Public Address - Hard News (Home)

More on the mayor's fantasies ... | May 14, 2004 11:30

Former Auckland transport planner Daniel Newcombe, who now works for Transport for London ("across the hall from the Congestion Charging gnomes"), has been following the Hard News commentary on John Banks' Eastern Corridor adventure, he says, "with interest". And he has some interesting comments of his own.

I understand a former TfL head is currently doing the rounds in Auckland singing the praises of CC, but I wanted to point out the real differences between the London experience and what Auckland could achieve.

The implementation of the Congestion Charging (CC) zone here was predicated on a massive funding boost to the already impressive public transport system within and around the zone. Although it has increased public transport use and slightly reduced traffic congestion, it certainly hasn't been a money-making exercise (as the Auckland plan seems to be), making tens of millions of pounds less than expected and costing huge amounts to install and maintain.

There is currently a proposal to extend the CC zone westwards, which may or may not happen, but the key point is that such a CC zone only works where a viable comprehensive public transport network exists. You couldn't extend the zone to cover, say, all of Greater London, as the buses, rail and tube are only up to the job in inner London (roughly where the current CC zone is. maybe a bit further out).

Sadly, Auckland's PT system is worse than that in even most outer London boroughs, so you could never implement CC in Auckland seeking to imitate London, because they are two very different places.

A more viable comparison could be the tolls on French motorways, which are supplemented by free parallel roads, but even this isn't a good example, as they tend to focus on travel between cities, rather than within them, like Auckland is looking at. In short, don't be fooled by praise of the London CC scheme, as it is irrelevant to Auckland until the city gets similar population densities, PT systems and traffic congestion levels - none of which currently come close.

Which is pretty much what I figured the case to be. But don't expect our mayor to acknowledge anything of the kind. Until, that is, it all falls over, whereupon he will noisily declare that he never thought it would work and demand to know what the government is going to do about it all. I can never decide whether he can't remember what he's said or he simply has no shame. So: situation unchanged: nobody knows who's going to pay for the Great Road to Howick.

Speaking of things local, the city's masses of People Without Proper Jobs Who Do Things In The Inner Western Suburbs can save the bother of looking out the window by checking Rick Huntington's greylynnweather.net. Gotta love that live weather display.

Looks like the Auckland CBD Low-Power FM spat - nine stations chasing eight viable spots on the dial - has been relatively amicably resolved. Compared to the way most other countries regulate freelance radio, our LPFM regulations are really admirable. But it's been the Wild West in the central city recently.

I interviewed Andrew Dubber about this for Mediawatch this week, but we won't be able to use it until next Sunday, by which time we'll have done a little more work on a story about the Auckland radio market. Dubber has been chronicling the whole shootin' match on his very nice blog The Wireless. Read part I, II and III.

And American news service has picked up on the strange coincidence about the murdered American Nick Berg that I noted yesterday - and developed a full-blown conspiracy theory around it. I'm not going there myself, although I'm a tad disappointed not to have had a whole bunch of international conspiracy hits yesterday …

The government would have been better to let Don Brash make a hash of nuclear ship visits policy all on his own - which he was doing quite effectively - rather than breaching the confidence of his meeting with the American congressmen by plucking a now hotly-disputed phrase out of the notes of a Foreign Affairs official present - and then refusing to release the notes themselves. The Herald administered a well-deserved editorial spanking yesterday, and now has US senator Don Nickles disputing that the "by lunchtime" promise was ever made by Brash (Brash, um, can't remember what he said). For goodness sake, if you're going to do spin, try and do it a bit better than this …

Meanwhile Aej Humm points out that "strong supporter of a New Zealand trade deal" is a rather bland characterisation of Mr Nickles himself. His voting on most bills to do with race has been kinda scary over the years …

New Zealand Musician's new website is up.

And that's it - apart from a North Shore question. I haven't seen The Checks play for a while and we're planning to drop in and see them at The Masonic in Devonport tomorrow night. But we figured we'd take a drink or two at some other nice little bar on the Shore before we get there. Trouble is, we don't know of any nice little bars on the Shore. Feel free to offer me the hip tip for north of the bridge, y'all …

Digg this Scoopit!

