Kermadec sanctuary stuff up

It looks like Nick Smith and the Government may have really stuffed up on consultation over the setting up of the Kermadec sanctuary.

Maori who had fishing rights (and rights are rights) are unhappy.

The Maori Pary party are unhappy – there’s been talks of threats they might pull out of their governing arrangement with National, \I don’t think they will do that but they could make things quite awkward.

And David Seymour has pulled his support due to inadequate handling of ownership rights.

There looks to be a bit of pre-election year manoeuvring going on, but there are also important principals involved versus a mix of complacency and arrogance from National – third term curse.

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  14th September 2016

    We’ll see how tough the Maori party are when Key puts a stake in the ground(?). They may find whichever way they turn, they’ll wind up losing. Its good news for Winnie.

    Yep, Maori are always begging for a rahui on anything that is perceived to threaten anything natural….except, of course, when it doesn’t suits them.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78207829/kermadecs-case-maori-fishing-rights-explained

    Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  14th September 2016

    Nick Smith: a random pair of hands not to be allowed near anything that matters.

    Reply
  3. Nothing a taniwha or two wouldn’t fix…………

    Wikipedia: “Polynesian people settled the Kermadec Islands in around the 14th century (and perhaps previously in the 10th century),[1] but the first Europeans to reach the area—the Lady Penrhyn in May 1788—found no inhabitants. The islands were named for the Breton captain Jean-Michel Huon de Kermadec, who visited the islands as part of the d’Entrecasteaux expedition in the 1790s. European settlers, initially the Bell family, lived on the islands from the early nineteenth century until 1937, as did whalers”.

    Reply
  4. Zedd

     /  15th September 2016

    more evidence of ‘Team Key’ riding roughshod over their coalition partners.. ‘Respect’ is a two-way street NOT ‘one way only’

    So much for the chorus’ of a fourth term being a certainty by the ‘Team Key choir’ we shall see… 😀

    Reply
  5. Nothing is certain in politics ever, and never say never. However, the stink being created in Maoridom is hypocritical coming from the people who claim a monopoly on the protection of the marine environment. Factually, the Kermadecs have not been used by the tribes claiming ancestral fishing rights probably for 50 years. So why are they getting their knickers in a twist? Because the politicians of the Maori Party are in a contest for the political high ground with the Kingitanga group and want to seize the high ground and be seen by all Maori as defending their privileges. All and good in the context of Te Teriti, but it flies against the global desire to see 1/3 of our marine environment placed into protected environment. A lot of non-Maori New Zealanders have had enough of the grievance industry (and please remember that it is the ordinary taxpayers who are paying for this sort of claim). We are sick of being treated like milch cows by those claiming to be Maori (an English Noun) and expect Maori to do their thing to acknowledge the billions of dollars paid out in cash or kind as an apology for long dead English colonists reprehensible behaviour. The grievances have to stop and now is the time for it. As a descendant of a British soldier who fought in the Maori Wars, I know there have been acts of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Maori during the 1850 to 1896 period, as were some English acts during hostilities. So there are two sides to the grievance coin but I don’t want any charity from Maori, Just recognition that since Te Teriti we are one people with identical rights and one Law. Our collective mana must be left intact.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  15th September 2016

      As I understand it the issue is that Maori were given quota in the total fishery as part of a treaty settlement. Part of that fishery was then arbitrarily given up by the goverment without all Maori iwi who had those rights being consulted, only two iwi. It’s up to the courts to determine what should happen now.

      Reply
      • Gezza, my understanding is the same as yours with the note that neither iwi have exercised their “rights” under the Treaty settlement. Use it or lose it? I am not sure. But I am willing to hear a case that documents any actual loss to the iwi as a consequence of the Government’s decision on the sanctuary.

        Now, we have the situation where our legitimate elected Government exercising its legal authority to make a decision has done so. That is binding on all New Zealanders, including Maori until it is changed by the “one people” of New Zealand electing another Government prepared to change the decision made by the previous Parliament as one Parliament can not bind successor Parliaments normally. It is unacceptable to me that Maori are given any right to re-litigate a legal Government decision. If they can prove a loss, then they can sue for compensation and the Courts will decide. It is called democracy!

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  15th September 2016

          It may all boil down to what is in the wording of the treaty settlement & whether it obliges the government to consult all Maori iwi with a share of the total fishery, and if so, whether they had to negotiate, and as they didn’t, whether the goverment’s decision was lawful. Compensation or not could be a separate issue. I’ll be interested in the case and the decision.

