by frog
Ending Conservation Week in style, Metiria Turei today launched our conservation package [2Mb PDF], designed to significantly increase New Zealand’s commitment to protecting our precious natural environment. It includes a $100 million boost for the Department of Conservation, elevating the status of the Conservation Minister in Cabinet, and doubling pest control funding. Meyt says:
- At a time when the Department of Conservation is coping with higher costs, more land to manage and increased pressure from development, they were forced to axe 56 jobs. So the Department of Conservation needs a significant funding boost, and strong Government backing.
The package draws a line in the sand on wetland protection, mining and hydro dams on conservation land, the threat of native forest being cleared for pines.
It reiterates the Green Party’s stance on renewable energy proposals, including wind farms: that they need to be appropriate, and use sites with least footprint.
And not to forget marine conservation: the Greens will deal to the weak laws that allow our marine environment to be over-exploited.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, September 12th, 2008
Tags: conservation, election, Metiria Turei, policy
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Cool. Great policy, and very attractive PDF. Keep up the good work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very nice I must admit.
Lots of bullet points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did you see that q? Lot’s of nice bullet points….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Saudis refuse to perpetrate OPEC peak oil myth:
tinyurl.com/5t543j
“As the Saudis left the building, the message was shockingly clear. “Saudi Arabia will meet the market’s demand,? a senior OPEC delegate told the New York Times. “We will see what the market requires and we will not leave a customer without oil.”"
“The downward pressure on oil got a second hand. Brazil has confirmed another huge oil deposit to add to one it discovered off-shore earlier this year. The first field uncovered by Petrobras has the promise of being one of the largest in the world. The breadth of that deposit has now expanded.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
> “As the Saudis left the building, the message was shockingly clear. “Saudi Arabia will meet the market’s demand,? a senior OPEC delegate told the New York Times. “We will see what the market requires and we will not leave a customer without oil.?”
The Saudis have said that quite a number of times in the last few years, and the price keeps yoyoing around an upward trend. They don’t seem to be able to do what they say they’re going to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OPEC countries are not known for telling the truth about their reserves. The Saudis said just a few years ago that they would not be able to meet demand beyond 2015. Better to look at the detailed analysis done by people like Matthew Simmons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
According to matt Simmonds the ultra deep wells could cost $1 to $1.5 billion each. To make them viable they will need day rates of $1m .
“Hard data stillindicates peak was May 2005″
Matt Simmonds advises that if oil suppliers wont allow third party inspectors we should send in troops to inspect them.
80 to 90% of structure needs to be rebuilt.
Bakken Shale, Santos basin (brazil), tar sands etc:
Rig intensive, need a lot of energy and some beyond present technology.
Bakken Shale is “typical? of our vast remaining crude
?
resources.
Bakken crude is highest quality sweet, near gasoline grade
?
crude.
USGS says “Bakken holds as much as 4.3 billion barrels of
?
recoverable oil.?
For decades, Bakken was “fool’s gold? of oil.
?
Now, drilling to great depths can plumb through strip of
?
Bakken after water and sand fracture the dolomite.
One of EOG’s best wells kicked out 1,883 barrels in first 7
?
days (281 bbls/day).
Lots of oil but tough to extract in any high flows.
?
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When is the population policy coming out?
Will Honoring Ti Tirriti be part of the election campain, or will that be an issue after the election?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Recognition of Te Tiriti is in the Green Charter. It has nothing particularly to do with the election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But it is the most significant part of Green policy. People need to know you favour privatising the beaches and dividing the country up into a series of tribal cantons (as it was in 1840 when we all signed ti tirriti).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Both claims are false. While redress of historical claims is needed, honouring Te Tiriti is more about how we move forward from this point. It does not require going back to exactly how things were in 1840.