Roads to glory | May 13, 2004 11:57

So a billion dollars' work has been lopped off Auckland's Eastern Corridor proposal because there's no apparent way of paying for it. It's hard to credit that when John Banks announced the big plan last year he was trumpeting a new harbour tunnel to go with it.

Now, we won't even see the other tunnel he was championing - the one under Parnell (impractical and expensive, the mayor says, as if he always thought it was a silly idea) and the expressway, shorn of its bus lanes, will span Hobson Bay, below a clutch of wealthy and quite probably litigious residents (these are the people, remember, who went to court to try and stop something as innocuous as an upgrade to Parnell baths).

Even if you accept the benefits, it's the costs that remain the problem. Checkpoint ran some Auckland vox pops yesterday, and found some people in favour. It might have been interesting to have heard their response to the question "Do you support the Eastern Corridor if it means being charged to drive to and from the city on any major road (including the harbour bridge) at peak hours every day?" Because that's what's being proposed. The frequently-made claim that a mere toll on the Eastern Corridor itself has been quietly put to one side. Now it's all roads to and from the city.

Congestion pricing isn't necessarily a bad idea, but you do it as part of a broad transport strategy that offers people options such as viable public transport - not simply to pay for a pet project. The one good thing about the congestion pricing idea at the moment is that it stands to capture some revenue from the rest of greater Auckland, because at the moment there's simply very little in the Eastern Corridor - a road to Howick - for me as an Auckland City ratepayer. Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it (a) emerge from the consent process unscathed, and (b) Aucklanders get a real look at what it will cost them and where, and still vote in the mayor and council to do it.

Here's an irony: it seems that just two months ago, Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg, the American executed in Iraq was, along with their tower inspection company, being targeted as "the enemy" by people on the extreme but influential conservative website The Free Republic. His offence? Being on a list of signatories to a peace petition posted by one sweaty Freeper. Hundreds of other Freepers pile into the comments column promising "serious grief" for some on the list, including the reporting of the names of federal employees to the FBI. I guess the Bergs have a more profound form of grief to deal with now, huh? (Thanks to Joe Wylie for finding that link.)

It was interesting that by last night's late news on TV, the story of the killing of Nick Berg, a hitherto unknown American, had overtaken that of New Zealander John Tyrell, who is, any way you look at it, just as dead. Suddenly, it's not just death and suffering to which we respond, but the graphic spectacle of such; prison pictures included. The war has become pornographic - one long snuff movie - and we are all, I fear, increasingly brutalised by it.

Anyway, it appears that there are a few questions yet to be answered about what happened to Berg in Iraq: specifically, with respect to the way he was held with the FBI's knowledge past his planned date of return to the US. No, the FBI didn't chop his head off. But it might be useful to know what the hell happened. The Christian Science Monitor has a good roundup of responses to the hideous video and the claim that the killing it records was a response to the Abi Ghraib abuses.

Three people responded to my invitation earlier this week to comment on what Maori obligations under the Treaty might be, and what responsibilities might come with the rights of rangatiratanga. Kyle Matthews addresses a number of points, including:

On the same site Russell Brown asks "Am I entitled to be annoyed when a Tainui hikoi spokesman appears on Holmes and declares that Maori own the whole coastline and I'm to go there only by invitation?" The answer Russell is simple: no. Or at least, you're only entitled to be if you also think that National Front director Kyle Chapman represents all people of European descent simply because he's the one that ends up on TV.

Not quite what I meant. The spokesman who appeared on Holmes (could somebody put me out of my misery and remind me of his name? The TVNZ website doesn't have it) appeared to do so on the basis of some standing within both Tainui and the hikoi. He wasn't, so far as I'm aware, publicly disowned by either. So it's not quite the same as any Maori saying something silly: more like a member of a political party making an extreme statement and the party suffering repercussions. Organisations will be misunderstood if they don't control their message very carefully.

Philip Temple, author of A Sort of Conscience, the award-winning story of the Wakefields' deals in the early settlement period, took another tack:

I concur with your sense of disappointment with Pat Snedden's second contribution to the Treaty debate, although I still learned much from his vast range of experience in this area, as I did with his first address.

