A quote from today's DomPost;
"We would be most disappointed if politicians were to encroach upon private property rights."
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing an ACT member would say. Or an ACT MP.
It is in fact the Chairman of Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu responding to ACT Leader, Rodney Hide, who has described their plans to levy fishermen on Lake Ellesmere as "appalling" and setting a bad precedent.
This I just cannot get my head around. Ngai Tahu own the lakebed just as Tuwharetoa own the lakebed of Taupo and have long received recompense from permits to fish.
It's user-pays in operation. The proposed fee, 8 percent, will go towards protection and restoration of the lake which Ngai Tahu currently pays $170,000 towards.
I am not even going to link to the many instances of ACT MPs, past and present, staunchly defending private property rights. It appears that the way Ngai Tahu has gone about imposing the fee has left a lot to be desired and I can understand the anger of long-time commercial fishers. Also there seems to be an ethical problem in that Ngai Tahu apparently assured users at the time of settlement they would not be 'impacted'. If these are the aspects Rodney is objecting to he has a point.
But again we come back to the heart of the matter. The principle. Are property rights only for some? High country farmers for instance?
Centrist: NZ media downturn accelerates
2 minutes ago
5 comments:
Also there seems to be an ethical problem in that Ngai Tahu apparently assured users at the time of settlement they would not be 'impacted'. If these are the aspects Rodney is objecting to he has a point.
Well no, a LEGAL problem if Ngai Tahu are now going back on what was agreed upon. Maori came to these settlements (and non-maori New Zealanders were promised this impact would not happen) on the basis they wouldn't do precisely this, affect fisherman.
Don't let the rule of law get in the way of another anti-ACT rant though.
The permit system was signalled 5 years ago. The fishermen have been negotiating and appear to accept they should pay something but are unhappy with the terms of the contract and the method being used to make them sign.
As I said Rodney HAS A POINT if this is what he is referring to as "appalling ". There is no link to the item in the DomPost but the impression it strongly conveys is that ACT opposes the levy itself.
Don't you think that it is a legitimate and important discussion to have?
Ladies.....break at once! Don't make me use the bucket of cold water...;-)
"Don't let the rule of law get in the way of another anti-ACT rant though."
Cactus....L:indsay, more than most, is entitled to have a "rant" about ACT and what they are doing....she's been there and done that for a few yeras now so when someone like her has a parting of the ways and expresses concern we should all take notice and examine what she says...
This is completely unfair..
Some one has to pay to sort out the lake problems. Who better than than those who benefit from its use. That said it is arguable whether even if they own the lake bed that Ngai Tahu's charge is fair. They could be accused of over charging. It is also arguable that 'ownership' is not what Ngai Tahu agreed to with the Crown but rather some fuzzy form of governorship. IMHO they should grab it take responsibility for it, manage it and fix it for the benefit of everyone who has an interest, fishermen, boaties and owners. Anyway there is nothing appalling about the process thus far. Sorry Rodney you've got it wrong or been misreported.
Post a Comment