The foreshore and seabed issue was never about privatisation, because that could have been easily prevented without taking away all customary rights as well. Customary rights are what Maori said they wanted maintained and what the Greens advocated as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens should be advocating for the customary rights of the true residents, the fish, shellfish etc, not Maori or any other group of immigrants
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH
Why try to hijack this thread? We were doing OK on the other, and you know darned well by now that nothing I said has anything to do with going back to the way it was then except for requiring any final resolution of the inherent treaty issue to honour the acceptance of equality between the signatories that allowed the treaty to be signed in the first place. The subsequent changes in numbers of Pakeha and Iwi is NOT relevant.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Greens should be advocating for the customary rights of the true residents, the fish, shellfish etc, not Maori or any other group of immigrants”
I’m not sure what you all consider the rights of fish, etc to be, but Greens are very active in advocating for the welfare of such creatures. But we take a holistic approach. Advocating for the rights of one group while ignoring those of another is the surest way to cause injustice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent production Meyt and the Green team!
The saying “A picture is worth a thousand words” really applies here.
This Policy presentation will leave a LASTING impression!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Both claims are false. While redress of historical claims is needed, honouring Te Tiriti is more about how we move forward from this point. It does not require going back to exactly how things were in 1840.
“The foreshore and seabed issue was never about privatisation, because that could have been easily prevented without taking away all customary rights as well. Customary rights are what Maori said they wanted maintained and what the Greens advocated as well.”
………………………………………..
From the Maori law commision:
“Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.
So it’s a Treaty issue then?
It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.
However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.
* Why has the debate become so prominent only recently?
The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.
* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?
No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.
The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.
* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?
No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.
What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH
That is a lot of interesting erudite irrelevance.
The two things you said that were wrong were that we favour privatising the beaches and dividing up the nation into tribal cantons.
Neither of those things are Green positions. None of your argument makes them so. We look to move forward, not backward and I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.
Sorry
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Maori Land Court was set up historically to assist in the alienation of Maori land. This was because Maori had no concept of private land held by a few, as land was possessed by the entire hapu. When settlers wanted to buy land, they had to get many Maori to agree, which was cumbersome, so the Court was set up to grant freehold title to up to four Maori only (from memory). Often this would be the first four willing to sign up, so many other’s rights were simply extinguished.
Ironically, when the courts said Maori had a case regarding customary rights to the foreshore and sea bed, the existing law meant that the granting of freehold title was one possible outcome, even though it was not a traditional right. So the correct solution was simply to remove this possibility by amending the Maori Land Court Act, making the granting of customary rights the only thing the Court could do. This is what Maori wanted and what the Greens proposed to the government.
The issue of privitisation was always a ruse used by a govt that had already panicked and said it had to legislate away all Maori rights in the matter. This is why it is considered a modern land confiscation by Maori leading directly to the creation of the Maori Party. Also ironically, the government has hurried to come to specific settlements that grant customary rights back to some iwi before the election.
Night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is the difference between customary indigenous right and private title once an area is designated as such?
Interesting that you wave the Treaty about but can’t take it at face. You can’t say what honoring the treaty requires until the local chief makes his decision. It isn’t over to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – similar to the way the RMA works, I guess. Vehemently opposed to that too I suppose?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s get this straight:
When the Greens jump up and down righteously extolling us to “honor the treaty” what they really mean is partly honor the treaty.
Article Two of the treaty acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession? of lands etc.
and
“Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua.
but as far as the foreshore and seabed are concerned Maori are asking for customary rights (not title)
and
“the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840″, which would be everywhere from Milford Sound to Cape Reinga (potentially).
and
“This is why it is considered a modern land confiscation by Maori leading directly to the creation of the Maori Party”. So they didn’t want title but it was considered a “land confiscation”.
Toad talks elsewhere (as does Tariana Turia) about differing birthrates and changing demographics, I addition Tariana Turia has said that (in the case of her tribes recent treaty settlement) only represents 1 to 1.5% of what was taken and governments can’t expect tribes to consider settlements as full and final. Makes you wonder where the policies you promote could lead? At present when two strangers meet on the beach we believe every citizen has an equal right to be there. Under your system it will be (for eternity) at the behest of the local Maori. You see that as (somehow) better than the status quo?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve never had anything to do with the RMA Greenfly what I’m concerned about is the stupidity of the green party. Granted some people may be naive but those on the left are about as far that way as you can go without falling off and they dream of blowing society apart.
