RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Opo

Foreshore & Seabed

Recommended Posts

Auckland Region National Party MPs are holding a PUBLIC MEETING on the Marine & Coastal Area Bill.

The Attorney General Chris Finlayson will be available for questions.

This is an open meeting and anyone is welcome to attend.

THREE KINGS

7pm - 8.30pm, Thursday 3rd March 2011

The Hillsborough Room, Fickling Centre

546 Mt Albert Rd

Three Kings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For more information on this disastrous racist, separatist Bill.

Why Mr Key & Finlayson are pushing ahead with it when around 90% of submitters do not want it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 March 2011

Hon. Christopher Finlayson

Attorney-General New Zealand

Dear Chris,

As I told you as I left the meeting tonight. "You are trying to do a

good job. Please try to keep our country together."

Big problems with your bill. Please look up from the legal "fine

detail"? See the bigger problem? Codifying prejudice 151 years

later?

Please kill this bill yourself.

Thank you for coming to Three Kings tonight. You are a good man, just

making a bad mistake. We need to look forward as a unified

multicultural country, and accept that 151 years is long enough to

"correct wrongs".

Unintended consequences from continuing to cut "special deals" with

the Maoris. We are a "melting pot" now, please do not continue to

show bias to the multicultural society any more.

Equality is the big issue for me. Why do you persist with "special

status" for Maoris? As pointed out tonight by others, you are

treating Maori different than other Kiwis here for 6, 7 and even 8

generations? Why?

151 years is a long time? Let it go. Never correct all the wrongs of

the past. Your best intentions are hurting cohesion of our

multicultural country.

Waters travel downstream, and never shall things be the same again.

Don't let much more time go by before living up to the National Party

Pledges:

1. ONE LAW FOR ALL.

2. SPEEDY FULL FINAL TREATY SETTLEMENT. Date certain: 2014.

Your attempts to go back and litigate was effectively mitigated

tonight. Impractical to go back to 1840. Solicitors can busy

themselves with 21st century matters? Please look up from the fine

detail and realize your folly? You are big enough to admit when you

are proven wrong? I believe you are.

I am sending this email to all of National Party. I am on your side.

Stop this bill now. Stop the bias forever.

Kind regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of National's Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is clear. It's to surrender Crown (meaning your) ownership of our beaches and seas, to make them easier for iwi to claim.

Iwi won't even have to go to Court to claim these riches - The deals will be done with politicians. And you'll have no right of appeal.

Once awarded title, the favoured iwi will control vast reserves of mineral wealth and all future development of a massive marine treasure chest.

(This is not about mana. It's about money.)

If you do nothing, any day now your country will be well on the way to becoming Apartheid Aotearoa, courtesy of the National Party.

Key Questions and Concerns

1 What's at stake? Control of 100,000 square kilometres of foreshore and seabed - everything out to 22km, all the airspace above that, the sea and most of the minerals below.

2. How big an area is that? More than one-third of the land area of New Zealand.

3. What's it worth? Government departments value our ironsands alone at $1 trillion. Our seabed minerals include titanium and rare earths. Then there's all future aquaculture. So it's many billions.

4. But why shouldn't iwi get a share of it? They already do, as equal Ney Zealand citizens. Proceeds from our Crown jewels' should be used to buy medicines and education for all Kiwis, not just make the part-Maori tribal aristocracy richer.

5. Who owns the foreshore and seabed now? We all do - and have since 1840.

6. Did we have a 22km limit in 1840? No. Back then the limit was only 5.5km (3 nautical miles). It didn't become 22km (12 nautical miles) until 1977.

7. So even if iwi had owned the seabed from 1840, Key is giving them four times that? Well-spotted.

8. Have Maori always thought they owned it? No. They must have agreed it was owned by the Crown. Otherwise iwi would have included the foreshore and seabed in Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. None did.

9. Why do iwi think they own it now? Because activist judges in 2003 said they might have a chance.

10. Was that why Helen Clark reaffirmed Crown ownership? Yes. She secured the coastline for all Kiwis, not just coastline iwi.

