4G Maori Rights?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#696438 4-Oct-2012 21:25

an oldie but a goodie

After having dug to a depth of 10 metres last year, British scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago.

Not to be outdone by the Poms, in the weeks that followed, Australian scientists dug to a depth of 20 metres, and shortly after, headlines in the Aussie newspapers read: Australian archaeologists have found traces of 150-year-old copper wire and have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network 50 years earlier than the Brits.

One week later, Maori TV reported the following: After digging as deep as 30 metres in his backyard in Te Kuiti, Hone Waiata, a King Country kaumatua, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Hone has therefore concluded that 300 years ago Maori had already gone wireless.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

gzt

16905 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#696444 4-Oct-2012 21:34

freitasm: If it benefits the entire Maori population, are the benefits being distributed as bonus - for example the 2degrees spectrum is obviously generating some revenue. Is there a profit to be distributed? Is just for that iwi or all Maori people?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Te Huarahi Tika Trust - Annual Report 2011 - here.

I don't think they have anything to distribute at this stage.

2 degrees in which the spectrum is effectively invested is just coming out of the building phase and looks like it might generate profit of some kind this year.

The other factor in distribution is after some early failures Maori business these days tends to be oriented towards a very long term view in which holding the asset and maintaining and leveraging relationships are more important than a sell down in shares to realise short term gain.

It appears Te Huarahi Tika needed to be pushed by Maori media but they have begun to establish ICT scholarships/training grants etc as a pathway to get more Maori high school students looking at ICT leveraging relationships with 2 degrees as a vector for those goals.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#696555 5-Oct-2012 07:56

While this does annoy me it is worth noting that this is only a small percentage on Maori doing this. I am friends with quite a few maori people and they all think this kind of behaviour makes their race look bad. I would hate to see people thinking all maori are the same...

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#696572 5-Oct-2012 08:54

BTR: While this does annoy me it is worth noting that this is only a small percentage on Maori doing this. I am friends with quite a few maori people and they all think this kind of behaviour makes their race look bad. I would hate to see people thinking all maori are the same...

So where is the large majority of Maori protesting in the streets about how these people are giving them a bad name?

We’ve seen Hikois over much smaller things than this, yet this provokes virtually no activity from the supposed ‘moderate’ majority.
Why, for example, do they continue to vote in people like Pita Sharples who clearly believes that Maori have a right to spectrum?

I see the same arguments about Muslims. You get the massive protests over something as minor as a drawing or an amateur youtube clip, but when the radical few do something really crazy (like 9/11, the 7/7 bombings etc etc) you get barely a peep from the so-called moderate majority. If they really want to call out these crazy few, then they should do it.

haywardb

84 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#696579 5-Oct-2012 09:04

ajobbins: Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

Back in 2004 there was another claim on the airspace which included Nasa. See http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=15232 for talk about it. The main text I have quoted below.

A group of Maori are shooting for the stars as well as the foreshore and seabed – they intend claiming the air space used by commercial airlines and even satellites.

In a submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, a Bay of Plenty group representing Te Wairua Ote Ora Trust claimed the bill was an act of treason against "hapu sovereign nations" and said the commercial use of the sea and air space was forbidden.

The group provided their own maps of hapu coastal waters, which, during the hearing of evidence in Auckland yesterday, they said stretched out 400 nautical miles (740 kilometres).

The group apparently told MPs that their air space extended even further to the outer limits of the universe.

ACT MP Ken Shirley, a member of the committee, said the group's views were indicative of the unrealistic expectations of Maori in relation to the bill. "In answer to my questions, they also confirmed their claims of absolute sovereignty over all air space to the heavens above. It was specifically stated that, once the foreshore and seabed legislation is resolved, they would be approaching Air New Zealand and other airlines to negotiate compensation for all incursions into their air space."

An approach to Nasa, the American space agency, was also indicated, Mr Shirley said.

National MP Wayne Mapp said the group represented the "lunatic fringe".

AdvertisementAdvertisement"No New Zealanders, Maori or non-Maori, could take their claim seriously."
The group were of the Tuhoe tribe but Tuhoe Waikaremoana Trust Board chairman Aubrey Te Mara said yesterday their views were not representative of the tribe.

When told about what was said during evidence, his first reaction was: "Oh, by joves."

Mr Te Mara said Tuhoe had been aware that the group was making a submission opposing the foreshore and seabed legislation and the trust board gave its approval on that basis.

"But I suppose you can gauge from my reaction that the detail (of the submission) hasn't been discussed with the trust board."

He said it was going "just a little bit far to be claiming air space".

A former Waitangi Tribunal director, Morrie Love, said air space had been dealt with by the tribunal but only in a generic sense and mostly in relation to the radio spectrum.

It would be difficult to lodge a claim such as that suggested in yesterday's submission.

"You need some particular action of the Crown which establishes (a Treaty breach). Just people flying over the air space doesn't establish any particular action of the Crown, I would have thought."

There are more than 900,000 aircraft movements in New Zealand's domestic air space each year.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696585 5-Oct-2012 09:14

I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#696587 5-Oct-2012 09:18

haywardb:
ajobbins: Has their been any claim against NZ airspace?

Back in 2004 there was another claim on the airspace which included Nasa. See http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=15232 for talk about it. The main text I have quoted below.

