4G Maori Rights?

Forums › New Zealand Mobile and Wireless › 4G Maori Rights?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 10

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#696062 4-Oct-2012 12:19

The ones making the money out of all this are pakeha lawyers (and I am of the pakeha persuasion)

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#696064 4-Oct-2012 12:20

I feel it is racism. I can't get certain loans due to my race, nor other shortcuts into eduction. I may soon have to pay a water fee if I drink it, or get rained on. Just my opinion. But maybe if I incur flood damage, I can go to the rightsholders of water and get them to pay??

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#696097 4-Oct-2012 12:53

MackinNZ: It seems anytime Maori smell money they invoke the Treaty of Waitangi and claim they have "rights".

Funny though, I can't imagine anyone using RF devices in 1840.

If under interpretations of the treaty they have these rights then this is a legal issue rather than the cultural one some of you liken it to.
If the treaty didn't anticipate these things was it poorly written or ill conceived(?), I don't think so.
The real issue in these things, along with water rights etc, is what was the intention of the treaty when it was written, rather than an interpretation of it based on todays law.

For me the intention was to recognise that maori were accepted to be the incumbent owners of the country (even though they had no formal controlling national collective), by uniting their interests with those of settlers and the crown. The treaty was a way to provide a national structure over all maori and pakeha settlements to enable the crown to exercise and exert effective control on behalf of them all(?) as the country grew. It was a strategic way to grow a colony without having the costs of fighting for it.

Ultimately though the treaty's intention was that we were to be a single community where benefits flowed equally (sic) to all inhabitants. Whether that was done by means of fair acquisitions is the reason we have the treaty claims process today. (The major issue revolves around the term 'ownership', as each culture assigned widely differing interpretation and meaning to the term at the time the treaty was signed, and these difference weren't recognised or acknowledged then.).
But now it's the determinations from that (treaty) process that has predetermined claims will be made in perpetuity as 'rights' over emerging and newly discovered 'resources' are exercised.

We can't re-negotiate the treaty (as none of the original signatories are here to articulate their cases based on that time and knowledge space), but we could take the time to determine what its intentions will be defined as 'going-forward' so that it benefits all New Zealanders equally, and we can put our collective resources of time, money, and effort, into actually making it the place it should be.

(Climbs off soap-box, picks it up and exits to the right......)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#696101 4-Oct-2012 12:58

oxnsox: We can't re-negotiate the treaty (as none of the original signatories are here to articulate their cases based on that time and knowledge space), but we could take the time to determine what its intentions will be defined as 'going-forward' so that it benefits all New Zealanders equally, and we can put our collective resources of time, money, and effort, into actually making it the place it should be.

"so that it benefits all New Zealanders equally" to me means leave natural resources to be managed/negotiated by the government, which once legally elected represents the interests of all New Zealanders not only one group.

Giving the ownership rights of natural resources to a single group automatically excludes the "benefits all New Zealanders equally" doesn't it?

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#696105 4-Oct-2012 13:02

Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#696112 4-Oct-2012 13:11

ajobbins: Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

Not yet... give it time.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696129 4-Oct-2012 13:26

From the treaty.

Article the second [Article 2]Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

I have underlined what I believe is important.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#696130 4-Oct-2012 13:28

ajobbins: Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

No, but Stuff has a good article in todays paper about apartment dwellers having to pay encroachment fees to council for balconies that extend into public land. Worth about $100k a year to the council - their argument being the airspace is owned by the public (and administered by council)

Edit: link

Not quite the same as 4G rights, but the principle of 'who owns the air' isnt' as ridiculous as it sounds.

________

Antoniosk

GregV

928 posts

Ultimate Geek

#696145 4-Oct-2012 13:52

ajobbins: Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

Does this count?

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#696150 4-Oct-2012 13:55

An iwi tried to claim airspace near chch so they could make local hot air ballooners pay..court told them to GTFO

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#696156 4-Oct-2012 14:09

If people think there is a resource to exploit they try to exploit it.

Treaty claims are basically a resource these days.

Once it might have been related to justice and redress of past injustices. But these days it is like more like 'lets try to claim X. If it works we get compensation or whatever, if not no harm done'.

I think we need a pathway towards something which is 'full and final settlement'.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Ragnor

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#696166 4-Oct-2012 14:29

KiwiNZ: From the treaty.

Article the second [Article 2]Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

I have underlined what I believe is important.

As per the 70's interpretation of the treaty principles, whenever the government wants to sell something that's currently a public good they have to negotiate compensation with Maori

Gareth Morgan covers this in his blog here
http://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/government-delay-in-asset-sales-reflects-ignorance-of-the-treaty

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#696167 4-Oct-2012 14:30

crackrdbycracku: If people think there is a resource to exploit they try to exploit it.

Treaty claims are basically a resource these days.

Once it might have been related to justice and redress of past injustices. But these days it is like more like 'lets try to claim X. If it works we get compensation or whatever, if not no harm done'.

I think we need a pathway towards something which is 'full and final settlement'.

Yes, it would be nice to get full and final settlement... but it is unlikely.As mentioned by a previous commenter, the people making the money here are the lawyers, and they are not likely to opt for a quick end to the claim process when the other option is years and years of $500 /hr representation.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#696169 4-Oct-2012 14:42

MikeSkyrme:

Yes, it would be nice to get full and final settlement... but it is unlikely.

Call me an optimist but I think we determine the world we live in.

I think the longer we have these arguments the move people shift to thinking these claims are 'just silly'. We, all of us including Maori like me, have a wonderful country to live in and I think I will see a full and final settlement in my life time.

I think we should be working on some type of 'recognition' which precludes money and cannot supersede parliamentary law.

I have no problem with people claiming that the ocean, 4G spectrum or whatever holds an important place for them but that isn't the same as charging people for use or determining what other people can do.

For example, I have no problem recognising that sun worshipers, people that actually believe the sun is a deity, have a special relationship with the sun. This doesn't mean they can charge me for solar power.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

khull

1245 posts

Uber Geek

#696184 4-Oct-2012 15:22

The general atmosphere at the moment is either side will not make many friends if they keep this up.

Many technological advances we take for granted today such as the internet was 'given away' for moving the humanity forward.

Claiming ownership is not the way forward

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 10