Chris Trotter: A Strange Hill To Die On.

Curia Research recently conducted a poll in the Napier electorate. Bad news for Stuart Nash, the Labour incumbent, whose chances of holding the seat are currently fluctuating between slim and none. Bad news, too, for the Labour Government as a whole, because the issue of most concern to local voters, by a Hawke’s Bay country-mile, is Three Waters. Around a third of the voters polled put the controversial water project at the top of their list of concerns. That’s nearly twice as many as the next most pressing concern for Napier voters – the parlous state of our health system.

One has to go back a long way to find a government so willing to press on with a policy so roundly rejected by the electorate. It is more than thirty years since Richard Prebble, confronted with the evidence that close to 90 percent of New Zealanders opposed the sale of Telecom, responded with the observation that Kiwis should be proud to have a government with the guts to face down such a powerful pressure-group!

NZCPR Weekly: A Bombshell Decision

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

This week’s NZCPR newsletter is especially important – we analyse the bombshell High Court ruling on the first of 200 tribal claims for New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed and reveal that unless the judgement is appealed, the entire coastal area appears likely to fall under tribal control, our NZCPR Guest Commentator former Judge Anthony Willy outlines his deep concern about the ruling and the danger it represents to New Zealand’s common law, and our poll asks whether you believe the Churchman ruling should be appealed.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

NZCPR Weekly: Tribal Control of New Zealand's Coast

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

In this week’s newsletter we look into developments in the Marine and Coastal Area Act claims process that raise concerns that without intervention by the new Government, the coast may fall into tribal hands; our NZCPR Guest Commentator Hugh Barr calls on the new Government to clean up the foreshore and seabed shambles, and in this week’s poll we ask whether tribal claimants should be granted customary rights to areas that are regularly used by the public.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

NZCPR Weekly: Claims Tsunami Hits Foreshore and Seabed

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

This week we examine the foreshore and seabed claims debacle and outline how some tribal groups are planning on ‘taking’ dolphins, whales, penguins and seals, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Dr Hugh Barr explains the claims process and raises concerns about the public being denied access to the coast, and this week’s poll asks whether you think the foreshore and seabed should be returned to Crown ownership. And, if you oppose tribal claims to the coast, please consider signing our on-line petition in support of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed - HERE.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

Michael Coote: Treaty of Waitangi cargo cult

Like his predecessor in office Helen Clark, prime minister John Key is hoist with his own petard by sweeping Maori tribal claims to Crown assets. Ms Clark, it will be remembered, tried to face down Maori tribal claims to ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Her Labour-led  government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in order to reassert Crown ownership of our territorial waters and all below out to the twelve nautical mile limit. Her government’s legislation was its response to a Court of Appeal ruling of June 2003.

This ruling held that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to decide on Maori customary land title to the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds, extending to the limits of New Zealand's territorial sea, under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

Michael Coote: Race to the foreshore will drown a nation

Passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 into law on March 24 deserves a similar status of tragedy suffered by the general public as the Christchurch earthquake aftershock of February 22.

Christchurch’s disaster saw unforeseen loss of life and property, but the Act inflicted wilful self-destruction of the Crown’s rightful ownership of one of its greatest public possessions in the foreshore and seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit.

David Round: Customary rights claims lack validity

Canterbury University Lecturer in Law David Round believes the customary rights claims that underpin Chris Finlayson’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill have no validity in law. Here are his notes:

• Finlayson's basic claim is that the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act overrules 164 years of common law development. This is not so. It is completely untrue that the law of New Zealand recognised these customary rights for 164 years.

Mike Butler: Tikanga in wonderland

Was ACT MP Hilary Calvert racist in calling “tikanga” an “Alice in Wonderland” word, or was she accurately showing the problem in how the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill takes into account Maori rights? According to the NZPA report, Calvert said that "Tikanga is an 'Alice in Wonderland' word. It means whatever the Queen - I think it was the Red or White Queen - said it would mean, no more and no less."

The Coastal Area Bill defines the word “tikanga” as meaning Maori customary values and practices, but offers no indication of what these are in relation to the foreshore and seabed.

Frank Newman: Where's Winston?

Winston Peters should have been the strongest advocate against the government’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill. He has instead remained largely silent. Why?

While Peters has stayed silent the grassroots movement that is the Coastal Coalition has filled the cavity of silence. It has come from nowhere to gain widespread support and sufficient funding to conduct a high profile awareness campaign. Their success is clearly evident in that they are the major participant in the debate and commentary on the issue rarely goes by without them getting a mention. Meanwhile Peters has been a non-starter and despite their best efforts, ACT has failed to get traction, being largely an appendage to the debate rather than a primary player.

Mike Butler: Coastal bill two votes from oblivion

Attorney General Chris Finlayson claims that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill would provide a good outcome for all, but polarized views show that a miracle would be required for the troubled bill to bring a lasting solution to the foreshore and seabed issue. Finlayson’s detailed justification of his troubled bill was published in Saturday’s Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper. That paper’s letters section has run a lively debate on the issue, with letters from opposing viewpoints criticising the bill.

Bruce Bisset, who writes a weekly column in that newspaper under the title “Left Hook” argued, on January 10, that “if there’s one issue that threatens to divide the country this year it’s the marine and coastal area bill”.

