The Coastal Coalition
August 18th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
The Government is about to be hit by an advertising campaign modelled on the iwi/Kiwi National Party billboards that stirred racial tensions in the 2005 election.
Now Prime Minister John Key and the National Party are the butt of the campaign being mounted by the Coastal Coalition, a group formed out of concern the Government’s move to change the Foreshore and Seabed Act may give control of beaches to Maori.
Coalition organiser Hugh Barr, secretary of the Outdoor Recreation Association, said the campaign was set to be launched with its first six-metre-wide billboard going up in Wellington today.
The association was going to put up as many billboards as it could afford with money raised from the 8000 people who had signed up to the coalition’s website, he said. Supporters included former ACT deputy leader Muriel Newman and former National Party members, chambers of commerce and boating, fishing and marine charter groups..
The signs were designed by advertising executive John Ansell, who produced the hard-hitting billboards for National Party leader Don Brash in the 2005 election campaign.
Somehow I suspect these billboards will not be condemned by most of the left, as the Iwi/Kiwi ones were.
I’m not sure which billboard designs they finally went with, but John Ansell blogged the designs under consideration, such as:
They will certainly be noticed.
Related posts:
- Finlayson answers Coastal Coalition Q+A
- Maori views on Marine & Coastal Area Bill
- Campbell Live on billboards
- Espiner says no chance of Maori-National coalition
August 18th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I’m utterly gobsmacked.
(I vote for the first one above)
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Shwoff! whoff! whoff! (huffing and blowing) Oh the racists! Shwoff! whoff! whoff! I’m so upset I can’t make a proper bloody sentence!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
This is the bottom line:
“With the recent announcement of the Fijian Government to give ownership of its coastal areas to indigenous tribes, it would be ideal to hope that this could offer some support to Maori arguments by is unlikely to have any effect here.
“I completely support and endorse what the Fijian Government has done. They’ve taken an initiative that this Government needs to follow. That unfortunately is not the case with the Government here; the indigenous Fijians are the majority and are in Government where as we are not,” Hingston said.
Vote:http://www.kahungunu.iwi.nz/…/FIGHTINGTALKONFORESHOREHingstonTalk.doc
FIGHTING TALK ON FORESHORE
By Kui Paki – Tu Mai February 04 – An interview with Judge Ken Heta Hingston
August 18th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Why doesn’t Ansell stop messing about and just say what he means with a billboard that simply says “fucking niggers”
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I thought it meant he was a traitor for holding John Ansell’s flag.
How accurate is this claim?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
john ansell is a hack designer. I don’t know how he fluked iwi/kiwi but those are ugly as shit.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I reckon Neville Key is doing a stupendous job for the racist Maori Party.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“john ansell is a hack designer.”
I know. They were roughs, not necessarily approved by the Coastal Coalition. These are the approved models: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/coastal-coalition-billboards-going-up/
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
How many Maoris in the CC Mr Ansell? Just askin’.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Ansell, how pathetic, get a life.
Vote:1. Putting the land in public ownership is not giving the iwi the foreshore.
2. Allowing Maori to pursue customary title claims is simply allowing Maori to test their claims to property rights in court, that used to be available, something Clark legislated 3. against.
3. Act at the time supported allowing Maori this right and opposed Clark’s legislation. Why has Act now changed tack? Political stunt?
4. Act doesn’t know its own history and neither does Ansell. More populist bs following the bs 3-strikes law.
5. For the record, customary property rights will not give Maori the right to exclude others from the foreshore.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“(and it’s not trader)”
Ralph Nader? Lone Ranger? Styrofoam container?
No it’s Darth Vader! Look out, Darth Vader is robbing us!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Cheap shot Le Grand Fromage.
This is not about Maori v Whites. It’s about the Nats and the tribal aristocracy v the rest of Maori and the rest of New Zealand.
It’s about whether we want to continue being a democracy or a tribal aristocracy like Tonga.
I’m all for iwi trying to prove their claims in court, but the Nats want them to be able to do so in Chris Finlayson’s office.
Not fair.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Question is more, will you be condemning them?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Giving these powers to Maori is separatism. Plain and simple. How many people here are for separatism? I can count a fair few so far.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
DPF: “Somehow I suspect these billboards will not be condemned by most of the left, as the Iwi/Kiwi ones were.”
I note that you are already wrong. See The Standard and Frog. Now, further to Eszett’s question, will YOU condemn them?
[DPF: The The Standard managed to both condemn them and gloat about them at the same time.
As for me, my views are:
1) The Government's proposal is fairer than the current Foreshore & Seabed Act, and I support it.
Vote:2) The Coastal Coalition has the right to campaign against it.
3) Some of the proposed billboards are inaccurate, and if used would find themselves on the losing end of an ASA complaint - such as the one about paying to swim at a beach.
4) The one targeting Chris Finlayson on the basis of a former client is somewhat bizarre. Lawyers are paid advocates.
5) I believe the ones targeting John Key as a "traitor" are over the top, and if used would in fact probably gain support for the PM as they are over the top. Cheeky humour works better than shrill name calling.
6) Some of the mooted billboard designs are legitimate, for a group that opposes the planned law. I might not agree with them, but they have the right to campaign aggressively against a policy or law they disagree with. But again, they may find the billboards end up being counter-productive.]
August 18th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“This is not about Maori v Whites.”