Pat says that the Treaty is ours [pakehas] too and there has been much talk of partnership and yet largely the obligations to the Treaty, in settlements, legislation etc... have been the pakeha's towards Maori. Negotiations on Treaty matters are between Maori - whichever group they are - and the 'Crown'.

Just as occurred back in 1840, British [read NZ] citizens were not consulted at all, although they ended up footing the bills. In Treaty debates, Article 3 is almost never mentioned, except with regard to what rights Maori have under a legal system brought here by the pakeha. Article 3, in fact, made Maori British [read NZ] citizens and being a citizen requires that one works for the common good of the nation.

The political and social institutions that have made New Zealand one of the most open, democratic and fair societies in the world came from Britain, and have been developed according to the needs of a new country, adapting to the needs of all groups, especially Maori, as they should continue to do. But when are Maori going to remember that they signed up to being British and to declare their commitment to our common citizenship? Their rights and needs under the Treaty have been assiduously attended to over the last 20 years. When do we see acknowledgement of their obligations as citizens?

Katharina Ruckstuhl covered a number of other points in depth, including the question about practical forms of governance:

Treaty of Waitangi claims have clearly given Iwi the ability to govern themselves and manage their own resources for their own people. This is appropriate in a modern nation - and at the risk of sounding like a dyed-in-the-wool socialist - unless Maori "own the means of production", then there is little chance of making big gains at the systemic level - no Government, no matter how well intentioned, can actually make any difference unless there is a willing pool of people prepared to actually do the real work. Iwi are prepared to.

But what I meant is that iwi don't operate in a vacuum. The advances under the Treaty in recent years mean they increasingly have to interact and co-operate, and in that sense, good governance by and for Maori matters to all of us. She continues:

And while we're on to thresholds - the whole "consulting over prisons in both Ngawha and the Waikato" thing again points the finger only one way. I've heard from some sources, that while the public may have been outraged about the fees paid to the Maori consultant, no-one has said anything about the $1 million paid to the Pakeha consultants. Let's hope the Justice system is getting great value out of them.

My point on the RMA thing isn't the money per se, but that in the case of consents for both prisons (particularly at Ngawha) it seems quite unclear who has the right to say yes or no, and smaller groups may have run off with the process. It's not the first time this kind of confusion has taken place, and similar confusion about, for example, rights to take kai moana, seems not uncommon. This isn't something the Crown or Pakeha can sort out.

Should the exercise of rangatiratanga - chiefly authority - include making sure one party to the process presents a consistent and authoritative position to the other? I'm interested in the idea of whether, say, Ngai Tahu is getting it right while Tainui isn't. That's more what I meant by governance than anything to do with Parliament.

Anyway, thanks to those three. It simply struck me that for all the talk of Crown/Pakeha obligations, nobody says anything about what Maori obligations under the Treaty might be, and that it was worth being a little bit provocative and putting the question. (The bit about child welfare related to statements made by Tariana Turia here and elsewhere, as Associate Minister of Social Services, which appeared to cut across her own service's zero-tolerance strategy on child abuse. I found her message unsettling at the time.)

And finally: I found out a bit more about NZ Idol and ensuing contracts yesterday, by interviewing entertainment lawyer Chris Hocquard on my Wire show on 95bFM (he also happens to act for Paul Ellis - it's a small country). Independent legal advice for all 10 Idol finalists is actually built into the Idol format (if the Salon story I linked to yesterday was accurate, this hasn't always been the case) and a representative of the Idol franchise-holder actually flew out to oversee the formation of a panel of specialist lawyers for the contestants to choose from. This is good.

With regard to BMG exercising its option to sign at least two of the finalists, it appears that Ben's album will be made very quickly (in shops June 15) while Michael's recording project will proceed at a more conventional pace - which is probably an advantage for Michael. And nice one BMG for shipping me over a box of CDs - I was delighted to be able to fill out my Sugarlicks and Capital Recordings collections - but a P&D deal with two good indies isn't quite the same as developing one or more major artists. Still, with it having been through a spell where it had Sir Howard Morrison and not a lot else (after, among other things, sending Che Fu off to Sony), I'm pleased to see BMG renewing its commitment to the local scene. That's all good, as the kids say.

Digg this Scoopit!