          Reply
          • Gezza, Parliament decides what is lawful, the Judiciary interpret the laws passed, but Parliament is the Supreme Judicial authority. If Parliament decides to pass a law on the meaning of the Treaty then until a new Parliament changes that law, it applies. The other difficulty is that Maori views are divided by Iwi approaches, and obtaining a consensus is fraught. Then how do you define consultation? There are a number of differing perspectives. There have been some judicial decisions on the subject, however, it is stilla matter of debate as I understand it. This is one of the reason why I don’t like how many Lawyers there are in Parliament. Let the people decide.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              Parliament makes the laws. Where there is a dispute about whether action by the Executive or its agents is lawful the judiciary determines that. If the final decision by the highest Court it gets to is that it is not, or that it is unclear, the government has to decide whether it wishes to take a new bill or regulatory amendment to Parliament to clarify the matter for the future. That’s my understanding anyway.

            • Thats a yes from me. No problems!

  6. Zedd

     /  15th September 2016

    It almost sounds like ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ is just something ‘Team Key’ like to say they follow/respect (in debate) BUT in reality.. only if it agrees with their narrow agenda 😀

    Reply
  7. Zedd the Treaty of Waitangi’s role in New Zealand’s law is the child of Helen of UN fame. There is not yet an agreed interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty that is acceptable to Maori and the Colonial Power who made the Treaty. Unfortunately our right to seek an interpretation from the Privy Council was removed by Helen/Palmer or else we could have got advice from that august body on what the Treaty means for legal purposes. The semantic debate continues. The question of the extent of entitlement to Taonga and what precisely is meant by that and Kawanatanga must be interpreted with knowledge of the meaning at the time (1840). It is a subject that is fundament to the Constitutional Law of this country and has nothing to do with the entity you label as “Team Key”. Team Clarke started this.

    Reply
    • @ bjmarsh1 – “Unfortunately our right to seek an interpretation from the Privy Council was removed by Helen/Palmer or else we could have got advice from that august body on what the Treaty means for legal purposes.”

      I don’t get this. If the Privy Council is no longer our highest court, how come Teina Pora’s appeal was allowed?

      One aspect of the problems and issues regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi is that the Privy Council, like all New Zealand’s legal institutions, is a Western cultural construct born in part from the loins of Pax Britannica, the coloniser …

      Yet, strangely enough, in 1986 “The Court of Appeal, in a judgement of its then President Sir Robin Cooke, decided upon the following Treaty principles:

      The acquisition of sovereignty in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga
      The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith
      The freedom of the Crown to govern
      The Crown’s duty of active protection
      The duty of the Crown to remedy past breaches
      Māori to retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga and to have all the privileges of citizenship
      Duty to consult ” – Wikipedia

      You could just as easily say “Team Victoria/Hobson” started this? Team Clark/Palmer only intercepted the kick from Team Rowling/Rata in 1975 (The Treaty of Waitangi Act), passed to them in turn by Team Lange/Douglas in 1986 (State Owned Enterprises Act) …

      If “this” and the resulting Waitangi Tribunal and “Principles of the Treaty” are such terrible things, one wonders why the legislation hasn’t been repealed? Why Doug Woolerton’s 2005 “Principles Deletion Bill” did not pass its second reading?

      I think we need to deal with the “fraughtness” of obtaining a consensus by recognising the legitimacy of “iwi approaches” and “differing perspectives” … We need a new written Constitution that will somehow accommodate this …

      Reply
    • Zedd

       /  15th September 2016

      bjm1

      ‘.. the entity you label ‘Team Key’ :
      its not my label.. its the LABEL that the party that used to be called ‘National’ they renamed itself. Which just highlights the reality 😀

      Reply
  8. Zedd and Gezza. I distinguish between the powers of Parliament and the Powers of the Government. Parliament is supreme in law. No Parliament can bind other Parliaments except if the Crown agrees and uses its Reserve Powers (never happened in NZ).

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  15th September 2016

      It was a perceived breach of the Treaty that split The Maori party from Labour (under Helen) ?
      ‘seabed & foreshore’ It sounds like a similar thing with Maori leaders interpretation of their fishing rights, in the Kermadecs ??

      I still remember being told as a lad, that there are Maori reserve fishing areas, that we could not go into & they were generally respected. BUT now that politics is involved.. (setup a sanctuary) ‘respect of these rights’ seem to have gone down the shit-house ! :/

      Reply
      • Zedd, I and all of my family were always aware of areas declared “tapu” and strictly adhered to them, as I would do today. However, the reluctance of some “tohunga” in some iwi to explain why areas are “tapu” does not add to understanding, and so I can not fault the ignorance of those who do not know of a tapu.

        Reply
  9. I apologise for continuing this theme. However, I do believe that fishing quota were awarded to various iwi in a generous attempt by Maori and non-Maori New Zealanders to acknowledge the unacceptable behaviour of the English Colonists in the period up to WW1. I note the unacceptable behaviour of some persons from some iwi did not form part of this negotiation. However, a right to quota was given to the iwi – not an exclusive right to access to the marine research, and if we want to restrict the access as a gift to the Moana and the health of the Globe, then Iwi should support us, and we need to recognise that, and if there is a proven loss of income to iwi concerned then it should be considered. As should the value of the non-Iwi sacrifice by the rest of us New Zealanders.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s