Campaign of oppression
The Green Party sometimes gets (falsely) accused of being melodramatic or of exaggerating environmental or social ills for political effect. Last week however Federated Farmers claimed that “New Zealanders are starting to wake up to the fact that the government is waging a campaign of oppression against High Country farmers“. Anyone not actually in New Zealand would wonder whether we were having a civil war: there’s supposedly state-sponsored avaricious oppression in the South Island hills; and supposedly anti-state terrorism in the North Island hills!
How the protection of land, which is owned by the Crown anyway, and with significant values appreciated by the public, can be seen as oppression and land-grab is beyond this frog, and the many of my friends such as the wetland eels, the tussock land geckos and the grassland weevils.
Meanwhile out at sea, yet more terrorism. Yikes. I’m off to hide under my bed.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Its oppression allright to rack up the rentals and force people off the land they have rented and looked after for decades. Redredgreens showing their true colours again using the environment as an excuse to try to clense our land of these people. It is unbelievable that you would align yourself with such oppression given your human rights stance.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Actually, you’re right - ramming whaling ships isn’t terrorism, it’s closer to piracy, which is actually quite ironic.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Your hypocracy is breathtaking. If these were state houseing tenants (who are much more likely to vote green) being kicked off their land then you would be up in arms.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I agree, it’s still an abuse of their legal rights regardless of whether it’s in the interests of the environment. Don’t you think those conditions are rather harsh and inherently wrong frog?
November 20th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
The underlying thing is that a large faction of the greens are ideological opposed to pastoral agriculture and want to get rid of it in NZ. How any rational person can think this is beyond be. They need to rethink their policy and adapt to a system where there is long term pastoral agriculture along with a conservation and a long term elimination of vermin, and I’m not talking cattle and sheep.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:11 am
Astonishingly ideological reactions from Kevin, Ash and Nick (no, on second thoughts, not astonishing from Nick).
Perhaps I don’t know enough detail of the issue, but I fail to see how an owner putting the rent up is inherently an abuse of anyone’s legal rights. It’s a free market, innit Nick? If the price of high country land gets too (um) high, then the market will automatically create some new farm land for the poor farmers to go to, right?
The argument seems to be that the farmers have some sort of unwritten, customary right to the land at peppercorn rentals. Don’t know how that will hold up in court. How many people are concerned? How many generations have they been there? How poor and oppressed are they? Perhaps we need some new process analogous to the Waitangi tribunal to deal with their grievances?
November 21st, 2007 at 6:26 am
How many people are concerned?
A small number, 65 farms I think are being shafted. So if its a small number of people its OK to change the rules on them - they sign up for one thing and get another - not our form of justice although there is a precendent recently in retrospecitve ligislation.
How poor and oppressed are they?
There is the problem - you think justice is sonething only for the poor and oppressed.
Perhaps we need some new process analogous to the Waitangi tribunal to deal with their grievances?
Perhaps, or perhaps if conservationists want something they need to put their money where there mouth is and pay people enough so that they are not disenfranchised - another reason why a bluegreen way will work better the Mugabegreen way.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
The point is alistair that they have been totally misled and contractually lied to by the government. The government has responsibilities towards honoring these families leases or finding a middle ground where they are fairly compensated, not forced off the land under duress.
I am against this happening to any individual or group, as there should always be a thorough form of consultation and compensation.
I am not disputing indigenous land rights should take precedence at all, as to me our treatment of and land crimes against Maori constitute our most shameful past that has yet to be dealt with.
On another note, what the hell is wrong with Annette King!? Ready and waiting to scrap our rights (as if they are worthless tokens we don’t need) for foreign officials…the queen even…
Police Minister most content with stripping our rights to freedom of speech…makes me sick. Does she not realise it is our right in national and international law!? It’s against the law Annette!
http://stuff.co.nz/4282231a6160.html
November 21st, 2007 at 10:14 am
>being kicked off their land
They have perpetual leases on Crown-owned land. Tenure Review is voluntary, i.e. farmers and Government enter into it if they want to. Many farmers that have gone thru TR and have had their farmland freeholded have subdivided and sold land for millions. Early on, voluntary TR was seen as an attack on farmers; now, the withdrawal of 65 leases from a voluntary process (i.e. voluntary for both sides) is seen as an attack on farmers. Can’t have it both ways!
BTW, I personally know a number of high country farmers, have accessed conservation land through their properties with permission, and have seen some private conservation initiatives on high country farms that are commendable. I have also been denied access for no good reason, seen destruction and damage (e.g. 6m wide cattleway through conservation beech forest in a valley head), and seen threatened ecosystems drained, burnt, trampled, etc.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
I don’t know much about the pastoral lease issue, but a rent rise of 4200% sounds like a bureaucrats underhand way to force somebody out without being honest about it.
Don’t know that Annette King’s move to make protest inneffective is against the law - Police General Instructions become part of law under section 30 of the Police Act.
But her excuses are pretty typical of the Labour Party - saying something doesn’t mean what it clearly does. This isn’t saying police can move people on if they are being grossly offensive (which is covered by laws against offensive behaviour already) as she pretends. The present law covers behaviour which is offensive in the eyes of a reasonable person, while this clearly states that it is what a VIP considers offensive that is to be taken into account. Muldoonism without the blunt honesty.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Alistair, I never even implied it was a legal issue, I just pointed out that the green party would be attacking the government if these people were state housing tenants, who are more likely to vote green.
But now you mention it this isnt actually a free market, its a state monopoly, which is very different. And the state is not increasing the rents due to market conditions but a desire to protect the enviroment from some sort of threat that the farmers pose to it (can someone tell me how the farmers are actually going to harm the enviroment). While I acknowledge the right of the government to rase the rent, it seems unnessasary to do so by 4200%.
And I take it Alister that if National comes in and sells all the state houses you will defend their desision?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
at least the government is giving generous compensation for taking away this property right. They didn’t give any compensation for the foreshore and seabed.