It is about time some of you started taking a second look at the circumstances surrounding the signing of the treaty instead of the simple “a deals a deal” you stick to. Otherwise the treaty is just a large hole that can never be filled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – take a look then, at the RMA and see if you can work out it’s function.
Your willingness to dispose of ‘a deal’s a deal’ so lightly show a lack of trustworthiness in your character. I’d be anxious about doing a deal with you, knowing that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great thread. Guess everyone’s pretty happy with the policy then eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your willingness to dispose of ‘a deal’s a deal’ so lightly show a lack of trustworthiness in your character. I’d be anxious about doing a deal with you, knowing that
…………
dear dear,
A deals a deal where an ambiguous treaty was made by third parties who had little interest in doing it and who where expected to come away with sovereignty for the crown but without anything to bargain with……… A treaty which is unworkable and undesirable (if your democrat) where those demanding we honor it have more ancestors from the Crown side than the Maori side but have a “cultural identity”.
etc
Chances are colonisation would have preceded with or without a treaty (it was the 1800″s after all).
I prefer we all live as equals myself and I thought the “Queens Chain” was a great idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s something for those interested in population issues:
Comment from an article about Europes changing demographics
“In a shrinking population, and therefore a shrinking market, it is extremely hard to avoid poverty, inequality and unemployment – why would anyone invest in your business or buy your house, knowing there will be fewer buyers in the future?”
For some reason, people love predictions of disaster. Population growth is a demographic disaster, and population decline is also a demographic disaster.
Actually, the law of diminishing returns suggests that, as population declines, real incomes should increase, because there is more land and more capital per person. It happened after the black plague ended in medieval Europe: because of shortages of labor, real wages approximately doubled. The claim that shrinking population means more poverty and inequality is probably untrue.
Yes, the price of housing will go down – bad for people who own homes but good for the younger generation that wants to buy homes. Because of lower real prices of housing and food, there should be less poverty in the younger generation than there was in the previous generation.
The age of retirement will have to increase to 70 or more. But remember that when the retirement age was set at 65 in the 1930s, average life expectancy was 61 or 62 years, so most people worked until they died and never retired at all. The higher ratio of retired to working people is a function of longer life as well as of slower population growth.
We obviously do need more economic analysis of what will happen when population begins to decrease, since Europe is leading the way and the entire world’s population is projected to peak and start declining around the middle of this century. But this sort of alarmism is not the same as serious analysis.
Japan’s population has already peaked and started to decline, and I have not heard that the sky is falling there.
Charles Siegel
http://www.planetizen.com/node/34964#comment-7962
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – he patai – a question for you (to help fill in my lack of knowledge of your ‘qualifications’ re. these issues). Have you spent time in the company of tangata whenua, socialising, talking about these things, getting an inside look?
I’m just wondering if you are a mere theoratician? You seem to have studied, but are your feet on the ground?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What is the difference between customary indigenous right and private title once an area is designated as such?”
If you have private title, you have exclusive right to the land, with customary rights, you don’t. What you do have are fishing rights, etc, that existed in the past.
“At present when two strangers meet on the beach we believe every citizen has an equal right to be there. Under your system it will be (for eternity) at the behest of the local Maori. You see that as (somehow) better than the status quo?”
The status quo in many places across the country is that Maori have customary rights already (Lake Taupo is an example) and the sun seems to keep rising each morning. The same would be the case with the foreshore and seabed. It is not about restricting access. It *is* about giving local Maori a say in resource development, for instance.
“You can’t say what honoring the treaty requires until the local chief makes his decision. It isn’t over to you.”
Very good grasshopper. You’ve learned what it means to have sovereignty. But remember, Tangata Tiriti are also guaranteed various rights, including property rights.
“When the Greens jump up and down righteously extolling us to “honor the treaty? what they really mean is partly honor the treaty.”
Not at all. The biggest concept in honouring the treaty is accepting that a partnership exists and that the partners should engage as equals in decision making. Since you’re worried about land, note that much land was sold legally as is provided for in Te Tiriti. Where historical injustices occurred, these should be remedied in a lasting way, but it does not require going back to the ownership situation of 1840.
“Makes you wonder where the policies you promote could lead?”
