- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Anderton pledges: Pakeha land owners to be consulted "as long as is needed"

More bad news that rural land owners will be forced by the government to let the public through their land to follow waterways. Of course because most of these land owners are of the white persuasion the process consists of many rounds of consultation and only mild statements about what might be attempted to get access to some watercourses. But a government hell-bent on Helen Clark's right to tramp over private land - backed by the bureaucracy and the greedy fish and game guides who stand to make a fortune from paying tourists - our nation's farmers may yet get a taste of the Crown's assertion of domain.

The really bad news is that our favourite geriatric Christian fuckwit, Jim Anderton, is now the Agriculture Minister (a real job instead of doling out money to his dodgy mates and their dodgy businesses as the Minister for Lolly ScramblesRegional Development) and amongst his idiotic analysis of the issue he says:

"Farmers say there's access now, you only have to ask. Maori say the same about the foreshore. But what if someone says, `No, it's my land, stay off it'?... Most farmers are reasonable, but what if someone is unreasonable? Could that catch on and more people get unreasonable?"

What if the government isn't reasonable, Jim? Has happened before you know - maybe even one of it's defining characteristics. The only reason people would start acting like that is if the government applied the same Sec. 32 Foreshore & Seabed Act provisions they forced on Maori onto other land owners, ie. If the public had used a route over private land at any point in the past then the presumption is it is now Crown land. I don't for one split second think the government would ever actually substantively do that because they are just as racist as any colonial government was and it is only Maori property that is second class, but the logic remains.

That logic means the farmers will block off access to prove that the public don't have that route and therefore the Crown has not acquired the extinguishment of their land rights via public use over their land. In the same way the F&S Act created a fictional past whereby to have any rights after the Act Maori would of had to have fenced off and physically kept the public out before the Act. So it follows that farmers should keep them out now or risk losing their property to any future Act consistent with the F&S Act. A non-racist reading of the F&S Act would be the spur to the sort of exclusions of which Anderton raises - and it could be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

From the news again:
The Government first tackled the issue three years ago, setting up an inquiry led by South Island farmer John Acland. After hearing 1050 submissions, the Acland committee found widespread support for broader access and Mr Sutton promised legislation. - I've met Mr. Acland only once before and I hesitate to say whether the ugly innuendo of in-breeding and daftness is applicable to all Cantabrian landed gentry but I will say this: the committee he chaired must of been ear-bashed by every bloody right-to-roam nutter, wannabe fishing guide and townie hiker because the recommendations were solidly anti-land owner.

And just to prove Anderton and the bureaucracy have already prejudged the outcome that they want Acland has apparently been re-appointed to do it all again:
He was assembling a group that would represent "all the interests you could possibly imagine" under Mr Acland's chairmanship. Anyone who wanted to be heard would be. "They don't have a time frame, they just have to consult, think about it and see what they can come up with. It will take as long as is needed." - Ahhhhh what a laugh. Why didn't Maori get that treatment? I wasn't heard at the F&S hearings - they cut it short in Auckland because they didn't like what they were hearing! But with public access across Pakeha land it isn't a priority?! With Acland on the job we already know what the outcome will be anyway.

All public access issues can be dealt with by local councils on a case by case basis as it is now. Who are the people behind this push to legislate? I suspect it is the fish and game lobby who want the right to go, for free, wherever they please, taking their $500 a day American tourists with them.

2 Comments:

At 2/11/05 10:44 pm, Blogger sagenz said...

why do you have a problem with rights of way. the english have a wonderful network of paths intelocking across public & private land. white or maori is not relevant. If people walk in an area or along a waterway why shouldnt that remain open to unfettered public access.

 
At 3/11/05 12:02 am, Blogger t selwyn said...

Sagenz: "If people walk in an area or along a waterway why shouldnt that remain open to unfettered public access." - Here some questions for you:
Why are the people walking there in the first place?
Where did they come from and why are they walking there?

We are not talking about routes of Crown land etc. we are talking about private land PRIVATE land, the land that is not public. There is no issue about "remaining" open it is not unfettered to begin with. Those people who let it be known or erect a sign or something that says "Hey every member of the public please continue to walk through my land in an unfettered way" is zero surely - can you find an example - and if you can then there isn't a problem is there?

Begin anything with "The english have..." and I'm supposed to take it seriously? I'll help you say it properly: "The english have it so we should too, whether white or Maori we should be like england" - That's what you mean and you are wrong. Trying to impose the English system on us is wrong. Local councils can cough up for public access if there is a local demand - across the board rules whereby property rights are eroded without compensation or negotiation is wrong.

The current idea in government thinking (to use a contradiction in terms) is a 5m public access strip down both sides of a permanent water course more than 3m wide with no dwelling to be within 50m of the strip. Now does that mean that a property owner should move their house or build a granny flat within 50m so they strip does not apply? Does it mean that once the strip is in the property owner can't build within 50m? What if the property owners narrow the watercourse to less than 3m? Does everything upstream not have the strip? Even if it widens out to more than 3m? Does the strip still run up to anywhere where it gets to 3m? What if it gets damned once a year to stop it being permanent? The whole thing is ridiculous. 50m is not that far away - it's about the length of the longest part of a rectangular quarter acre section - meaning that suburban homes will largely escape the strip while rural will not.

Those kids climbing in the trees at the edge of your property should not constitute the establishment of a public right of way. Having said all that and knowing full well you don't care about rural land owners as a class and that everything in connection with your personal preferences should be nationalised etc. I'm sure Our Glorious Leader is exactly on your wavelength.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home