squatter government.
Yet few were willing to stand up for the idea that all land is in effect Crown land, that the Crown is the ultimate “public good” owner of all land, all seabed and foreshore, and all resources to be found therein. And yet this is closer to the legal reality than any other position. In effect all private title is nothing more than a permanent licence to occupy subject to many conditions, eg the RMA, Territorial Body Rules, Crimminal Law and so on. You may have title to a piece of land, you do not have sovereignty or dominion over it. Furthermore the Crown has the right to modify those terms of occupation, offering compensation only if titleholders can demonstrate specific monetary loss as a result.
From a F&S/Maori perspective the issue is more complex. Their claim to title predates the Crown, and was originally asserted merely by conquest and occupation, no legal mechanism existing at the time for anything different to have occurred. To then convert that occupation to a “title” assumes that at some point the F&S had fell within the ambit of the Crown to issue title on. ie if the F&S is not part of the Crown’s assets, then it is in no position to issue title to it….to anyone.
The alternative was for Maori to simply assert sovereignty over the F&S, effectively creating a Maori nation, totally encircling a Pakeha one. Yeah right.
The F&S legislation simply formalised the Crown’s right to the F&S as part of New Zealand’s sovereignty. From that starting point it then made a very modest step toward a process by which some customary rights might be asserted.
The problem with Queens Chain access was almost the direct reverse, pakeha landowners had become accustomed to the idea that they could cheerfully deny access to their land regardless of long established Crown rights in this respect. And the attempt by Jim Sutton to re-assert those access rights (in a very limited manner) was met with one of the most disgusting misinformation and smear campaigns I have seen in a long time. Complete lies such as, “wander at will” were pushed by ACT and Fed Farmers, which stirred up a virulent rural pakeha backlash, effectively killing a long needed reform.
Yet the most flaming irony of this was that the same people making all that noise about their (pakeha) property rights, would have mostly been the same people moaning about those uppity Maori trying to claim all the beaches. The only word for that is racist.
The correct way forward is for all NZ citizens (whatever skin colour) to sit down and realise that there is only one Crown and it owns everything, and has potential control over everything. From that starting point we negotiate the balance of private and public rights, the protection of both private investment and benefit, against the wider public good, with the same principles and values applying to all land and resources whether it is maori or pakeha who have the traditional stakeholding.
October 19th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Logix - The word you’re looking for isn’t the so divisive “racist” it is the far more common and infinitely applicable “selfish” - just my $0.02
respectfully
BJ
October 19th, 2005 at 9:16 am
And from the redoubtable Russ Brown,
http://www.publicaddress.net
“The strangest and most potentially damaging facet of the new government is the appointment of Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs; both because it’s a post outside Cabinet, and because it’s Winston Peters. We now have to wait and see how that works out.”
can”t add to that!
October 19th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Symied said:
Was the F&S legislation supposed to prevent just that? If coastal land is under the care of tanagata whenua is that not private ownership in all but title? I am familiar with the concept of rangatiratanga but can Pakeha be expected to take ‘customary use’ on faith?
“rangatiratanga” is different to stewardship, or tiakitanga; where the community holds the taonga in trust for all to use, for all generations (ie: respecting population and time) this is differenat to private ownership, which creates a pattern of usage only by owners, only while they own it; this pattern of usage is on-sold to the next owner, but offers no benefit to non-owners, that is it alienates from usage those who previously had customary usage.
simple enough yet?
katie
October 19th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Some of us feel that no property is private property in the absolute sense: we have only the right to use it for a limited time (”come in number 99, your time is up!”).
Contrast “my” dog, “my” husband/wife, “my” house, “my” pencil.
Which does not make the matter of ownership of F&S any easier: I feel that no solution satisfactory to most people can be found without a lot of aroha on all sides.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Logix says : “….. realise that there is only one Crown and it owns everything, and has potential control over everything…”
That is the case as I understand it, but it will look much more acceptable to some if we imagine for a moment that NZ has become a republic (de facto, it pretty well is already) and Logix would have written:
“….. realise that there is only one People and we own everything, and have potential control over everything…”
October 19th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Katie: “…the community holds the taonga in trust for all to use, for all generations..”
I will reword my original objections: are you using the word ‘trust’ in the legal sense? If not, are Pakeha expected to take customary use on faith?
“..different to private ownership.. [which] alienates from usage those who previously had customary usage.”
Obviously, but to quote myself again: was the F&S legislation not supposed to prevent just that?
simple enough yet?
Well no, as all you did was argue that tiakitanga did not constitute ownership because “the community holds the taonga in trust”. You could probably replace ‘holds’ with ‘owns’ in that sentence without changing the meaning. Anyway, the difference is academic, which leads me straight back to my first question.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:21 am
trust and faith …
Can I trust that the free market will protect the S&F (or indeed any of NZ) from ownership loss or damage…no
Can I trust that the Tangata Whenua will protect the S&F (or indeed any of NZ) from ownership loss or damage…?
maybe…
Greed knows no racial boundaries and is only restrained by morals, regulation or culture/religion.
Good to see the issue of foreign ownership featured on the Greens website. http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/pr9306.html
October 19th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
BJ
>ar more common and infinitely applicable “selfish
Good thought, I prefer it myself. Thanks.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
I don’t see why Maori ownership would be so bad. As long as it was subject to freedom of access rights for the general public then what is the problem?