A fair question and one that can’t be definitively answered until one engages with the treaty partner. Some see any unknown as a risk, but we also don’t know where our current path will lead. What we can say is the current path was born in historical injustice and ignoring this, imho, means that we will not be able to move our national conversation past this sticking point, making the greatest risk that of being unable to move forward together.
Jeanette said this better than I can in her speech five years ago. I encourage you to read it http://greens.org.nz/node/16147. One of the very ironic things she points out is that it is often Pakeha with private title who restrict access to the beach and yet we don’t seem bothered by this. But when Maori try to preserve customary title it is a different story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Damn right I’m bothered by it. There should be no title to any foreshore/seabed held by anyone. I don’t care who they are, or claim to be, they can all f off, including myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samian – does it make you angry that ‘someone’ has juristiction over river beds?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No I am bemused that anyone could be so arrogant and deluded to think they could have power over a riverbed.
It should be the Greens there protecting the right of the river to have jurisdiction over itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well once more for the record, the Greens are against anyone having title to any shore line, as well as anyone being excluded from the seashore or other water ways. And we were the only ones talking about Pakeha being able to do this during the jack up against Maori that they were seeking to do the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
not ‘power over a river bed’ samiam, ‘responsibility for the sustainable managment of’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
So are you saying that non maori will not have to ask permission to visit the beach, to fish or to gather sea food?
If not then I fail to see the big issue with the foreshore and seabed thingy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So we are talking here about stewardship over the lands as opposed to accual title?
What if, in their respecive areas, and working along side the regional councels, the local iwi’ were granted the right to object to any developments of the land, rivers, and foreshore and were able to, should they have enough agreement within and between the local iwi’, veto any such developments should they consider them detrimental in their role as stewards of the land?
If this was limited to those whom identify themselves with the relivant iwi’, as opposed to all those who can claim ancestory to it, then I do not so much see a problem with this compromise as it does not create inequality and would likley give the iwi’ enough influence and say to help both the maori who identify with the iwi’ and the environmental concerns; though eaither party would have to be able to raise such an objection.
On the matter of maori having a disproportionate vote to non-maori citizens in our legislative chambers however, I do not believe the benefits could ever outweigh the costs and risk factors involved.
As part of a formal, and entrenched, constitution modafyable only by a super-majority referenda this could be protected from the legislative councel. If the constitution is kept uncodified and a separate constitutional act is made to detail this stewardship; that act can have in it a requirement of mutual agreement for any modifications to take place to that act. In effect creating a new, and workable, constitutional form of the treaty relivant to today.
Just a idea, about the only compromise I see as being workable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is right, big bro. So one might ask what all the fuss was about. Remember that this issue happened at a time when Labour was taking a lot of heat for their policies on Maori. Don Brash’s infamous Orewa speech and the effect it had in the poles was soon to follow. Labour are not very brave and tend to fold in such circumstances rather than having the courage of their convictions. So rather than take the argument to the public, they started backtracking and when the court ruling came out, they were really shocked and panicked. The rest is history.
It is another story, but this also explains I think why Tariana is more keen on the Nats than Labour. For her it is very personal, while the rest of her Caucus is at least as suspicious of the Nats. It will be very interesting to watch if they go that way after the election. They well could due to Tari’s mana, but it will as likely split them as not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Well once more for the record, the Greens are against anyone having title to any shore line, as well as anyone being excluded from the seashore or other water ways.
……….
The Customary title claims were laid under common law but the treaty is simple: Maori are guaranteed tino rangitiratanga. The Greens have displayed a fondness for the treaty (speech by Kevin Hague and writings of Katherine Delahunty come to mind). By your position above you are placing preconditions on the exercise of tino rangitiratanga?* I assume that the understanding of the Maori signatories was that tinorangitiratanga was senior to kawangatanga, and that under international law the understanding of the indigenous people of the treaty is what counts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you saying the Greens are opposed to customary communal title in sea land Valis?
I’ve been reading a piece by Jock Hobbs he says:
“The New Zealand decision did not open the way to Maori claims to customary title nearly to the extent many hoped or feared, for proof of such claims would be limited largely to the bed of shallow waters on which possessory acts such as the maintaining of fish traps could be carried out.”