11. And John Key wants to surrender Crown ownership? Yes. He wants no- one to own the foreshore and seabed.

12. Why does he want no-one to own it? So we'll all he powerless to object when iwi claim it (since we've just given it away!).

13. Why is he so keen for iwi to get it? To appease his Maori Party allies and their clients the tribal aristocrats - who, as always, will pocket most of the money.

14. How else is he making it easier for iwi to claim the coast? He's radically lowered the qualifying bar, so the floodgates will open.

15. How has he lowered the bar? Under the present law, only iwi who own land next to the foreshore and seabed can make a claim for title. But John Key is waiving that requirement.

16. Don't iwi have to test their claims in Court? They do under the present law. But Key is waiving that requirement too.

17. Why doesn't Key want iwi to go to Court? Because he knows that in an open court most of them won't win.

18. So where will iwi have to prove their claims now? In Chris Finlayson's office. Non-iwi Kiwis will he shut out of this secret 'negotiation. It will then be rubber stamped in Parliament.

19. But wasn't Finlayson Ngai Tahu's lawyer? Yes. And now he's both the Minister for Treaty Settlements and the Attorney-General who approves those settlements!

20. What do iwi want? Customary title to the whole foreshore and seabed. (For starters.)

21. And what is customary title? Effectively it's privatising the coast to Iwi

22. What rights will customary title give iwi? The right to by-pass the Resource Management Act and veto and extract payment for everything that happens on their stretch of coast. The right to develop the area and mine its mineral wealth. The right to all new aquaculture developments.

The right to impose iwi resource plans on central and local government.

23. What sort of activities could iwi charge for? Just about everything, from boat ramps, moorings, wharves, marinas to aquaculture, mining, oilwell, tourism, pipelines and cables.

24. Will iwi get any other kind of title? Yes. Mana tuku iho (universal recognition) will be given to all coastal iwi and cover the whole foreshore and seabed.

25. What rights will mana tuku iho give iwi? The right to priority treatment by the Department of Conservation in such matters as marine reserves, whale- watching and ferry concessions.

26. What sort of activities could iwi charge for? Just about everything, from boat ramps, moorings, wharves and marinas to aquaculture, mining, oilwells, tourism, pipelines and cables.

27. Are we still guaranteed free access to the beach and sea? We don't know! The current 'free access' clause was dropped from the Bill and Finlayson says he will reinstate it. But that was six months ago and he still hasn't shown us the wording!

28. Can iwi deny beach access? Yes. The bill says iwi can bar you from any area the iwi says is wahi tapu (sacred). Maori wardens can fine you up to $5000 for going there.

29. Would iwi really do that? It happens now on beaches they don't even own.

30. Can we challenge a wahi tapu we think isn't fair? No. Iwi have sole rights to decide what is sacred. You have no right to object.

31. How much foreshore and seabed will iwi get customary title to? Finlayson says 2000km of coastline. Maori MPs say much more. Key says "no one really knows" - scary.

32. Will this satisfy iwi desires? No. Any iwi victory just spawns more claims. The Maori Party say they won't stop until the whole of our 200-mile economic zone is in Maori title.

33. Why did the Maori Affairs Select Committee hear submissions on this Bill when in 2004, Helen Clark thought the issue was of such importance to all New Zealanders that she established a

special independent Select Committee of Parliament to deal with it? Good question!

34. What mandate does John Key have to surrender our coast? None at all. His mandate was to abolish the Maori seats, not champion Maori sovereignty. It's a massive betrayal.

What else

Our current established legal process is overturned and a new one created for iwi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Finlayson will take no comfort from the Three Kings meeting last night. He faced hostile questions from the beginning. At least 90% of the audience was supporting the Coastal Coalition.

He began with a history of the legislation but only... started in 2003, leaving out the long settled history of Crown ownership before that. He raised the 12000 existing titles to foreshore and seabed red herring. When I asked him how many of these went below the average high tide mark, he said lots. I had to say How many twice more to get him to say around 200. According to LINZ there are less than 50. He then ignored me and I was unable to ask another question all evening.