Idol thoughts | May 12, 2004 09:13

I was mildly astonished when I saw BMG's Michael Bradshaw inform 17-year-old NZ Idol runner-up Michael Murphy that "you've got a contract with BMG too" and insist on shaking his hand for the camera on Holmes last night.

Turns out that perhaps I shouldn't have been. A recording contract with BMG is locked into the Idol format: it has been the prize for Idol winners in the UK, US (as RCA), South Africa, Australia and Canada. So that's what Ben Lummis has got. But in most territories, BMG has also scooped up the Idol runner-up - and in Australia three finalists, including the top two, signed to BMG. That's because BMG has the right to sign any of the other nine finalists it chooses.

It's not hard to anticipate the problem here: only one Idol veteran can be top priority - and it might not be the one who won. In Britain, BMG seemed far keener on UK Idol runner-up Gareth Gates than it did on winner Will Young - to the point where it cleared the way in its release schedules for Gates, but not for Young. Oddly enough, Gates was dropped by BMG this month while Young's career seems to be flourishing. BMG's UK head, Simon Cowell (not to be confused with series creator Simon Fuller) was a judge on the show in the UK and America.

Lummis also won a management contract with Idol judge Paul Ellis. I'm a little uneasy about people "winning" something that they should normally enter into with due diligence, but Paul's honest and has international experience in working with singers and songwriters.

He also has an option to manage the other nine finalists and has indicated he'll be working with Camillia. I think that's enough. If Michael is going to sign with BMG - and he might not have a choice - he ought to have independent advice. In New Zealand, where BMG has almost no track record with local artists in recent years, sharing a label with your fellow Idol finalist may not be the best idea.

The on-camera announcement also appears to conflict with the promise from another BMG spokesman before the final that all efforts would go into the winner before any other decisions were announced: "It's our intention to concentrate on the winner. This is what it's all about." I hope somebody keeps an eye on this.

Still, my impression is that we've enjoyed a rather more relaxed and down-home version of the Idol format here - certainly more so than in America. Salon had a story about the contractual niceties of American Idol and CNN profiled Simon Fuller.

Anyway, speaking of transformations … Mike Hosking! Good grief. No one remembers it, but but for a few months at the end of 1999, I was the Friday guest commentator on Breakfast. It was grim: I'd get up at 4.45am, write Hard News, drive into TVNZ, talk for two-to-five minutes, go to bFM to deliver Hard News - and then start work.

Still, we'd just bought our house, and it paid for the deck. And Hosking was a nice bloke, if also apparently the straightest man in the world. I recall being merrily hailed by him in Ponsonby one day - he was dressed in a pastel yellow polo shirt and slacks (I'm thinking plaid, but I might be imagining that).

And now look at him in this week's Woman's Weekly: goatee, shaggy hair and a hoody! (Mike! Not the hoody with the blazer!) He seems to be travelling backwards in time. You're not missing much if you don't pick up the mag though - the (mildly) interesting bits have already been in the Sunday papers.

PS: I jumped the gun in saying the Flying Nun pub quiz was tonight. It's next Wednesday...

Digg this Scoopit!

Knowing what we believe | May 11, 2004 12:09

The last year and a bit of war in Iraq has demonstrated that none of us know as much as we think we do; and that we all tend to fall back (some fall further than others) to simply knowing what we believe.

I'm extremely grateful, then, to Aaron Oxley for drawing my attention to Open Democracy's interview with Yahia Said of the London School of Economics, who is currently on the ground in Baghdad on a mission for the Centre for the Study of Global Governance, which in part involves staging debates and discussion with Iraqis about issues that are of most concern to them. Unsurprisingly, his account has rather more authority about it than most of what we read about Iraq.

Said is frank about the mood of Iraqis:

People are furious. There has been quite a pivotal point sometime between the last time I was here in January and now. A lot of it has to do with Fallujah, the al-Sadr insurgency, the so-called uprising. Fallujah was like the last straw. It was the last act of recklessness by the coalition that Iraqis could handle. And now all this anger is bursting out. Every Iraqi starts the discussion with how fed up they are, and how they feel. The word that everybody uses is an Iraqi word that means predicament, entanglement, quagmire.

