ACT's position on the Foreshore and Seabed

I think I'll stick to welfare. Trying to sift through the arguments and counter arguments put by National and ACT regarding the Coastal and Marine Bill has defeated me. But my claim that ACT has reversed its position since 2005 is apparently wrong. Fair enough. I was still distracted by their insistence that Maori shouldn't be able to block, or charge for, access to private property (as proven under customary title).

Here is what Rodney Hide said a while back on Kiwiblog;

ACT is the only party never to have flip-flopped on the foreshore and seabed. Our position has never changed.

ACT opposed Labour’s discriminatory Foreshore and Seabed Bill 2004. I joined the Hikoi in Wellington. We argued that iwi — like every NZer — were entitled to their day in court.

In our discussions with both the Maori Party and National Parties, ACT’s position has always been the same:

1. Repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act;
2. Return iwi and hapu to their pre-2004 legal position with respect to the Foreshore and Seabed;
3. Enable claims for customary title to be heard by the High Court, not the Maori Land Court. As I understand it the Maori Land Court is not equipped either to (a) hear claims for customary title; or, (b) recognise customary title. Their only redress is to award fee-simple title;
4. Legislate public access.

Instead the Maori Party and National Party have agreed to a confusing and confused legislative solution. It is to be Parliament, i.e. politicians and politics, determining the extent of customary title (of course, it is to be no longer customary title, but statutory title), and the test for granting title. It won’t be the Courts determining customary title based on the law and the facts, but politics.

Worse, National’s new Bill gives the Attorney-General the power to negotiate deals carving up the coast with iwi in his office in secret. It’s a disgrace. Politics will determine which iwi get in the door — and what they get.

The objection to ACT’s position from both parties is that the courts would take too long and may determine that iwi and hapu claims are without merit, i.e. that the courts would not award title. That’s certainly what the Court of Appeal judgement suggested and that would be consistent with the 1963 90-mile beach claim. The test under customary law is a high one. Perhaps an impossibly high one.

But that’s not an argument for lowering the test and extending the extent of the rights that can be awarded.

ACT is the only party that has stuck to its principles throughout.

Both the National and Maori Parties promised that iwi would not charge the public for access to the foreshore and seabed in statutory title. But, of course, the Bill as drafted doesn’t preclude that.

ACT is attempting to make sure the government delivers on that promise by proposing an amendment accordingly.

Commentators referring the situation of land held in fee simple or rights granted by the courts are making a straw man. The title being granted under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is not fee simple, and is not customary title being granted by the courts under customary law; but rather is title granted by politicians in parliament and the Attorney-General in his office.

ACT will oppose this law for the reasons outlined above but in the meantime will propse amendments to ensure it does what the politicians promise it does!

Rodney Hide

Dunne proposes compulsory DNA testing

Peter Dunne gave his own State of the Nation speech which outlined what he would be campaigning on this year no doubt.

The first is that families should be able to capitalise their Working for Families payments to buy a house. I predicted Labour would put up this policy at the last election and I was wrong. It's just a return to the days when Family Benefit got many people into their first homes. People capitalising their WFF payments makes the assumption that the policy is here to stay. Let's not forget that the two parties Dunne is in government with both opposed the introduction of WFF on principle. It is still bad policy even if used to encourage property ownership.

The second is an extension of Paid Parental Leave to 13 months. This would cost millions yet as Eric Crampton recently pointed out, there is no evidence to support it being an 'investment'.

The last is a bit more from left field;

Mr Dunne said compulsory DNA paternity testing in cases where claims, counter-claims and doubts exist over the parentage of a child would “unnecessarily excite certain civil libertarian tendencies” but commonsense needed to apply.

The idea doesn't excite my civil libertarian tendencies. Currently, as I understand it, DNA tests require the mother's consent and we have the tragic scenario of fathers(?) stealing samples and sending them overseas for testing. From memory statistics show around 1 in 5 fathers turn out not to be, yet a man named in a child support application has to compulsorily make payments for 18 years with no requirement for the mother to prove he is indeed the father. That state power disturbs me more than requiring a mother to prove paternity.

