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

Monday, March 14, 2011

What's SOP?

So many amendments lodged last week:

There's another one lodged since then too.

The meta test, the terra nullius evocation of sec.32 (4)of the FSA 2004 that excludes only navigation as a means of Maori title extinguishment is now the new sec. 61 2A and merely adds fishing to navigation as a way in which someone (and in reality Pakeha) cannot have extinguished Maori rights.
If it was consistent it would also include access and recreation as precluded too, but if it was fair it would be gone altogether and the Crown would have to prove full and exclusive use and occupation by somone other than that Maori applicant group in order to prove it extinguished. Furthermore I would also add that the use and occupation must be authorised - or at least not unlawful - as well, so that Pakeha squatting will finally be declared explicitly illegal (or even deemed never to have been common law in NZ) [I've found sec.25 does this by excluding adverse possession and prescriptive title]. This is how you start to unwind the confiscation laws of the NZ government.

Act's rather pathetic contribution based on the assumption someone might charge someone else for going about in the marine area:
It doesn't add anything. Indeed, it's not just superfluous it may structurally detract from human rights legislation (in my opinion) because if you read legislation and it does not say what Act have added "every individual has without charge the following rights" then are we to now assume these rights can be charged? It opens up a question we never needed an answer to. Yet Finlayson has put this in for the Act party... who are opposed to the bill and will vote against it. The Maori Party who are suicidally committed to support the bill seemingly have achieved no similar drafting concessions from Finlayson (beyond the main elements originally mooted).

At this point it may still be possible to split the bill, as I have always advocated. If so two very stripped down and succinct bills could be passed in succession in order to pre-empt the main bill. John Boscowen should be put in charge of the Takutai Moana (Public Access, Navigation, Fishing and Recreation) Bill that repeals those parts of the FSA 2004 and replaces and amplifies them and keeps the doors of the court open for Maori, Sharples or Tariana in charge of the Takutai Moana (Crown Title Limitations) Bill that determines the extent of Crown claims and therefore also the possible extent of Maori claims and repeals a few sections relating to that in the FSA 2004, leaving the rump Takutai Moana (Marine and Coastal Area) Bill still in Finlayson's hands, but now having to be interpreted in terms of the two bills before it.


Post a Comment

<< Home