Do we think Maori have a claim to water?

[donna]

Go here to read the newsletter (it was sent to me via email - an interesting read re. NZers are being walked over...and John Key needs to stand firm).

*This week we ask whether the Maori Council water claim is legitimate, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Michael Coote describes how John Key prevented the Urewera National Park being given away in a tribal settlement, and we remind those New Zealanders concerned about the direction of the country to sign our on-line DECLARATION OF EQUALITYpetition here>>>

And more in the newsletter -

The Waitangi Tribunal finding that Maori have property rights to water was predictable, but is nevertheless a reminder of how well organised the tribal elite have become.

They have their own political party, with political leverage through a coalition agreement with the government. They have the taxpayer-funded Maori Council, which is able to organise activists into substantive claimant bodies. And they have the taxpayer-funded Waitangi Tribunal, to re-write history and deliver quasi-legal deliberations in favour of tribal claimants.

If you think this claim for water is extraordinary, then consider it in the context of claims for the electromagnetic spectrum, many of our mountains, lakes and rivers, the foreshore and seabed, and claims for the country’s plants and animals. On this record, can we expect air to become a taonga too? Does it hold previously unimagined spiritual elements that require compensation? Perhaps those commercialising air will be a new target - a levy on air conditioners perhaps, on the grounds that they interfere with the air’s mana.

Of course I jest, but it was not so many years ago that we would have laughed at any hint of a tribal claim for the ownership of water!

It really is time that the public woke up and decided what sort of a country we want in the future. If we do nothing, the sovereignty movement will use the momentum it now has to deprive us all for their own personal gain.

cheers,

Donna

[Glizzle]

I don't agree they have full rights, but i don't believe you can float a state company that uses state water, its like they are just selling OUR water back to us, with out that water there would be no power. Plus how much state and tax money was used to build the power stations.

[donna]

Yeah it's all a bit mental and while the whole Maori rights issue is farcical it is going some way in identifying the ludicrous nature of the whole water float.

Cheers,

Donna

[PC]

Maori clipping the ticket wouldn't be so bad if some of the poor ones ever got anything.
Would like to see some actual numbers of what they collect and to whom it goes.
But that will never happen.

[flyernzl]

Has any case bought before the Waitangi Tribunal ever gone against the claimants and for the Government?

If not, surely we could replace the whole thing with just one part-time guy with a rubber stamp.

[Wayne]

I don't agree they have full rights, but i don't believe you can float a state company that uses state water,

The water is only used in the sence that it drives a generator. It is not used like irrigation does - it is still in the river for other 'users'.

[PC]

Taniwha would get a head ache going thru one of those turbine things...

[Glizzle]

The water is only used in the sence that it drives a generator. It is not used like irrigation does - it is still in the river for other 'users'.

You cant say that, once that company floats its no longer a state owned company, that means it has to generate a profit, if you don't put a boundary on what water and how they can and should be using it anything is possible. Your already seen council try and bottle the water and sell it too us its only a matter of time before its abused.

[Tan]

I think the Maori that are more than 50% Maori can have what they want

[cube]

From my immigrant layman's understanding, which is limited, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to address Maori grievances where "Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties" had been 'stolen' in contravention of the Treaty.

It does seem strange that, after the tribunal has been sitting for so long, that new claims seem to emerge on a regular basis, and don't seem to relate to possibly illegal requisition of Maori property but things (like use of water beyond fishing) about which the treaty does not seem to touch and other things (like the spectrum) that were not known about (so therefore could not be classed as a possession) at the time of the treaty.

Yet another case of a poorly drafted document causing confusion and heartache all round.

[Wayne]

You cant say that, once that company floats its no longer a state owned company, that means it has to generate a profit, if you don't put a boundary on what water and how they can and should be using it anything is possible. Your already seen council try and bottle the water and sell it too us its only a matter of time before its abused.

of course I can say that. The turbines don't 'use' the water in terms that it is no longer in the river. The power generators are already regulated what they can do with the water via the Resource Consen - they can't just suddenly decide to irrigate (for example) with it .

[Glizzle]

of course I can say that. The turbines don't 'use' the water in terms that it is no longer in the river.

What does it matter how or what the water is used for, the fact remains that they are using state water to run the turbines, that spring has to be maintain and the ecology impacts would not be viewed at all if turned from state to private.

The power generators are already regulated what they can do with the water via the Resource Consen - they can't just suddenly decide to irrigate (for example) with it .

Yes they can, as soon as it floats if the water is just regraded as the state they can change what they want when they want, hence the argument of making sure its under a jurisdiction that isn't aligned with the government. Its a can of worms especially when you take in foreign ownership and the fact that as some point in time those soe could go fully public which again we would have the issue of who owns that water, because clearly someone is making money off it.

[Wayne]

Sorry Glizzle but I don't understand your argument at all. Existing water rights have limitations set on them and changing a SOE from 100% state owned to 51% (or even 0%) doesn't change those rights. Someone is making money so maybe the trick is to charge the Generators for the water right and the state (all of us) can profit not just one small group.

There is a much wider issue of water rights - water is the new oil (or will be soon).

[partya]

I wonder how one would go in lodging a similar grievance claim on behalf of the descendants of Moas and Haast Eagles? Afterall, they were here before any Maori settlers. Or perhaps it can't be done because they were only dumb animals; hold on, so are Homo Sapiens.......................

[Glizzle]

Sorry Glizzle but I don't understand your argument at all.

I dont trust the government, i think that has been my biggest decision in not buying shares, if i cant trust them in running this country how can i trust them with a floated company.