The Dim-Post

March 31, 2010

What’s the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 3:09 pm

The government’s Foreshore and Seabed proposal is out. I’m deep in a coding fugue state and unable to process much, but this excerpt from Audrey Young’s summary jumped out at me:

The document says: “There would be no obligation on a coastal/hapu to comply with the requirements of the Resource Management Act when giving or declining permission for a coastal permit.

“The decision of the coastal hapu/iwi could be made according to a Maori world view, on grounds which are not covered by the RMA.”

I’d love to be a fly on the wall of the Labour Party caucus room tonight (was it The Young Ones who made a documentary about a couple of flies on their kitchen wall?)

About these ads

17 Comments »

  1. Labour have caucus meetings on Wednesday evenings?

    Comment by kahikatea — March 31, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

  2. If they’re not having a meeting tonight, then they’re even more incompetent than the Government.

    Comment by georgedarroch — March 31, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

  3. Yeah. Looks vanilla on the outside, but there’s some funky stuff buried within. I’m up to my eyeballs in work-stuff as well, but based on the contributions of Trevett, Watkins and Young I have mixed feelings. Looks like the sort of compromise which will confuse everyone and make nobody particularly happy.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 31, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

  4. Three timetables: media (by the hour), political (2011), and legal (for years to come).

    So the last one’s a nightmare – hey, two out of three ain’t bad. It’s not like John Key’s going to hang around to face the consequences, once the inevitable court cases unravel it all, in National’s second term. That’ll be Prime Minister Judith Collins’ problem.

    Comment by sammy — March 31, 2010 @ 3:59 pm

  5. Wha’?

    Comment by StephenR — March 31, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

  6. StephenR, I think Sammy is talking about 2021.

    L

    Comment by Lew — March 31, 2010 @ 7:17 pm

  7. I have plans to start a stilt house development on this land that nobody owns. After all, who’s going to trespass me?

    Comment by IrishBill — March 31, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

  8. Danyl,

    You (or Audrey Young) have missed an important bit of the document out in this …

    “If the coastal hapū/iwi gave permission, the consent authority could process the application but would still need to decide whether it satisfied the statutory criteria of the RMA before granting consent. The consent authority would be unable to grant a coastal permit beyond the scope of the application that was permitted by the coastal hapū/iwi.”

    In other words, if someone wants to do something (i.e. build a mussel farm) on a bit of the foreshore/seabed that an Iwi/hapu can show “customary title” to, they need two sets of permissions. First permission is from the Iwi/Hapu, according to its own “world view” (i.e. if it thinks the development is kosher, to mix my cultural references). This permission needn’t take into account the RMA, just the same as a landowner doesn’t need to consider the RMA when saying “yes” or “no” to a request to do something on his/her land. Second permission is from the local council/regional authority, according to the RMA criteria. Without this, the development can’t go ahead either.

    So the important point to note is this … an Iwi/Hapu can’t allow a mussel farm, etc to go ahead outside of the RMA … it’s just they can say “no” to things that the RMA otherwise would have allowed.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 31, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

  9. IrishBill,

    See section 5.2 of the consultation document. You’ll need a coastal permit from the relevant regional council, and if the stilt house is on foreshore/seabed that has customary title proven, the permission of the local Iwi/Hapu.

    Of course, if you can buy yourself some foreshore/seabed before this all goes through, you’ll still get to keep it.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 31, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

  10. Damn big-city lawyers with your highfalutin consultation documents.

    Comment by IrishBill — March 31, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

  11. It is bad outcome. Giving Iwi only the right to say no will simpy ensure one off two outcomes – nothing will happen, or “no” will actually mean “give us a big fat envelope stuffed with cash and we’ll think about it.” I think the only just solution for all New Zealanders is to declare the F&S a commons. Then you’ll see the fat cats squeal regardless of colour…

    Comment by Sanctuary — March 31, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

  12. Sanctuary,

    Iwi don’t just have the right to say no. They have the right to say yes or no. It’s just that if they say yes, the local council/authority also has to say yes (under the RMA). And I don’t know why anyone would be upset that Maori might seek to share in the benefits gained from economic activity undertaken in an area they have “customary title” to (as that is defined in law) … if a Church charges stall owners $20 to participate in a Saturday jumblesale in the Church Hall, is that a bad thing?

    Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean by declaring the F&S a commons. You can’t mean “anyone can use it for anything” – otherwise fat cats will very happily fill it up with mussel farms and marinas. So do you mean “no one can use it for anything”? Or, “no one can use if for anything unless everyone agrees to that use”? In which case, who is “everyone” here?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — March 31, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

  13. Thanks for clearing that up Andrew. My initial understanding is that iwi/hapu weren’t bound by the RMA. Politically this is just as interesting, in that the government campaigned against constraints placed on businesses by the RMA, and they’re actually placing another level of compliance on top of it – at least as regards to coastal areas.

    Comment by danylmc — April 1, 2010 @ 6:34 am

  14. I’ll add thanks to Andrew for making that stuff clear…

    Comment by garethw — April 1, 2010 @ 9:08 am

  15. Thanks for clearing that up Andrew. My initial understanding is that iwi/hapu weren’t bound by the RMA. Politically this is just as interesting, in that the government campaigned against constraints placed on businesses by the RMA, and they’re actually placing another level of compliance on top of it – at least as regards to coastal areas.

    It’s not really another level of compliance. It’s just that it’s somebody else’s land. If I want to build a farm on your front lawn, I’d need resource consent from the council, and permission from you. I’m not really sure that I’d consider that needing permission from you is a “level of compliance”. It’s just polite =)

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — April 1, 2010 @ 9:53 am

  16. Graeme,

    But … but … but … it’s Maori who you have to ask! That’s hardly the same, is it? I mean, we never have before …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — April 1, 2010 @ 10:00 am

  17. The relevant quote from Graeme ……. ” It’s just that it’s somebody else’s land.” .

    Now why do I think the natianals and their puckered retentive supporters are going to find that little tid bit catching and sticking in their throats ………………

    Who would have thought that the nats would be so generous to Maori ?????????

    Teflon John indeed.

    Comment by nznative — April 5, 2010 @ 2:00 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 350 other followers

%d bloggers like this: