Now they want to own the trees!!

**Phurrball** · 10th June 2006, 22:14

Originally Posted by idb

And while we're at it.....what has H.Clark's physical appearance got to do with how she governs the country?!

Aye, who said you had to be hot to govern? It's not like Don is a bastion of manliness and vigour [Think, the stock car PR photo op that went horribly wrong and the comb-over!]

(Though there's some pretty amusing humour around about Helen - no politician should be safe from clever satire!)

**bugjuice** · 10th June 2006, 22:17

has anyone claimed the Pukeko's and Tui's yet?
might get my bid in..

**Phurrball** · 10th June 2006, 22:20

Originally Posted by bugjuice

has anyone claimed the Pukeko's and Tui's yet?
might get my bid in..

Riding a motorcycle into one at great speed seems to have worked for a few KBers Buggy...failing that, Trademe is pretty good...! You've just gotta watch out that they don't claim you and your bike first. (I'm sure there's a splattered wildlife thread somewhere)

**Winston001** · 10th June 2006, 23:41

Thankyou Phurrball, rep to you.

Originally Posted by Phurrball

The Foreshore and Seabed Act was a kneejerk reaction in and of itself in response to the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa (Under that name in [2003] 3 NZLR 643 if you're interested

) which dared suggest that Maori might be entitled to a bit of foreshore and seabed themselves!

Exactly. The Court said Maori had an arguable case - that's all.

The Crown has underlying radicle title to all our land anyway, I don't see anyone bitching about that??

Yep. All land is held in a lesser estate than the King/Crown. Has to be for Parliament to have sovereignity.

The videogame example - I believe that the what was alleged here was more something held dear being used as a cheap, tacky form of iconography in a videogame, than a strict intellectual property issue.

I could go on, and on, but I wouldn't want any of you to choke on your coffee in outraged indignation...

Hows about actually getting out a few books, and learning something about tikanga? It's bloody interesting! You might just learn something and even be able to form a few *ahem* slightly more intellectually robust rebuttals of Maori claims that may be taken a little more seriously than the ignorant stereotypes portrayed in this thread!

I'm all for free expression, but don't kid yourselves into thinking you have any sort of defensible intellectual footholds! Or that you are in the majority, cos, maybe you aren't.

Labour are the democratically elected government. (not that they have anything to do with the treaty settlement process! Pretty sure that the Waitangi Tribunal was constituted under a national government in the 70's)

Just an example. There was a small, scenic lake in the North Island, owned by surrounding Maori land. The local council wanted it but Maori wouldn't sell. So the council put the rates up and eventually forced a rating sale - and guess who bought it? The council itself. This was a completely deliberate process.

We shouldn't be suprised when Maori talk about grievances.

**James Deuce** · 11th June 2006, 00:01

Originally Posted by Winston001

Just an example. There was a small, scenic lake in the North Island, owned by surrounding Maori land. The local council wanted it but Maori wouldn't sell. So the council put the rates up and eventually forced a rating sale - and guess who bought it? The council itself. This was a completely deliberate process.

We shouldn't be suprised when Maori talk about grievances.

That's not a race based practice. They do it to Farmers all the time. DOC also manipulate land titles to their advantage at the expense of land owners.

The suburb I live in is on land that has a Maori title in perpetuity. Our land is on a 99 year lease.

Too much emotion folks. Remove the emotion and you have a valid series of commercial options available that benefit both parties. Continue to argue from an emotive point of view and the grievance industry gets another PR point in its favour.