I’m not sure what he means to what extent were there claims made. Also the latter parts suggests many lovely and interesting bits of coastline. Presumably people would have to prove they had an unbroken line from significantly far back to the present day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s the link to Jock Hobbs article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10424568
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, what Hobbs is saying is that the customary rights claimed were nothing to be so worried about and not worth the over reaction of the government.
Greens are not opposed to customary communal title to the sea bed. We are opposed to private title to the sea bed only.
You go on about tino rangatiratanga, but I don’t see the problem. You seem to equate it to private ownership when it comes to land, but that is not the starting point for Maori. They said clearly that customary rights over the foreshore and sea bed is what they wanted to maintain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It seems to me that if you promote the treaty as a good idea, you are wanting to validate “undisturbed possesion of forests and fisheries” which hapu and iwi were guaranteed under the treaty (Maori version). So you could say “that’s not what Maori want” but
according to the Wikipedia article:
Initial responses
The ruling granted only the right to pursue establishing an interest. Experts such as Paul McHugh of Cambridge University stated that this was unlikely to result in full exclusive ownership, however these assurances were not strong enough to counter the perception that the door was now open for Maori to claim title to the entire coastline of New Zealand through the Maori land court. Indeed many Maori groups interpreted the ruling this way, and claims were subsequently lodged with the Maori land court claiming title to almost the entire New Zealand coastline…….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_foreshore_and_seabed_controversy
So when the Green MP’s hold up a sign Honor The Treaty [Moari version] What conclusion should people come to…..? Also Being seen as pals with Tame Iti who is a Maori Nationalist …… ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alert Alert Alert:
“Greens are not opposed to customary communal title to the sea bed”
So it is ok for tribes to own sea land as long as it isn’t sold to private developers etc.
This is where we have to ask Where, how much and who say’s.
Remember the Greens loudly promote the treaty (Maori Version) which guarantees “undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries”
Toad thinks that in the future as demographics change Maori will have more power so it isn’t too far fetched to think that the Treaty will be ratified . That would give Maori tribes the whole country minus property held in legitimate title.
Not everyone would be happy about this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alert alert alert – jh spots something the Greens are not against – gets over excited!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can anyone better that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# greenfly Says:
> alert alert alert – jh spots something the Greens are not against – gets over excited!
# jh Says:
> Can anyone better that?
The Greens aren’t against fair-trade organic vegan chocolate. Honestly, we’re not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The difference between the Greens position and Jock Hobbs is that you are for tino rangitiratanga (correct me if I’m wrong):
Tiriti o (Treaty of) Waitangi – Policy Summary
Acknowledges the indigenous language version of te Tiriti as the legitimate text.
From the Maori law commision:
“Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. ”
So one can assume you are for indigenous title to large areas of foreshore and seabed (you can’t have your cake and eat it)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Public Access NZ
“In 1992, the National government negotiated the transfer of the bed of Lake Taupo to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board to be held “in trust for the common use and benefit of all the peoples of New Zealand”. The public is to have freedom of entry and access for recreational use and enjoyment, research and associated activities, with access free of charge. There is also a chain-wide right-of-way around the margins of the lake.
However, there are regular reports of denial of access to anglers and Act New Zealand member of Parliament Ken Shirley reported that in 2001, when a Crown Research Institute wanted to undertake geothermal research on the lakebed, the iwi demanded such exorbitant fees that access was effectively blocked. As a result, important monitoring of the bed of this lake crater failed to take place.
Mr Shirley also reported recreational fishermen and others, have been intimidated, harassed, abused and assaulted by radical young Maori, who endeavor to deny access to the lake for legitimate recreational purposes.
Public Access New Zealand regularly receives such reports. A joint government and Tuwharetoa board of management for the lake does not, apparently, inhibit breaches of public rights.
http://www.publicaccessnewzealand.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There have been problems with Pakeha acting unreasonable regarding access, so let’s take their rights away too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“rights” – gotta love it, makes arguements seem so much more justified. Valis, they are entitlements, dont be so indugent.