But he's also realistic. Fallujah, he points out, had a security problem:

If you had a situation where the city had been taken over by a bunch of paramilitaries what do you want to do? What's the alternative? If that was happening in the United States you'd bring in the National Guard. You don't bring Amnesty International to solve the problem.

He confirms the view that the new prison abuse pictures have provoked a "surprisingly low-key" response within Iraq:

Part of the reason was that rumours and tall stories, as well as true stories, about abuse, mass rape, and torture in the jails and in coalition custody have been going round for a long time. So compared to what people have been talking about here the pictures are quite benign. There's nothing unexpected.

And concludes thus:

People need to appreciate that Iraqis are really tired of violence and instability, and that there's a huge will to get on with a normal life. And Iraqis are prepared to make some compromises along the way to achieve that.

But especially amongst progressive left circles, there's a feeling that all Iraqis are going to rise up against occupation, make sacrifices and jump to freedom. Despite all the anger, that is far from being the best-case scenario. Instead, Iraqis would just like things to settle down, but they believe the coalition is no longer part of that equation because of all the broken promises.

What is also being under-appreciated is how much effort the coalition and ordinary Iraqi engineers, doctors, and policemen have put into rebuilding, and how much they've done to restore electricity, to restore the economy. A lot of the good news gets buried and forgotten because the next atrocity comes up or because of what they've done with the detainees. But it's not all in the same direction.

It's a very complex situation. It's not good versus evil.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker's Sy Hersh follows up last week's Abu Ghraib abuse story with a look at the chain of command.

The facts continue to point towards my original hunch on the Daily Mirror's black-and-white prison abuse pictures: the abuse was for real, the pictures are fakes. The paper, I see is trying to work its way out of the corner with semantics, declaring that: "we remain absolutely confident that those pictures accurately illustrate a serious abuse of a detainee by members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment." Accurately illustrate? As in "reconstruction"? But British ministers are hardly off the hook.

Bush praises Donald Rumsfeld for "courageously leading our nation in the war against terror" , while a leading US military newspaper lays into what it describes as "a failure of leadership from start to finish". DefenseTech lists Rumsfeld's failures and follows the progress of the abuse scandal. And a senior general and a Republican senator both point the finger at Rummy.

By all means, read Pat Snedden's latest speech, which he has kindly made available to Public Address. In it, Pat displays his familiar eloquence and humanity in considering the meaning of the Treaty for Pakeha. But I found myself a little disappointed at the way all the obligations seem to fall on Pakeha.

I have no problem with the idea that Maori - or, rather, the institutions to which they belong, and which signed the Treaty - have a special constitutional status in New Zealand: but what responsibilities go with the rights of rangatiratanga? It's not a blank cheque, surely?

I'm excited about and proud of the Maori renaissance that has taken place in my lifetime, and pleased at the role Ngati whatua plays in keeping the soul of my city. But what practical forms of governance are appropriate in a modern nation? Should I expect Ngapuhi to get its act together on Waitangi Day? I'm happy with the RMA consultation process in principle (and generally in practice) but what guarantee as a taxpayer and Treaty partner should I have that the process won't be run off with by one group - as may have happened in consulting over prisons in both Ngawha and the Waikato? Surely that can't simply be put down to Pakehas' imperfect grasp of history?

Am I entitled to be annoyed when a Tainui hikoi spokesman appears on Holmes and declares that Maori own the whole coastline and I'm to go there only by invitation? (I should note that I agree with Mikaere Curtis's statement that the Maori scholarship on the foreshore issue has generally been first-rate.) Is it solely the news media's fault that more attention has been devoted to Tariana Turia's equivocation than the content of the legislation? Are we entitled to regard our modern, liberal ideas about the rights of the child as better than those of some iwi fundamentalists who seem to regard children as the property of the whanau?

I'd be interested in Pat - or anyone who wants to have a crack - opining on those issues. Feel free to get in touch.

And, farewell then, NZ Idol. I don't know why people sling off at it- and even get angry at it. It's just a TV format, and South Pacific Pictures appears to have handled it really well (the occasional attack of hubris from Andrew Shaw notwithstanding). It had all the tears and cheers the format demands, and a few really good performances (I thought Big Dave made the ghastly Elton John song 'Empty Garden' sound heavenly last night) and Ben was the right call. And it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good without Idolblog. And no, I have no interest in watching American Idol at all …

Digg this Scoopit!

