I also doubt that major newspapers aren’t being intentionally racially biased

Heh. I, too, doubt that they aren’t 🙂

Thanks for your post – a deeper and more formal look at the underlying motives of the action, rather than how the action was rendered. And in the comments an interesting set of questions about the nature of different titles – I assume fee simple or a common understanding of what it is to `own’ a resource, and while I believe the rights I ascribed in my post are necessarily included in that title (otherwise, what economic value would the title have?) it’s useful to consider the margins of those rights.

L

I don’t think so. First, the iwi own the river (or the relevant part of it) in fee simple so they do privately own it. In this case the idea of customary title is irrelevant.

Secondly, while the CA’s decision allowed that there may be customary title over foreshore and seabed, that is far from a title in fee. Any current private or public ownership of the land that could be established would preclude the claim of customary title.

Finally, I am not sure that having customary title would allow the iwi to charge people for the right to take fish from the land, or even whether it would allow them to exclude others from the land. Perhaps someone better versed in the nature of customary title in New Zealand could help out here? I’m sure Richard Boast’s written something on the topic but I don’t have time to look it up now, sorry.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

You sure you can’t see why? Or are you just deliberately stearing clear of the politics?