What Prebble said in 2004

First, good column from Deborah Coddington this morning.There has been too much of this individual-rights-robbery going down under the current National government. (From an earlier post) trying to turn NZ into a 'soft' police state by increasing police discretion. Non reversal of the very unpopular anti smacking legislation. Introduction of on-the-spot DV orders, requiring DNA swabs from non-convicted people, three strikes which encompasses non-violent crimes, patch bans, looming alcohol clampdowns, upping war on P, car crushing, loss of right to elect trial by jury, confiscation of property upon just the mere suspicion of a crime committed. Enough to make me even feel a twinge of dismay at Keith Locke's departure because he is one of the only MPs that advocates for civil liberties since ACT dropped the classical liberal ball and started voting for more state power over the individual.

And harking back to yesterday, I mentioned ACT's reversal on the Foreshore and Seabed issue. Another instance where they have ceded classical liberal principle. Here again is what Richard Prebble said in 2004;

ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizens’ right to go to court for justice, and one law for all...

The bill discriminates against Maori, by removing the right that the Court of Appeal has found, that Maori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Maori land....

Let me make it clear that in upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court I am not lending support to claims that Maori under the Treaty own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer it is very clear that in law, whether it be legislation or British common law or Maori customary law, it is very clear that Maori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore or seabed of New Zealand....

Both Maori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Maori controlled and occupied Takapuna beach I am sure we would have noticed.

But it does not follow that it is not possible there are some parts of the foreshore and the seabed that is still owned by Maori, and indeed I think it is likely that Maori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed.....

Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and seabed should be brought in a proper court, and the appropriate court is the High Court...

I realise that the position the ACT party takes is not a populist one.

It is now.

National has a special on-line article about the Marine and Coastal Bill here. I wonder where Prebble stands on that?

ACT to campaign on One Law for All

Speaking on National Radio during the week Rodney Hide talked up ACT's achievement of ensuring a National-led, stable government for New Zealand and downplayed the internal problems the party has experienced. What interested me was when asked why people wouldn't vote National rather than ACT (it was put to him that National are moving into their territory with things like asset sales) he basically outlined the three election issues for ACT this year. 1/ The Economy 2/ Education and 3/ One Law for All. His emphasis was on the last. No mention of law and order, no mention of welfare, no mention of health, all usually in the running when deciding election year strategy.

No surprises really with the efforts that ACT have been making to block the Seabed and Foreshore legislation. What bothers me is the debate teases out a lot of ignorant, anti-Maori sentiment. The type heard on talkback this week concerning a fee being charged to media attending the lower marae at Waitangi. Many Maori callers saw it as a racket and disagreed with the action. But some Pakeha just start running off at the mouth about Maori get this and Maori get that. I tried to make the point to Sean Plunket that it is those sort of sentiments that are racist. People seem unable to grasp that in their own accusations of race based privilege or discrimination they are being inherently racist themselves by lumping all Maori together. Do reprehensible individual Pakeha actions generally elicit cries that "Pakeha do this" and "Pakeha do that"? No they don't.

I am still betwixt and between regarding the Coastal and Marine Bill and whether it will advance or set back race relations. That will only be known when and if the legislation is passed. But I am very uncomfortable with divisive scaremongering, the blithe imposition of the Pakeha worldview on Maori, and the reversal (since 2005) in both National and ACT positions on establishing customary rights and all that might entail. One law for all surely infers Maori should also have recognised property rights.

Underneath the unemployment rate

Yesterday the unemployment rate for December was released - up from 6.4 percent in September to 6.8%.

But here are some comparisons to December 2009 (first column);

Total unemployment 7 6.8
Male unemployment 7 6.5
Female unemployment 7 7
Maori 15.4 15.5
15-19 year-old 26.5 25.5
one parent with dependent children only 47.7 51.7
Auckland 8 7.8
Wellington 6.3 5.4
Canterbury 5.7 6

So things are slightly improved overall but with a slight worsening for some groups.

But the one parent statistic is interesting. Remember last year part-time work-testing was introduced for single parents whose youngest child was 6 or older. This could have been expected to have had an anticipatory effect pre-change, as well as real effect post change. But the number without work has actually increased quite markedly.