If pakeha violate the contract that gives them title over land then they too should have it revoked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, I’m fine with that. Lots of people will object to your taking away their property rights and replacing them with entitlements, but go for it. My point was that some people wouldn’t think twice about saying that because some Maori abuse their “entitlements” that they should just be taken away from all Maori, while the abuses of Pakeha go largely unnoticed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – “If pakeha violate the contract that gives them title over land then they too should have it revoked.”
- interested to know if you regard the pakeha treatment of land in NZ as a violation of the ‘contract’ it made with tangata whenua in terms of their expectation of kaitiakitanga etc. I’m thinking of felled forests, mined landscapes, despoiled rivers, ruined fisheries, te mea te mea te mea …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Well the thing is that we as individuals dont own land; society owns land, what we own is the deed to land; the entitlement to use that land as allowed by society. How someone violates an contract depends on what the agreed terms were on the purchace, from society, of the deed. For example if one extracts valuable minerals without authorisation when they have no deed to those minerals that would be a violation. the origional european contracts, steped in the idea of ‘private property’, do not have many, if any, specifications over the use of land but I would consider decreasing the utility and value of land to future generations by destroying it as violating the deed contract; the case with the lake was that their were clear terms agreed apon at the time, such as public access for recreational purposes.
Greenfly,
If there was such a contract to preserve the lands or atleast not decrease their utility then yes it would be a violation. Unfortunatly there is not such a contract; though the structure I proposed in one of these threads would assist with that significantly in restoring the ability of the iwi to act as guardians of the land.
Also, why is i you insist on using te reo on this forum, increasingly, when you know the likes of BB are unable to understand the language? It is not imperialism to use a language that allows communication between all parties reasonably expected tovisit this forum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the point is that along with customary title to sea land etc people are human and there is an attempt to paint Maori as larger than life and exaggerate kaitiakitanga. On the Green website (Despatches from Foreshore and Seabed) the party person drools that she likes the beach but so and so has been practising kaitiakitanga “for a thousand years” [from memory]. We shouldn’t confuse lack of technology with conservation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – you are meaning a written contract? There are other kinds, in the wide world and in law. Have pakeha (now there’s a Maori word you have no compunction about using) honoured contracts other than ‘the letter of the (written) law’ or contracts stated in the treaty? A casual glance around the country shows me that those contracts have been shattered, well and truely.
Here’s a Maori term, ‘mahi nga kai’ which refers to the processes of food and materials managment. The depletion of the opportunity for maori to practice mahi nga kai nowadays is the kind of contract breaking I’m indicating. Think of the Southland Plains – once a fecund resource vibrant with freshwater fishes and plants – a veritable storehouse of food and fibres, now pasture for dairy cows.
I bristle at your criticism of the minimal use of te reo in commenting here. Firstly, I’m careful to not make my posts opaque as a result of such a light sprinkling. Secondly, do you ever use technical words in your comments that might be difficult for some readers to understand or do you always keep your language to the level that newspapers do, that able to be read by a 13 year old reader? Hmmm. You remind me of the days when television viewers complained loudly and bitterly about the use of Maori words in news items or the correct pronunciation of place names – Toe – ma-roo-noo-ee. Anyway, big bro assures me he has Maori family members and friends to support him in his understanding of the language and customs.
Doubtless you think I’m trying to be clever. On the contrary, I think the discussion of matters that pertain to Maori is hampered by monolinguality (if there is such a word).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly … I am also finding the maori language being pushed in my face just a tad annoying. I can’t pick up a new language that readily and have no time to do so…. if I did I would be learning Russian first anyway, as my wife is Russian.
Since you and others here know that maori is NOT spoken by many people here, perhaps this could be restrained a little bit? For a little while?
Translating the words as you did above is good.
I have to regard the idea that matters that pertain to Maori can’t be discussed effectively without knowledge of the language to be incomplete. SOME matters may find that true. Matters that relate to the duality of this culture however, are no less accessible in Swahili than they are in English or Maori.
respectfully
BJ
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well bjchip and Sapient, if learned gentlement such as yourselves are “finding the maori language being pushed in your faces just a tad annoying” then of course I must desist from the inconsiderate practice. I don’t know what I was thinking! Allow me a Parthing shot. No reira, kua mutu taku korero.
na greenfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
One does not need to understand Te Reo to the point of being able to have a conversation. However, it is polite to be able to recognise and understand a number of key words, a few sentences … and important protocols.