He seemed to indicate that the wording "without charge" would be added to the Bill but refused to say why this only applies to "every individual" and not to groups. He tried to invoke the sanctity of property rights, comparing our beaches to a chair or a table. It's a pretty funny chair or table which can be lost for 150 years and then your try and reclaim it on the basis it belonged to your great great grandfather. And of course no mention of the fact that when beaches and seabeds became Crown property in the nineteenth century every person (Maori and some Pakeha) who lost some local rights gained a share in the foreshores and seabeds of the whole country. Any descendent getting special rights to some particular part of the country under this Bill now should lose their rights as members of the public to the remaining publicly owned beaches and seabeds, shouldn't they?

It was not reassuring to hear the minister state that Thorndon Quay should be safe but all the Eastern Bay of Plenty could go to Te Whanau a Apanui and Taranaki to the iwi there. Will the beachside baches at Te Kaha mean that a small sliver of beach remains in Crown ownership? Nor was it reassuring to hear the Minister contradict himself on how far out customary title might extend, admitting that in the Sealord settlement and the Kaikoura whale watching case a "right of development" had been found to exist.

Nor was it reassuring to hear him admit that iwi could put in claims to hundreds of kilometres of coast and the onus was on the Government to prove that "exclusive possession" had been substantially interrupted.

Once the principle of private title has been conceded owners of customary titles will naturally ask "how come we own this and we can't get any benefit from owning it" Future governments will concede more and more until there is nothing let.

One final question left the Minister hurrying off without any answer to cries of Shame - "Can you say your Coastal and Marine Bill will be any better drafted than the Auckland City Council Bill which has given unelected, unrepresentative advisory board members votes on every Council subcommittee without any one of seven councils noticing what it was going to mean."

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugh Barr: Bill means public pays twice for Maori customary rights

5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 8, 2011

*

There are so many untruths about National's Marine and Coastal Area Bill that the public is right to distrust it. The bill claims to address the uncertain issue of Maori customary rights in 1840, something that nobody alive today has any direct knowledge of.

In 2003 the Court of Appeal's Ngati Apa decision said that Maori customary title to the foreshore and seabed might exist.

The most important customary marine right is over customary food-gathering places, which are important for survival.

Maori customary rights for marine food gathering are already recognised in legislation. These include Stewart Island harvesting rights for muttonbirds, the 1993 Sealord's commercial fishing agreement, which gave iwi 20 per cent of the commercial quota, and the 2004 Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Act that set aside 20 per cent of aquaculture sites for Maori.

There are also provisions in the Fisheries Act for exclusive customary fishing areas (mataitai).

Why is the National Government asking non-iwi Kiwis to pay again for customary rights to fisheries and other rights that are not customary, in this bill?

Were there any other marine customary rights in 1840?

*

Probably not. Certainly not mining, building marinas, aquaculture or so on that National proposes to include for the benefit of corporate iwi.

Before 1840, anarchy reigned over much of the country. In 1836 a war raged in the Bay of Plenty between Ngati Haua (Matamata) and Te Arawa (Bay of Plenty). Ngati Haua sought revenge for the killing of one of their chiefs.

Missionary records show many hundreds were killed in these battles. There was no Maori nation and no police force to stop the incessant wars. Only after 1840 was law and order established.

National's bill evades questions of proof of customary activity by setting up an artificial framework and rules for privatising part or all of the 100,000sq km of the foreshore and seabed (equivalent to 35 per cent of New Zealand's dry-land area) solely to Maori groups.

Since 1840 the foreshore and seabed have been Crown-owned - owned by all New Zealanders. So this bill introduces iwi seabed privatisation on a potentially grand scale.

The only marine areas which pre-1840 tribes would have visited regularly were good fishing spots including shellfish beds.

These can already be protected for customary use as mataitai under the Fisheries Act. They do not need this marine bill.

Deciding in the High Court whether the bill's conditions have been met will be difficult because of lack of verifiable evidence of which areas were actually used, especially at about 1840.

