Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44136	2004-04-08 10:27:00	Off Topic: Foreshore and Seabed defined???	Terry Porritt (14)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
228096	2004-04-08 10:27:00	Now this is not intended to be a political debate, but amid all the talk over the months the term seabed has been merrily bandied about, but at no time as far as Im aware has it ever been defined. Correct me if I'm wrong. So do the politicians actually know what defines the limits of the seabed??? The foreshore is fairly defineable as that land between mean high tide and mean low tide, or something like that, but seabed??? I mean it stretches from here to, well as far as you like to go. Maybe as far as Maori customary rights are concerned it goes as far out from the low tide mark to where an average Maori skin diver could have dived to reach the bottom when collecting whatever they collected from the seabed????? Does anyone really know??	Terry Porritt (14)
228097	2004-04-08 10:48:00	The government's proposal was that: The landward boundary of the public domain title should be mean high water springs, subject to any areas where private title goes beyond that line; The landward boundaries concerning rivers will be defined by the coastal marine boundary as outlined in section 2 of the Resource Management Act; The seaward boundary will be defined to extend as far as New Zealand has territorial jurisdiction, in international law terms .	godfather (25)
228098	2004-04-08 11:13:00	You are well read Godfather, thanks :)	Terry Porritt (14)
228099	2004-04-10 03:19:00	The part of the sea which was "owned" by a country was the "continental shelf", wasn't it? Of course we haven't got a continent to have a shelf, but roughly the line was drawn where it suddenly becomes "the deep" (or you can't anchor a boat). Then "three miles , then "twelve miles", then "whatever we say, and we've got bigger gunboats than you have, noddy".	Graham L (2)
228100	2004-04-10 11:14:00	If memory serves me, the original limits were set by a cannon shot distance, which was (I think) 3 nautical miles. Now to be political which I said I wasnt going to be :) In 1840 the cannon shot rule would have been applied by the Crown as sovereignty had been conceded to the Crown by the majority of indigenous tribes by the terms of the Treaty. Prior to that, customary seabed rights could not conceivably have extended to 3 nautical miles as no Maori could have worked the seabed that far out. Subsequent extensions to territorial limits would have come about most probably under international law. I just cannot see how any group of individuals can claim any seabed rights beyond where they could have got unaided by external devices, unless they reject the Treaty and reclaim their sovereignty over the nation or part of the nation.	Terry Porritt (14)
228101	2004-04-10 21:52:00	Terry, Maori have never tried to claim ownership - that is a media saying which certainly sells more papers or gets more people watching the news. Maori want to retain their "management" rights which they have always had. The government wants to remove these rights to enable single ownership (government) with no 3rd party (maori managment rights) involvement. What does this and previous governments do best? Sell our assets is what. You do the maths.	falvrez (390)
228102	2004-04-11 00:19:00	Falvrez, I dont think I mentioned " Maori ownership", I said "customary rights" and useage, correct me if I cant read my own posts properly :), but I agree with you, if you can follow my tortuous ramblings below. It is quite legitimate and a "customary right"for The Crown and national governments of other countries to lay claim to ownership of their territorial waters. I also agree it is quite reasonable for indigenous peoples to have their customary rights respected. "Ownership" in the sense of written title obviously was not applicable to those who had no written language. In the final analysis, 'might is right' dominates, as witness what is now, and always has been happening in the world. I would also expect, but maybe it is expecting an awful lot, that most thinking non-Polynesian immigrants to this country should be able to understand the great sense of loss experienced by those whose land has been taken from them, and which has been altered beyond recognition. If one is cynical, the Treaty could be regarded as a big con trick to grab land and keep the Maori pacified until immigrant numbers built up sufficiently so that the traditional English might is right principal could be applied. The Celts felt this when the Romans settled Brittain, and the Romano-Celts also suffered the same loss when the "English" invaded their lands. I feel this too, as the England of today is no longer the England of my boyhood, when having resisted invasion for nearly 900 years, subsequent governments have allowed invasion by way of mass immigration of cultures alien to the English way of life. There is a gross arrogance by the English races which almost surpasses belief, and of which I'm a part by way of my genes :) Note I said "English", not British, there is a profound difference which the English have successfully disguised since the Act of Union 1707 when Great Britain was invented :) Thereafter in later years we had the "British Empire" when really it was the English Empire with the Anglo-Saxons doing their genetic conquering stuff. The only true British are obviously the indigeneous peoples who were there before the English, ie before the "Anglo-Saxons invaded. Britain is the name given by the Romans, and as I'vemore or less said, the English did not call themselves or think of themselves as British before 1707. What a long way I've rambled from the seabed!	Terry Porritt (14)
228103	2004-04-11 01:47:00	Good post Terry . I've wondered from time to time if we (being the vast majority) shouldn't just say to Maori - "Get over it" We've got a nice country, opportunities for all . Lets respect Maori for their culture, indeed revere and support it, but endless navel-gazing about rights to airwaves, natural gas, the sea-bed beyond 3 meters deep, seems such a distraction from real world issues . Like education . I think Alan Duff's Books in Homes idea is far more effective than much of the Treaty debate .	Winston001 (3612)
228104	2004-04-11 11:11:00	Maoris in New Zealand at the time of the signing of the treaty were more than happy that the English came in to stop the internecine bloodshed and senseless utu based warfare, also to keep out the French. Dutch and Germans who were sniffing round the Pacific then. Also they were eyeing the technology that was light years ahead of anything that they had. I`m sick of the guilt industry being fostered in this great country.	brewer (4389)
228105	2004-04-11 21:09:00	I wouldnt like to see this post degenerate into a slagging off Maori thingy, as it could easily do. What it started out as was to see how the seabed is defined, and how that definition squares up with customary rights. Defining what are customary rights is yet another issue that has to be mutually agreed in this debated though. The other way the thread developed in my inconsistent and poor way of marshalling thoughts was to try and illustrate that the genetic inheritance from the anglo-saxons, of conquest and arrogance and maybe intolerance, is still very much with us. They effectively destroyed the culture of the Celts and put Britain back into the dark ages. Whilst other nations also aspired to take over the world the "British Empire" driven by that same anglo-saxon drive was the most succesful. Indigenous peoples were subjugated, and the anglo-saxon arrogance expected these peoples to be grateful, and typically they were expected to be grateful (and still are expected to be) for not having been subjugated by the dreadful French or German etc, and should be joyful to come under British protection. Look, the Irish peoples were invaded by the Anglo-Normans a 1000 years ago, and the legacy of that is still apparent with the 'troubles' that have gone on ever since. It isnt asking too much to try to understand the deep and psychlogical sense of loss of destiny by indigenous peoples everywhere who have been subjugated, never mind that at times things seem a bit daft, especially to the arrogant anglo-saxon mind. As an aside, the mantle of anglo-saxon arrogance is plainly being manifested, and has been taken over by America. In effect the Americans are telling the Iraqis what is good for them, if necessary at the point of a gun, just like an unthinking dog owner trying to train his dog by beating it.	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4