Frank Newman: News flash! Foreshore and seabed protest march

TVNZ reports; “Anger over Maori claims on the seabed and foreshore has brought hundreds of people onto the streets of Nelson. The march was organised by the government's political ally United Future party which believes the issue could divide the country. Those involved said they fear becoming second class citizens if claims to the foreshore are successful.

“If we create rights for some New Zealanders and not others, then we start down a very sure and slippery slope to anarchy," says leader Peter Dunne.

That story was dated July 28, 2003, http://tvnz.co.nz/content/209059/2556418/article.html

Karl du Fresne: Thanks for setting it out so clearly, Tuku

In Friday’s Dominion Post, Tainui iwi chairman Tukoiroirangi "Underpants" Morgan obligingly provides all the reason anyone needs to be deeply suspicious of the foreshore and seabed legislation.

Commenting on the announcement that Labour had withdrawn its support for the government’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill, Morgan reiterated that the legislation still had Tainui’s backing.

Frank Newman: Foreshore and seabed hearings a farce - outcome predetermined

Saturday’s Dominion Post reports, “While some changes would be recommended to the [Coastal Area Bill] the bill reported back from the committee would be fundamentally the same, he [Te Ururoa Flavell] said.”

This is outrageous comment from the Maori Party Whip and member of the Maori Affairs Select Committee. How is it that Mr Flavell is able to state that outcome when the committee is still hearing submissions? It’s because Mr Flavell and the other voting members of the Select Committee have already made up their minds. It’s probably more accurate to say he has never changed his mind, despite the almost total opposition for the Bill.

Mike Butler: How can the troubled coastal area bill bring lasting peace on the foreshore?

Some Maori Party supporters claim the customary title criteria in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are too tough, the Human Rights Commission says the bill is discriminatory, and the Coastal Coalition claims customary title criteria are too easy. Why? A closer look reveals that the bill is worded in such a way that it can be interpreted as both tough and easy. The word “exclusive”, for instance, has been redefined to allow a wide range of other users, and “uninterrupted” allows interruptions. Even the word “tikanga”, or the Maori way of doing things, allows for evolution, so that tikanga in 2010 includes things unimagined in 1840.

Mike Butler: Disingenuous or dim?

Pressure from the Coastal Coalition seems to be having an effect on Tukituki MP Craig Foss, who, in his latest Backing the Bay newsletter, calls us to look at the “true facts” about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Anyone who uses the phrase “true facts” is probably in the habit of dealing with “false facts”, so his little bit of finger wagging about “misinformation being put about by people who should really know better” could well be applied to the National Party, the source of most misinformation on this issue.

Michael Coote: A Phoney War over the Foreshore and Seabed

The phoney war between the National Government and the racist Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed hotted up recently. A bogus screaming match erupted over whether the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill (MCA) should state explicitly that Joe and Jane Public were entitled to free access to the foreshore and seabed.

This was a mere smokescreen calculated to distract New Zealanders from what really should be worrying them about MCA.

Hugh Barr: National is appeasing Maori separatists on the foreshore and seabed

A recent article in the Sunday Star Times “Coastal legislation walks all over Maori” (17 October) promoted the Maori separatist view that the whole of the foreshore and seabed should be privatised to iwi customary title, together with full trespass rights, immediately without further proof. This would give iwi immediate effective ownership, including the right to charge for public access.

David Round: "Free" Beach Access - the Truth!

Just a brief note this week about public access under the government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The Attorney-General and Minister of Treaty Settlements, Mr Christopher Finlayson, has said on various occasions that it is ‘clear’ that public access will be allowed as of right, and free of charge, over any foreshore and seabed to which Maori might be granted ‘customary marine title’ under the bill. Now this is simply not the case, and if Mr Finlayson thinks that it is the case, then he is either dishonest or not as good a lawyer as he thinks he is. There are two issues here. One concerns wahi tapu areas ~ I shall deal with them in a second, but it is pretty clear that there, there will not be public access as of right. The second is a more general issue, dealing with all foreshore and seabed which becomes subject to ‘customary marine title’. Here it is certainly possible to interpret the bill so that there may be public access as of right, but (as the bill is drafted at present) it is by no means ‘clear’ that there is that public access. I shall explain. I should warn non-lawyers that this explanation may become ever so slightly technical. But don’t be nervous, it is all really perfectly simple, and I shall be with you holding your hand every step of the way.

Mike Butler: Unrepresentative democracy

Ninety one percent of respondents to a YahooXtra poll this weekend think that iwi should not have any customary title to beaches. The poll attracted 21,050 votes in two days, of which 19,211 were against granting customary title. It is interesting to see such overwhelming opposition when there has been little debate in the mainstream media over the National-led government’s purported solution to the foreshore and seabed issue.

David Round: Betrayed by National

I was arguing last week, you may recall, that the passage of National’s proposed foreshore and seabed legislation will mark the beginning of the end of our country. Towards the end of that column I made the point that the line we have been fed for the last twenty-five years, that after historic Treaty claims were settled we could all put the past behind us and get on with being New Zealanders, was a lie. Many of those claims, of course, were the repetition of earlier claims which had already been fully and finally settled at some past time, and clearly, also, despite these latest full and final settlements, the claims will be made again in future. But that aside, those claims and settlements were in fact but one stage in the continuing division of our country, a process of division in which National’s proposed foreshore and seabed legislation will mark a decisive and disastrous point. Let me remind you now of some of the other things that are going on, before I return to the foreshore and seabed.