Evidence will be even more uncertain with wahi tapu areas, from which the public will be prohibited and can be fined up to $5000.

These will be defined solely by the applicants and "custom" (tikanga). This highlights the unverifiable, and so unacceptable, nature of this bill.

The bill will allow iwi to bypass the High Court and have agreements decided in secret to be passed in Parliament. The Maori affairs select committee made no changes in spite of overwhelming public opposition.

Guaranteeing free public access is a major issue. The 2004 act provides this.

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson dropped this guarantee in his bill but now says he will add it back in.

However, after six months, he has not provided his wording. So we still don't know. Free access cannot be guaranteed unless wahi tapu are prohibited. National is not considering this.

The controversial part of the 2003 Ngati Apa decision was that foreshore and seabed (wet land) was legally the same as dry land, out to the deepest part of the ocean.

Yet Maori land ownership customs show they are quite different. Dry land required fires of occupation, "ahi kaa", to be kept burning - not possible on the foreshore and seabed. So Maori ownership of it cannot exist in the traditional way it does for land.

National's bill sets up major exploitation privileges for Maori tribes who qualify, and waives significant laws applying to the rest of us such as parts of the Resource Management Act. This is an apartheid system masquerading as customary property rights.

Labour's 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act re-asserted Crown ownership, nullifying the Court of Appeal's 2003 decision. By doing this, Labour averted Maori apartheid on the foreshore and seabed.

Now National wants to introduce it.

In early 2008, National worked secretly with the Maori party on repealing the 2004 act but did not tell the public.

A week after the 2008 election, National signed an agreement with the Maori Party to review and repeal the 2004 act.

In April last year, National's coastal privatisation proposal went out for public consultation. This was rushed through so as to minimise opposing submissions. Yet 77 per cent opposed repealing the 2004 act and 92 per cent opposed privatising the coasts to Maori.

This bill will be a massive fraud against the public, as customary fishing rights have already been compensated for.

John Key has said he would drop it if there was not widespread support. He should honour his word.

Dr Hugh Barr is a spokesman for the Coastal Coalition

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10710761

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marine and Coastal Area Bill

Should the above Bill become law,I suggest you immediately start planning to build a large number of new prisons.

These will be needed to house the people who will refuse to accept being banned from beaches on "cultural" grounds''.

This is supposed to be a free and secular country, and to expect the non Maori population to be bound by ancient Maori customs is akin to forcing a religion on the rest of the country, and putting us all back in the Stone Age.

Way back in antiquity, my ancestors may well have been Druids, who sacrificed human beings to various Gods and buried slaves alive under the king posts of new dwelling etc.

However, over the years we have grown up, and no longer believe in these things, so find it particularly abhorrent to be forced to accept another cultures stone age beliefs.

I can understand the Maori People being proud of their history and traditions, and endeavoring to keep them alive, but to the many other races who have arrived in this country over the years [just as the Maoris did before them] these beliefs are nothing more than fairy stories,and cannot be allowed to control our lives.

Should this ill conceived bill become law it has the potential to make new Zealand a laughing stock on the world stage.

If 500 or a thousand old age pensioners turn up at a beach and flout Maori rule,

then refuse to pay the fine [just as the boy Racers do] are you then going to put us all in Prison [where no doubt some of them would be more comfortable and better cared for than they are on the pension !!!]

Yours sincerely,

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coastal Coalition's campaign has probably done more to ensure the passing of this bill than all the jockeying of the Maori Party, National and United Future combined.

While I agree that the bill has minority support and can't see it lasting long once the composition of parliament changes in the future (irrespective of whether the govt changes or not), I believe it will change again.

It is not a lasting solution, undermines the existing compromise and is so confused that every diametrically opposed group affected claims they are hard done by. They cannot all be right.

Despite the claims of the Coastal Coalition the bill actually undermines and makes harder the test for iwi on customary rights etc, raises the bar so that while we have the illusion of going to the courts to establish rights etc the tests are so much higher than before and iwi will long term not be better off.

At the same time the common ownership in a recognised form that everyone understood, whether we agreed with it or not has been replaced by something far more nebulous.

It's a law that will satisfy virtually no one and continue rather than start to resolve the issues.

The Coastal Coalition campaign has been negative in it's attitude towards customary rights and the compromises contained in the current law to the extent that it has solidified support from the likes of Peter Dunne who announced in the first reading that the representations from the coalition were downright racist and confirmed his commitment to the bill not undermined it.

By associating itself purely with the ACT arguments in opposition to the bill and making exaggerated claims regarding customary rights and ownership issues they have alienated potential support from other groups opposed to it for different reasons and played into the hands of the bills supporters.

The bulk of the opposition to the bill would not be based purely on the arguments of the coastal coalition and some would oppose both the bill and some of the outlandish claims being made by them. All they have really done is helped cement in place the current Nats and UF support. A genuine coastal coalition would have included the opposition to the bill from other quarters such as the Labour Party, Greens, elements of the Maori Party and some Nats who may not support the bill but oppose it for different reasons to just those espoused by the coastal coalition. The Coastal Coalition has in effect been a front organisation for Muriel Newman and the ACT Party to revive their flagging fortunes and as such was never really going to rally the broad church of opposition to the bill.

However having said that I believe that the bill when passed is doomed to a short life once the makeup of Parliament changes with subsequent elections and will fail to provide a better solution than the current law does. Perhaps the best option with hindsight may have been to let the courts resolve the matter from the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philocon, are you for real? The Coastal Coalition formed back in May 2010, where were ACT, Labour,Greens then?

It was not until they saw the support that the CC were getting from disgruntled members of all parties (in particular National), that ACT then Labour grew the balls to take a stance. So how can the CC have aligned itself with ACT? One wonders if it was not for the CC would ACT or Labour come out against the Bill?

I personally would not take to much notice of any put downs flip flop Dunne has for the CC.

The CC has no affiliation to any political party, and Muriel Newman has said herself when approached by ACT to put some of their advertising on the CC website "we must stay fiercely independent" of all political parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an afterthought this M&CA Bill would be law now if it was not for the CC doing a huge newspaper ad campaign, along with a huge email the MPs campaign, it forced National to pull back from rushing the Bill thru under "Urgency" a few weeks back before the devastating Christchurch earthquake.

Philocon, where do you think the hundreds of thousands of $ came from, for large Billboards thruout NZ, newspaper ads in many major daily newspapers.

CC is funded solely by donations from concerned Kiwis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philocon, are you for real? The Coastal Coalition formed back in May 2010, where were ACT, Labour,Greens then?

It was not until they saw the support that the CC were getting from disgruntled members of all parties (in particular National), that ACT then Labour grew the balls to take a stance. So how can the CC have aligned itself with ACT? One wonders if it was not for the CC would ACT or Labour come out against the Bill?

I personally would not take to much notice of any put downs flip flop Dunne has for the CC.

The CC has no affiliation to any political party, and Muriel Newman has said herself when approached by ACT to put some of their advertising on the CC website "we must stay fiercely independent" of all political parties.

The bill was opposed by all the parties currently opposed to it in parliament from the outset. The only change was that Hone Harawira eventually was unable to mute his opposition to it in the interests of Maori Party unity. For the CC to try and claim credit for pushing Labour, The Greens, The Progressives as well as ACT into opposing the bill is pretty extravagant. The bill was always only going to have a few seats majority at best.

Whether the CC has affiliation to any party or not is irrelevant. Of course they wouldn't formally and tactically. In that Muriel Newman is right. Openly linking to ACT or anyone else would not be helpful. But the positions for the oppositions from the CC match very much those of ACT and you expect us to believe it is pure coincidence and that the leading figures supporting the CC include ACT figures including Newman.

Like ACT and the CC I oppose the bill along with many others but not for the reasons they advocate.