Hot day at Taurenikau

Something different from my usual portraits. Since I have had the shop/studio Richard Ponder, whose own gallery is a few metres away, has been popping in and encouraging me to experiment more. First result - a purposely under-developed scene created from a series of photos I took at Taurenikau last month. It was a very hot day and I wanted to capture that feeling and also the movement of the horses. The canvas was coated in violet, a new colour for me, and I have left quite a lot of it showing. The turquoise is also a new pre-made colour on my palette.

Honest John versus perfidious Peters

Winston Peters would make me laugh if I had even a skerrick of good feeling whenever I hear him speak. But I don't. About the Prime Minister ruling him out of any National-led government he says:

"New Zealanders don't take kindly to being told what they've got to do, particularly when they're the masters come election day."

Labour leader Phil Goff also believed Mr Key was arrogant for ruling out NZ First prior to voters having their say.

"I'm going to let the voters make the decision."

What Key has given voters is clarity about what their decision means. He has afforded them more power - not less.

Key has done three honest, up front things this year; given people the option to vote for or against asset sales; given us the date of the election and ruled Peters out of any coalition arrangement. This is what people want more of from politicians.

Gillard focuses on getting beneficiaries into work

Good to see the Australian PM focusing on getting people off welfare and into work AND stressing the importance of work to people's well-being. Unfortunately for the pro-welfarists governments of every hue are now pushing this message;

AUSTRALIA must get many more people into the labour force or working more, Julia Gillard has said.

In her first economic speech of 2011, the Prime Minister said: ''To the maximum extent possible, I want to ensure that every Australian who can work, does work.

''I want to ensure that the incentives of work always outweigh the attractions of staying on welfare''.


With Australia now technically at full employment and the mining boom creating a skills shortage that will affect the rest of the economy, Ms Gillard said up to 2 million working-age Australians were not in the full-time workforce or registered for work.

The government looked ''with particular care and concern'' at this large number. Of the 2 million, about 800,000 were in part-time jobs but wanted to work more. Another 800,000 were outside the labour market, including discouraged job seekers. Also, many thousands on disability pensions might have some capacity to work.

''We know that not all of them can work right away. Many of them will need re-skilling; the right mix of incentives; help to overcome ill-health or meet family responsibilities,'' she said.

''But we do want them to re-engage with the workforce and gain the benefits that come from having a job - increased income, social engagement and friendship, self-esteem and well-being.''

Between a rock and a hard place

From Reason.com;

You've had the experience of walking along and negotiating around someone who is walking slowly, weaving, or bumping into other pedestrians for an obvious reason: He or she is talking on a cell phone, listening to an iPod, or texting on a Blackberry.

And you've had the natural, inevitable response to this annoyance: demanding a law to prevent it.

Oh, you haven't responded that way?

No I bloody haven't. I do get mad. I wonder why some people are so bloody oblivious; why it is too difficult to tuck themselves away in a non-traffic space for the duration of their call; why they lack the ability to co-exist courteously and intelligently with the surrounding people and environment. The same thoughts flash through my mind when I see people who have stopped their vehicles in the middle of the road to chat to a friend; or stand two shopping trolleys abreast in the supermarket aisle yacking; or travel at 40 km in a 70 km zone.

I do not demand a law to prevent it.(Oh, confession, I have been known to suggest that if people have to keep down to a speed limit they should need to keep up to it also, but if push came to shove I wouldn't actually support such a law. Some people are such awful drivers they probably cannot handle faster speeds. But that's a whole new topic...)

Obliviousness. Or oblivion. Whatever. One of my pet hates. Probably the best way to wake people up is to deal with it on the spot. Give them a rude and abrupt shock of some sort. Preferably with your mouth, not vehicle. That would have more impact and effect than a remote, faceless, unenforced law.

The trouble is those of us who do try not to inconvenience others, who are consciously trying to live co-operatively with others, who are prepared to make compromises like walking a few more metres in the rain because double parking outside a school is dangerous, are also not the type of people who enjoy being unpleasant and confrontational. That's THEM.

So its rock and a hard place time. I don't have the answer. Except that parents should do a better job of teaching and showing their kids that being even semi-conscious of their planet earth co-inhabitants would be a good idea. For everyone.