Talk:New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy

New Zealand: Politics / Māori Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance).

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help!

Untitled

A glaring omission is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that the legislation was a) a confiscation, b) a violation of the treaty and c) a violation of international law.

In my view the total silence about the Tribunal's findings in the official media and from the leaders and followers of the pro-confiscation parties is one of the most outstanding features of the Foreshore and Seabed controversy.

--

Could somebody who has some knowledge of the Ngati Apa decision (as opposed to those who simply "think" they know) please add some detail to the first section. The current discussion of the case is overly simplistic Tobit 00:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done - KiwiMal.

Picture...

I added the picture of the hikoi that I took to the appropriate section. Hope it helps a bit... Spawn Man 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

belief / assertion

I have changed the wording slightly in this article. I don't beleive that it is possible to ascribe 'belief' to the motives of the Government as they is a considerable body of opinion that takes the view that the appraoch taken by the Crown was not made in good faith. It is however accurate to state that this is what the Crown was asserting as its belief. Tashkop 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What opinion poll

I cannot find which opinion poll taken after the Orewa speech showed the jump?

I can't find a link to the original Colmar Brunton poll, but here's the result of a poll taken about one week after it: [1].-gadfium 04:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for improvement

This is a good article, especially given its contentiousness, and it looks like we have some genuine experts contributing. It needs more, however, about the non-parliamentary response from Maori, though - Te Ope o Mana a Tai get a mention, but no explanation of how they formed and what they say. I'd add it myself but don't really know, and I'm not much the wiser having glanced at their website. The content looks nice and NPOV but there's few references to speak of - a citation of the early academic work referred to would add a lot of weight to claims it was "not unexpected" (which I've replaced with the vaguer "foreshadowed" for the mean time). The Rapporteur's report must be somewhere online too. --Tirana 02:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gave ownership versus 'confirmed'

I have changed the wording back to what it originally said. The State had no ownership. That was found by the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The new Law did not 'confirm' ownership, it took it. The language of 'confirm' is used by apologists to present a picture that the foreshore was not taken but somewhow thew government was merely 'clarifying' the issue (Their own propaganda). The Crown itself admits to that fact that the foreshore and seabed was indeed taken, but justifies it on the grounds of the public interest (See maragret Wilson's statement and also statements fromn the Crown law office on which Ms Wilson's statement was based.)Tashkop 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, the Court of Appeal said that the law didn't preclude the Maori Land Court from inquiring as to whether customary title still existed. It was a matter of doubt as to whether customary title still existed anywhere, rather than unquestionably Crown ownership as the Crown had previously assumed (and the Ninety Mile Beach case found) and it was the Maori Land Court's job to sort it out. From the ministry of Justice page: "The Court of Appeal did not find that Maori customary rights or title existed in any particular case, but it did leave it open for the Maori Land Court to make such findings." Happy to reconsider if you provide quotes from your described sources. --Tirana 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just correcting this inaccurate statement by Tirana. The finding of the court of appeal was very simply that the Crown did not own the foreshore and seabed. It made that finding because that was what the case was about. The case was not about whether or not maori could then claim ownership, and it is for that reason that the court of appeal referred Maori to the appropriate forum to determine that. Let's be clear on the salient point though. The Crown was found absolutely and unequivocably not to have ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

You are both right. The Court of Appeal did not find that title was held by any group. Nor did it hold that it was held by the Crown. The position was left unresolved by the Court of Appeal's judgment. The term "confirmed" is certainly misleading for the reasons Tashkop mentioned, but "gave" is also misleading as it assumes that the title was clearly held by Maori at the time (please note, this is a statement of the legal position, not a normative statement as to who rightfully owned the land). I have changed it so that it is hopefully more neutral and reflective of what definitely happened (i.e. declared that the land was in Crown ownership, and foreclosed the possibility of any judicial enquiry into the true position). KiwiMal 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)KiwiMal[reply]

Sorry Kiwimal - you are wrong. The Court of Appeal did not determine on whether or not title was held by any group. It purely determined on the question of ownership by the crown, and ruled that the crown did not have ownership. That was all it could rule on, because that was all that the case was about.

KiwiMal - Given the contentiousness of the matter I am content to support your wording on it. I am currently pursuing proceedings through the HRC and the OHCP. The sources I mention are part of the Crown Law's reponse to my complaint in those fora, although Margaret Wilson's comments, which are cognate, are on the public record (No surprise since she was just parroting what Crown law told her - or more likely - the other way around) if anyone would like copies of Crown Law's response to my complaint, where they admit to the discriminatory confisication of the Seabed and Foreshore, but claim it is justified in the Public interest, please contact me via email tashkop@yahoo.com. I might also point out that the language of the FSB (I dont have a copy of the act in front of me but suspect it cannot have changed) specifically uses the word 'Vest'. It does not declare or confirm - it vests (i.e. takes). Although in debate we might resort to euphermism the law thankfully is required to be explicit. (I mean no offence by that statement). Tashkop 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear versus explicit

I have removed the wording “crystal clear” and replaced it with 'explicit' for the following reason.

1. The use of the words “crystal clear” implies that legislation existed which vested the Foreshore and Seabed in the Crown b ut it was unclear. No such legislation existed. The Crown had relied since 1877 on implications based on a legal opinion from Crown Law deriving from the Lawsuit Parata Versus Bishop of Wellington.

2. It is my belief that the choice of the words “crystal clear” implies a pre-existing position where the Crown already owned the Foreshore and Seabed prior to the passing of the FSA. no such position existed, that was the finding of the COA and that is why the Govt were required to be pass the Act if they wished to obtain ownership. On that basis the words “crystal clear” are in my view revisionist; hence removed.

Tashkop 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACT party position

It is quite inaccurate to state that the Act party position was in support of national's view that the FSA gave too much control to maori. ACT actually 100% supported Tariana Turia's view and produced a minority select committee report in that respect. Here is their release on that matter. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.19.226 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court Decision

I have added in quotes from the Court decision. This has required considerable editing of the section. I appreciate any comments you might have. Te Karere —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025103914/http://www.teope.co.nz:80/ to http://www.teope.co.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]