I hope your kids (who sound as if they are at the stage when languages are “mopped up like a sponge”) are being exposed by Te Reo. If so, they have been given the gift of the entire Polynesian Pacific (where Maori is one version of the same original language) and a lifelong linguistic advantage:
(I lived in New York with a UN family. The mother was Scandinavian, the father Cuban. The two small children were exposed to four languages from birth. Apparently they remained silent for longer than the average kid of high intelligence and then burst forth in four languages (that they seldom made any mistakes in.)
(Interestingly, children who are bilingual or multilingual from the start have an advantage in terms of general intelligence, that does not disappear.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
I agree with you when it comes to exposing kids to more than one language, indeed a second language is something I have insisted on and now that they are older the kids appreciate my strict insistence that they become at worst bi lingual and at best multi lingual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
PLEASE DO NOT curtail your use of Te Reo (an official language of Aotearoa NZ) on frogblog.
I enjoy working out what you are saying …
My ambition, as a potential grandmother, is to “be there” in the future for any mokopuna … and to give THEM the chance to be truly bilingual from their early years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
That’s good to hear!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d prefer the Te Reo, if one must use it all, comes with a translation. Same goes for PhlUs posts, actually.
I have no desire to learn Maori in order to read a post any more so than I do German/Japanese/Indian/Italian of any of the other languages that make up New Zealand culture.
The point is to communicate, not grandstand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i can speak both new zilland..and awstralian..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
मैं तो पसंद की Te Reo , यदि किसी ?क का उपयोग करना आवश?यक है वह सब , अन?वाद के साथ आता है .
यही PhlUs पदों के लि? जाता है , वास?तव में .
मैं ने नहीं की इच?छा जानने के लि? माओरी करने के लि? पढ़ने के बाद किसी भी इतनी अधिक से अधिक
मैं ?सा जर?मन / जापानी / भारतीय / इटली के किसी भी की है कि अन?य भाषाओं
न?यूजीलैंड के ऊपर बना संस?कृति है .
संवाद करने में म?ख?य बात यह है , grandstand नहीं है
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Бих и?кал предпочитат Te Reo, ако тр?бва да го ползват в?ички, идва ? превод.
Същите отива за PhlUs по?тове, дей?твително.
?з не жела?т да научат маор?ки, за да прочетете по?т повече от това
Да направ?, нем?ки / ?пон?ки / индий?ки / италиан?ки на н?кой от другите езици, които
?ова Зеланди? прав?т на културата.
Точката е да общуват, да не grandstand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, who’s going to deny me my “cultural right” to use any language I want
Could get a tad annoying, really…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Clever clogs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well done BP !
It is amazing what can be produced with the press of a key or two!
Your “cultural right” to use any language you want is between you and the people you wish to communicate with!!
However, Te Reo Maori, English and Autralasian(?) Sign Language, are recognised as the three “official” languages of AoteraroaNZ (… not sure about Braille?)
I don’t have a problem with that.
Do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil,
I always thought it was “neu zilnd” (but perhaps that is the sewth oilind dialect?) … over the ditch is definitely “awstroilyin” in places I have been … (South Yarra and a few other “better” suburbs excepted)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now let’s get back to the Greens’ Conservation Policy …
(Sorry frog!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I have no problem with the use of the maori language in and of itself, and have little trouble understanding it for that matter, my point is that language is a tool for communication and by using a language unknown to most readers of this blog, whom you know well cannot understand the language, any good points you may make end up just passing by.
Whenever I use a word I do not believe that the others here will understand, which is reasonably often, I include a clarification as to the meaning; though admitedly there has been a fair bit of confusion over my use of words in a very niche way not understood by others here.
Additionally, I am an advocate of multi-lingualism (argh, what a terrible neo-logicism) as it has many many benefits both culturally and cognitivly, but when one cannot understand the words muttered there is little benefit to be had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I remember years ago reading a Classic Comic about the man who wrote Esperanto. It is a simple formula language , you can learn grammar in about twenty minutes and then you learn the vocabulary (which is simple). To make it work requires the same sort of process as getting a nuclear reaction to work. It isn’t rational to learn until enough people learn it and people have all sort of reasons to protect their own language (language is a political issue).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As far as language goes you also have to consider the knowledge explosion and the time required for (say) engineering and medicine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a population article linked to frm Planetzin >>>>>
“The once-acclaimed federal-state campaign to restore the Chesapeake, now in its 25th year with billions of dollars invested, notes Horton, is in shambles. Its 2010 deadline for cleaner water won’t be met, blue crabs are at an historic low, and nitrogen, the Bay’s dominant pollutant, remains double healthy levels.
And it’s all about people, suggests Horton. From 8 million people in the 1950s, the population of the Bay’s six-state, 64,000 square mile watershed has ballooned to 17 million, with 1.7 million more coming each year.
That much population increase would put pressure on any region. But it’s all the more acute in the great, sun-sensitive Chesapeake. Its average 22-foot depth leaves little water to absorb pollution washing in from 48 million acres of land.
Why couldn’t and shouldn’t both the Bay region and the United States, asks Horton in his paper for the Baltimore-based Abell Foundation, aim for stable population? Couldn’t we stay close to our current 304 million nationwide population rather than go for the half billion now predicted for mid-century?
http://citiwire.net/post/187/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You won’t hear the Green Party echoing these sentiments:
“A central challenge is how we grow. Weak zoning, around the Chesapeake and across America, stymies “smart growth? laws. We get what Horton calls “rampant development? impacting sensitive shorelines and rural lands. Politicos and chambers of commerce, realtors, land speculators and contractors celebrate any new growth. But the public ends up subsidizing (and paying ever-higher taxes) to build and maintain the new suburbia — highways, schools, waste and stormwater drainage systems, power and sewer lines and more.”
Sounds like a job for NZ First.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
> You won’t hear the Green Party echoing these sentiments:…
Celia Wade-Brown (Green Wellington City Councillor) has certainly been voicing those concerns, and opposing that sort of development in Wellington. I suspect you’ll find, actually, that Greens all over the country are echoing precisely those sentiments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A more sustainable Plan It
Choosing Calgary’s development path
In response to Plan It Calgary, powerful housing developers in Calgary have been organizing. Developers are the invisible elephant in city hall. An Industry Champions Committee (ICC) has been created in partnership with the Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Home Builders’ Association. As you can tell by the names of these three organizations, these guys never miss the playoffs. They continually bring home the cup.
/ /
The other main argument put forward against Plan It is cost. According to the ICC, consumers want single detached homes at an affordable price. The problem with this argument is that those who live in them are not paying the full cost of suburban homes. Instead, these costs are externalized to all city taxpayers for building expensive infrustructure, with overpasses and roads being the most obvious. It is estimated that continued suburban development will cost Calgary taxpayers $11.5 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, according to Dr. Noel Keough, assistant professor at the University of Calgary’s department of Environmental Design, Plan It’s compact scenario would save consumers $1.25 billion annually in vehicle costs. The savings from the compact scenario could be used to exponentially improve public transit.
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/viewpoint/a-more-sustainable-plan-it-2521/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Overall at the macro level you wont hear those sentiments kahikatea as it conflicts with socialist views of the Green politicians who are averse to facing immigration and population issues.
[ps I'm not against immigrants themselves but it is the process:
hawking our coastal land etc to foriegners who deem(ed) it "breath takingly cheap" and the racket where developers, real estate agents etc rake in the dough while rate payers put up with infill, more traffic and pay for infrastructure. That is the motivation at our end, not love of our foreign brothers and sisters.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
> Overall at the macro level you wont hear those sentiments kahikatea as it conflicts with socialist views of the Green politicians who are averse to facing immigration and population issues.
I think I am sufficiently deeply involved in the Green Party policy process and sufficiently close to Green MPs that I would be more likely that you to have noticed if there were an undercurrent of socialist-motivated aversion to confronting those issues, and I feel confident in saying there isn’t.
I can’t comment on what Green Immigration and Population policies are going to say about this, as they haven’t been released yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)