Bad moves | May 10, 2004 11:21

One of the more vexing elements for the government of its troubles in the past week or two is surely that they have helpfully served to obscure the behaviour of senior National MPs as complete doofuses.

Don Brash's flimsy grasp of Parliamentary craft was indicated when he gave everyone a right old laugh by first muffing a motion of no confidence and then asking perhaps the ultimate stupid question immediately afterwards:

So it was most unfortunate that Dr Brash's first formal question of the day, right after the vote, was: "Can the prime minister confirm that her Government still enjoys the support of a majority of members . . .?"

Ministers laughed so hard that some seemed about to cough up vital organs. They got another laugh when, minutes later, after a second question from Dr Brash, the entire Opposition lost the plot and forgot to keep asking supplementary questions in support of their leader, leaving the country's most preferred PM looking like a startled rabbit.

National also made a dog's breakfast out of its review of policy on nuclear ship visits, which, oddly proposed that the law be replaced by a "polcy ban" which we would then hope the US would respect of its own free will. Then Brash was forced to declare that he could not confirm or deny - or could not remember - that he had told visiting US officials that "If National was the government, we'd repeal the ban by lunchtime." He then went on to describe himself as a "peacenik" and said he personally opposed nuclear ship visits.

Then he was obliged to condemn a speech made last week by his defence spokesman and cabinet No.3 Simon Power, to a party conference, in which Power said National would join its allies in war "wheresover our commitment is called upon" - ie, jump when told to jump:

"It is absolutely not National Party policy," a miffed Dr Brash told The Dominion Post yesterday. "(No) New Zealand government would ever surrender the sovereign right to decide when New Zealand troops go to war."

Amid world-wide revulsion at horrific pictures of allied abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Dr Brash has also suggested his party's support for sending fighting troops to Iraq might have been a mistake.

"At the time I happily went along with caucus' position, which was one of supporting our sending troops to Iraq.

"The present situation looks an absolute mess."

Um, so what was the policy again? Labour should of course, be making merry with this flip-flopping, but it has its own problems - and Helen Clark's claim in the Sunday Star Times to be regally unruffled was unconvincing. She also claimed the "haters and wreckers" crack was intentional and calculated: even if that's the case, it doesn't make it any less dumb.

Rather than currying favour with the voters who have drifted towards Brash, I think it offended a basic sense of fairness in a good many other Pakeha New Zealanders, and stoked establishment Maori anger. Clark's gracelessness also obscured the fact that other ministers did better - including Parekura Horomia, who, in adversity, probably had his strongest week as a minister. And all in pursuit of what sounded like, even in her own words, a personal grudge ("I have been ritually humiliated and insulted by the leadership of that group for years and I draw a line"). As I've noted before, Clark is perennially more likely to be hung for what she says than what she does. We've just seen it again.

Anyway, responses from last week: Mikaere Curtis of Te Arawa, who attended several hui on the seabed and foreshore issue and marched on the hikoi, said its "fundamental position" had been misunderstood or ignored by the media:

We are seeking Customary Title to the foreshore and seabed, based on two principles - customary rights and Article 2 of Te Tiriti

In addition we seek legislation that enshrines customary title of the foreshore and seabed, in a such way that it can never be converted to fee simple (private) title. Never sold, never transferred.

Furthermore, we want to guarantee access to the public, subject to reasonable limits (for example, the duration of a tapu-lifting ceremony should there be a death on the beach).

Doesn't all this sound a lot like the "no freehold title, and no exclusive right of access" you mentioned in your Thursday post?

Yes, it does - but would it then also be true that what the government offers is, while clearly short of what is being sought, not exactly a million miles away either? As I've said before, I think the Treaty Tribes position - that the government's offer would be the basis for negotiation after due process had determined the extent of rights (and that's the difference) - seems a reasonable one to me.( If I had my way, that's what the government would do. Whether it's politically viable now is another matter.)

