Storm over the port

We're never going to get those pseudonyms sorted out, are we? You can comment on this blog using an entirely fictitious name, you know... it would help to keep track of whose "potty mouth" (as one anonymous accused another) is abusing who.

One of the throng of anonymii opined, on the Port legislation:

The most obvious explanation is that they haven't got 'round to changing it yet, but I note that the Harbour has been treated separately and specially in NZ law for some time now. Perhaps there's an unresolved Treaty claim in the mix?

Indeed. In addition to Wai 167, which was heard back in 1993 and concluded:

"...the Authority of the Atihaunui in the Whanganui River should be recognised in appropriate legislation. It should include recognition of the Atihaunui right of ownership of the Whanganui River, as an entity, and as a resource, without reference to the English legal conception of river ownership in terms of riverbeds.

There is also the current Whanganui Lands Inquiry (Wai 903), expected to commence hearing this time next year, which "encompasses over 50 claims covering an area stretching from the mouth of the Whanganui River to just north of Taumarunui".

The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board are explicit in seeking to negotiate Te Ara Putea (commercial use) of the river, which presumably includes port development (perhaps a Atihaunui kaumatua may be kind enough to post a comment or email lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com and confirm this?), yet seem to be left to one side in the present squabble.

In any case, put this in to the mix with questions over the statutory authority over the Port and you have an potentially messy and expensive bout of litigation just waiting to happen.

While another of the anonymii suggests:

"...I'd say that they simply extrapolated the renamed districts after the local govt reorganisation of the late 1980s... Whether its called a standing committee or specialist doesn't matter - the point is that it has the power to administer the resources at the Port."

We respectfully beg to differ. Any good constitutional lawyer, like say Geoffrey Palmer or Mai Chen,could spend months in the High Court putting up a very good argument that the standing committee (or specialist committee) simply didn't exist.

An expensive proposition for the Diva and his Council to refute, meaning caution would seem to be in order. But alas, according to the Chron:

Mayor Michael Laws... said it was time for council to take a hands on approach to managing the port and he didn’t see PoW as part of that... PoW issued a statement at the news, saying council appeared to be stealing the project. “Upon realizing the viability of the proposed development and that Westgate (Port of Taranaki) was interested from an investors perspective, council chief executive Colin Whitlock and Michael Laws set about appropriating the project.”

That comes on top of refusing to meet with PoW. Now, regardless of whether any of the ideas being mooted are worth considering, given the somewhat uncertain nature of the legislation underlying all this (coupled with the possibility of expensive litigation anyway, if someone's pet project gets knocked back) one would would hope the Mayor would tread carefully, mindful of the fact that if we're too broke to mend potholes the last thing we want to do is waste money on unnecessary legal squabbles.

This is surely a time for calm, care, consultation and co-operation between the parties, and the aforementioned caution. Yet with the Diva in the middle of it, only one "c" word can result: conflict.

Comments on this post are now closed.