Much and all as I have never had much time for Dunne's positions on things (even though I have got on well with him personally when I have had to work or deal with him), he does have a point in what he said. The attitude the CC adopted opposing the bill was exaggerated, alarmist and unwarranted and their position if carried through would prevent a workable compromise being reached also and gave the likes of Dunne a chance to paint opposition to the bill as bigoted, illiberal and racist.

We might all oppose the bill including half of the Maori Party but we are far from united on the reasons or what to replace it with.

The worry is that all the bill will achieve is an extreme reaction that will see an equally unworkable alternative instead of a sensible compromise like the 2007 Act.

Realistically whether they like it or not iwi are not likely to gain (or they would say regain) ownership of the foreshore and seabed and realistically whether ACT and the CC like it or not customary title is something we have to recognise and make provision for along with public access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an afterthought this M&CA Bill would be law now if it was not for the CC doing a huge newspaper ad campaign, along with a huge email the MPs campaign, it forced National to pull back from rushing the Bill thru under "Urgency" a few weeks back before the devastating Christchurch earthquake.

Philocon, where do you think the hundreds of thousands of $ came from, for large Billboards thruout NZ, newspaper ads in many major daily newspapers.

CC is funded solely by donations from concerned Kiwis.

It was not the CC but the opposition parties and one other MP that prevented the bill going through under urgency, along with the split in the Maori Party with Hone Harawira's open defiance etc.

I never challenged the source of funding or that it was not from concerned kiwis.

The select committee process and the final draft showed that the govt parties supporting the bill were ignoring the thousands of submissions made against it and they likewise ignored the email campaign. Dunne and other govt members speaking in the first reading as good as said that yesterday. Dunne in fact said he ignored the many hundreds of emails he received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Despite the claims of the Coastal Coalition the bill actually undermines and makes harder the test for iwi on customary rights etc, raises the bar so that while we have the illusion of going to the courts to establish rights etc the tests are so much higher than before and iwi will long term not be better off.'

Perhaps you had better read the link below even the Maori Party agrees with the CC.

http://www.nzcpr.com/maoripartypaper_lr.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Bill

*

Thank you for your email about the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

*

National is ramming through the Marine and Coastal Area Bill in the hope it passes before the Maori Party implodes. It has blocked MPs on a select committee from accessing legal advice about what the Bill will do, which is an absolute disgrace in terms of democratic process. In doing so, National is ignoring the opinions of thousands of New Zealanders who made submissions, many opposing the legislation.

*

New Zealanders want some finality on this issue and an enduring solution.* Given the comments of the Maori Party, the Government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Despite the claims of the Coastal Coalition the bill actually undermines and makes harder the test for iwi on customary rights etc, raises the bar so that while we have the illusion of going to the courts to establish rights etc the tests are so much higher than before and iwi will long term not be better off.'

Perhaps you had better read the link below even the Maori Party agrees with the CC.

http://www.nzcpr.com/maoripartypaper_lr.pdf

Now there's another impartial source for us. Wow where do you find these groups that don't have a vested interest in confirming your position for you?!

Of course the Maori Party are going to agree with you. They like you have a vested interest in maximising the effect of the legislation.

Difference is they are trying to impress their supporters that they have delivered on their election pledge and possibly got more than that for them, while the CC at the other end of the spectrum has a similar vested interest but designed to panic and alarm their's. So ironically you both end up sharing the same goal for diametrically opposed reasons and to achieve diametrically opposed results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for you Philocon,

Massive Betrayal

Please read the flyer then help send it viral by sending on to all of your email contacts.

http://www.nzcpr.com/MassiveBetrayalFlier.pdf

Wow, just for me. Gee shucks I don't know what to say. Someone went to all that trouble just to write that exclusively for me?

Well no I better not pass it on because that would be rude and insulting to the person who went to all that trouble and hard work to produce it specially for me. He/she might get upset if they found I'd given it to someone else. Bit like those horrible unwanted socks and the like that well meaning people give you at Christmas - so I'll just quietly misplace it and forget about it, like I do with them.

Also if it's viral or about to become so then it would be irresponsible of me to be openly and deliberately spreading computer viruses across the internet. There's actually laws against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.