Mikaere acknowledges that "the bit where it gets complicated is in the exercising of rights, particularly rights regarding economic development" but points to the Te Arawa agreement, which places 14 lakes in the ownership of local hapu, with access and existing commercial developments guaranteed, while "new development must be approved by the affected hapu."

I had thought of this: but at the risk of agreeing with Gerry Brownlee, I have to, er, agree with Gerry Brownlee: landlocked bodies of water, which can be entirely contained within private land, aren't precisely comparable to the seabed and foreshore, which extend from the high tide mark to our marine territorial limits. I think there's also a different emotional response among many New Zealanders.

Had the outstanding Tainui harbour claim been resolved in a similar way before the Appeal Court decision the way forward might have been much easier. Actually, what happens now for Tainui might contain the beginning of a way out. The select committee stage of this bill is going to be very interesting (as will, whenever it happens, NZ First's promised marae tour to cheerlead for the legislation).

But the case brought by the upper South Island iwi that resulted in the Appeal Court decision would have been pointless if it amounted only to what is being sought above: it was brought in pursuit of the right to undertake marine farming ventures after the iwi had been repeatedly denied marine farming consents by the local district council (which did, on the face of it, conduct its business in a racist fashion) under the Resource Management Act while they were granted to non-Maori companies, and repeatedly been unsuccessful in opposing other applications. If the latter grievance could be satisfied under the proposal above, I can't see how the former would. So I'm still a bit confused. (Anyway, Briony Davies of Chapmann Tripp knocked out a list of bullet points on the meaning of the decision last year, which is a quick and useful read.)

On the matter of the Tainui hikoi spokesman who burbled on Holmes last week about Maori owning the whole coastline and controlling access, Mikaere was in agreement: "It's stupid, counterproductive, and plainly wrong. Although I must admit that the irony of it has not gone unnoticed though. Throughout the entire foreshore & seabed debate, the Maori side of the analysis, especially from the academic elements, has been first rate - timely, exhaustive and (IMHO) accurate ... and then Holmes chooses to interview someone from the moronic edge of the spectrum."

Ewan Morris also responded:

Of course the marchers in the hikoi didn't all want exactly the same thing - that's in the nature of crowds and protests. But they were united in opposition to the government's legislation, even if they were coming from different perspectives.

Yes, many Maori believe, contrary to what the Court of Appeal held, that they already own the whole of the foreshore and seabed. Many more understand that what the Court of Appeal left open was the right to go through the courts to determine whether or not particular areas of foreshore and seabed are still customary Maori land. Any protest inevitably requires simple slogans - would you really expect people to chant 'One two three four/Some Maori may own some of the foreshore'?

On the question of compensation, yes the government has left this open, but that's pretty pathetic for people who have lost their property rights. Would anyone else accept that, if a court finds that they have been deprived of their property, the government will discuss with them the possibility of redress, which may or may not be granted, and may or may not involve compensation? The government has handled this whole issue appallingly badly. Of course, National would have handled it much worse, but that's not much consolation.

Philip thought that it all went to prove his point - that influential sovereigntist Maori want things that shouldn't be delivered:

Despite Willie Jackson's disingenuous claims that all Maori want is equal access to due process, the only rational motive for taking a case to the Appeal Court is the expectation that they would win private freehold title to the foreshore. And what we know of this Court would strongly suggest that this would be the likely outcome.

Then what Russell? 85% of the population would reject this outcome at a very real personal level. I know I would. Electorally the result would be a majority conservative government that would have to legislate for Crown ownership, overriding the Appeals Court decision and occasioning even more protest.

For almost 20 years I associated with Maori at a community level. I have attended over 400 marae functions. Maori are not a politically homogenous group in any sense, but a radical element has always existed. Their agenda is simple - restoration of iwi sovereignty as prior to the Treaty of Waitangi 1842 status and the expulsion of the colonising whites. As per Robert Mugabe."

Ah, Zimbabwe again. Meanwhile, Steve dug out an Act newsletter noting the cranky judge Hingston's role in the issue.

Pat Snedden, whose speech on post-Orewa Aotearoa was very popular on Public Address, has kindly supplied me with the text of a new speech, focusing on the seabed and foreshore, which I'll post here tomorrow.

Digg this Scoopit!