A group of Maori are shooting for the stars as well as the foreshore and seabed – they intend claiming the air space used by commercial airlines and even satellites.
In a submission on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, a Bay of Plenty group representing Te Wairua Ote Ora Trust claimed the bill was an act of treason against "hapu sovereign nations" and said the commercial use of the sea and air space was forbidden.
The group provided their own maps of hapu coastal waters, which, during the hearing of evidence in Auckland yesterday, they said stretched out 400 nautical miles (740 kilometres).
The group apparently told MPs that their air space extended even further to the outer limits of the universe.
.

that is absolutely hilarious.
Presumably as the earth rotates so changes the portions of space that they 'own'?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79034 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#696616 5-Oct-2012 10:01

KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

Sure. And everyone's got rights to disagree with the premise being put forward by these "private groups".

It's my opinion these enterprising people do not represent Maori people, but their own interests.

My technology disclosure

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#696633 5-Oct-2012 10:23

KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

seems a bit of a cop out to say that. the tribunal isn't some infallible entity.

If you take that stance on other similar things then this means that everybody convicted of a crime is definitely guilty and everyone acquitted is definitely innocent, both of which is definitely not the case.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696640 5-Oct-2012 10:30

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

seems a bit of a cop out to say that. the tribunal isn't some infallible entity.

If you take that stance on other similar things then this means that everybody convicted of a crime is definitely guilty and everyone acquitted is definitely innocent, both of which is definitely not the case.

That can extrapolate to The District Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal..... Parliament etc etc etc when and who do you decide is infalible?

The Waitangi Tribunal is the legally authorised by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Parliament ( The Crown) to adjudicate on these matter.

Or are we advocating chronic procrastination or stagnation as our system?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696643 5-Oct-2012 10:31

freitasm:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

Sure. And everyone's got rights to disagree with the premise being put forward by these "private groups".

It's my opinion these enterprising people do not represent Maori people, but their own interests.

Yes you do have the right to disagree and you have the right to make submissions accordingly.

What metrics do you have to support your second point?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79034 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#696650 5-Oct-2012 10:34

KiwiNZ:
freitasm:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

Sure. And everyone's got rights to disagree with the premise being put forward by these "private groups".

It's my opinion these enterprising people do not represent Maori people, but their own interests.

Yes you do have the right to disagree and you have the right to make submissions accordingly.

What metrics do you have to support your second point?

Do you have evidence that any profit coming from Maori rights have been distributed to all Maori people in New Zealand?

My technology disclosure

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#696651 5-Oct-2012 10:36

KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

seems a bit of a cop out to say that. the tribunal isn't some infallible entity.

If you take that stance on other similar things then this means that everybody convicted of a crime is definitely guilty and everyone acquitted is definitely innocent, both of which is definitely not the case.

That can extrapolate to The District Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal..... Parliament etc etc etc when and who do you decide is infalible?

The Waitangi Tribunal is the legally authorised by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Parliament ( The Crown) to adjudicate on these matter.

Or are we advocating chronic procrastination or stagnation as our system?

Nobody is infallible, which is why decisions like this should never be immediately agreed with simply because they are made.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696654 5-Oct-2012 10:40

freitasm:
KiwiNZ:
freitasm:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

Sure. And everyone's got rights to disagree with the premise being put forward by these "private groups".

It's my opinion these enterprising people do not represent Maori people, but their own interests.

Yes you do have the right to disagree and you have the right to make submissions accordingly.

What metrics do you have to support your second point?

Do you have evidence that any profit coming from Maori rights have been distributed to all Maori people in New Zealand?

That is a Red Herring. If you do a simple Corporate search etc there is many very successful Iwi initiatives and endevours that are benefiting Iwi. And before you say it yes there has been some failures as there are in any enterprise.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#696657 5-Oct-2012 10:44

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ: I believe that the decision should be made by the Tribunal, if it rules against the claim so be it, if it rules in favour of the claim then so be it.

seems a bit of a cop out to say that. the tribunal isn't some infallible entity.

If you take that stance on other similar things then this means that everybody convicted of a crime is definitely guilty and everyone acquitted is definitely innocent, both of which is definitely not the case.

That can extrapolate to The District Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal..... Parliament etc etc etc when and who do you decide is infalible?

The Waitangi Tribunal is the legally authorised by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Parliament ( The Crown) to adjudicate on these matter.

Or are we advocating chronic procrastination or stagnation as our system?

Nobody is infallible, which is why decisions like this should never be immediately agreed with simply because they are made.

So you are advocating procrastination or indecision as our most affective form of Government or Judiciary.

If you care to read the Past decisions made by the Tribunal they take quite some time and are then ratified by Parliament.
The Tribunal members are not some group who came down in the last shower either...

Chairperson

Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, chief judge of the Māori Land Court.

Deputy Chairperson

Judge Stephanie Milroy of the Māori Land Court.

Ordinary members

Dr Robyn Anderson, historian.
John Baird, former managing director of several companies.
Dr Angela Ballara, historian.
Dame Margaret Bazley, former civil servant.
Tim Castle, barrister.
Dr Aroha Harris, historian.
Dr Richard Hill, historian.
Hon Sir Douglas Kidd, former politician.
Professor Sir Hirini Moko Mead, Māori Studies academic.
Joanne Morris, civil servant.
Basil Morrison, former local politician and president of Local Government New Zealand.
Kihi Ngatai, kaumātua.
Dr Ann Parsonson, historian.
Dr Grant Phillipson, historian.
Professor Sir Tamati Reedy, academic and former civil servant.
Tania Simpson, policy advisor.
Dr Monty Souter, historian.
Professor Pou Temara, Māori Studies academic.
Keita Walker, education advisor.
Professor Ranginui Walker, Māori Studies academic.
Kaa Williams, te reo Māori expert.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10