It’s bit difficult claiming that when the other ones say: Visit your beach before I give it away. And draw a direct line to Iwi. Presumeably it suggests that iwi members will win and non-iwi will lose. Not too many pakeha moari around. But I don’t care. It made me laugh. I could almost hear the deep nasal voice saying, VISIT YOUR BEACH! in a drunken Gareth Morgan kind of way. Are you going to run radio ads?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
..the day I have to pay some lazy maori to take a swim at a beach is the day I clean and oil up my side by side pumpy.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
…theres already a ” maori warden ” at the entrance to pancake rocks on the West Coast extorting an entrance fee out of gullible tourists…a taste of things to come .
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
If National goes ahead with this and we lose possession of the foreshore, then I trust they will lose the next election.
Vote:All of the foreshore and seabed belongs to ALL of the citizens not a racial minority.
Personally I think it’s time to do away with the Maori roll and seats as they are racist.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
On land on I own I can stop you building a house or a wharf or anything. Even if you got a building consent and a resource consent if it’s my land I can stop you building on it. Why wouldn’t the same rules apply to Maori-owned land, whether it’s the house next to mine, or near some beach somewhere?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
” … is the day I clean and oil up my side by side pumpy …”
The mind boggles.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
They will certainly be noticed.
For a National supporter you seem weirdly ambivalent about a campaign calling your party leader a race traitor.
Somehow I suspect these billboards will not be condemned by most of the left, as the Iwi/Kiwi ones were.
Chris Trotter will love it – I don’t think there’s a single right-wing blog that’s condemned them, and I don’t think there’s a major left-wing blog that hasn’t.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“Why wouldn’t the same rules apply to Maori-owned land, whether it’s the house next to mine, or near some beach somewhere?”
Its not that kind of ownership. Tried stopping anyone drilling for oil on your land?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Chris Trotter will love it – I don’t think there’s a single right-wing blog that’s condemned them, and I don’t think there’s a major left-wing blog that hasn’t.
Bowalley Road is left wing. How about Public Address?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Constantly. It’s such a bloody hassle, I tell you.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
The Coastal Coalition needs to get some Maoris on board quickly.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Maybe if Ansell makes an ad about gender roles or world music.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I think Key is being called a traitor to what he stood for before the election. Race traitor is drawing a long bow.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
How many Maori (or part-Maori) have had as much as a snapper from the Treaty process?
The iwi elite and their lawyers are not the same thing as ‘Maori’.
The purpose of this campaign is to wake the country up to what Key is planning. The media have failed to do that, so it’s down to paid advertising.
If the country then has the debate and decides that the Coastal Coalition is overstating the case, then the Nats will have their mandate to go ahead with their handover.
Right now, they don’t. What they do have a mandate to do is abolish the Maori seats.
Saying no one owns the beaches etc. sounds innocuous enough.
But what it really means is that iwi are free to claim ownership and the state is powerless to stand in their way.
Who will decide whether their claims succeed?
Why, Ngai Tahu’s former lawyer, who is now Treaty settlements minister.
And whose authority will he have to secure?
Why, the Attorney-General’s – who is the same man.
It’s a stitch up so the government can pretend it can’t act to prevent the inevitable blizzard of claims to everything from airspace to ironsands, when in fact it made it so, in the interests of a coalition with a party whose seats it had promised to abolish.
No one can blame Iwi for this. They’re as entitled to capitalise their good fortune as anyone else. But someone’s got to stand up for Kiwi (which, I repeat, is not white New Zealanders, but all New Zealanders).
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Graeme, that is not what the billboards are about. It is about land ownership being decided in a court of law not by some backroom deal by political parties.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
(which, I repeat, is not white New Zealanders, but all New Zealanders).
I know that is important, and that is why I have asked you (three times now) “how many Maori are part of the Coastal Coalition?” If you don’t address this simple point you will be crucified.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Wait, is John Ansell supporting Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act?
Strange days, indeed.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just change the wording on the old Iwi/Kiwi billboards to Kiwi/Iwi and slap John Key’s face over Don Brash’s?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I am sure they offered beads and blankets to some and were surprised why that didn’t work
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Nice of Ansell to kick off Winnie’s re-election campaign so early. Free advertising for the redneck vote. If we end up with Peters wielding the balance of power on his lying tongue next year, look no further back than to this sorry day.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“I am sure they offered beads and blankets to some and were surprised why that didn’t work”
You leftists are always such disgusting racists.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
PHOTOSHOP COMP PLEEEEEEEZ!
Mine:
Vote:http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/RRM22/coastal-coalition-dinner.jpg
August 18th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
No Ansell, they are entitled to claim customary title. IF they can prove customary title over certain parts of the foreshore, this does not take away the rights of the public to have unrestricted access to the beaches.
Vote:The rest of your spray is completely off topic and does not relate to your claims that Key is selling the coast to Maori.
Please provide some law or evidence substantiating your Clark legislation-like and Winston-like populist claims.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
eszett: Wait, is John Ansell supporting Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act? Strange days, indeed.
He isn’t. Nice try of the lefties here to hijack the debate. He is supporting what ACT is supporting: Maori can test their claim on title in court.
But John Key is having none of this: he is giving title to Maori. That’s the exact opposite of what Helen did.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
berend, he is not giving title to Maori, title is clearly in “public ownership.” What part of that do you not understand? To clarify, there are no title transfers to Iwi. Just like before the Clark legislation, Maori have the opportunity to show they have customary title to their respective areas of the land. This is precisely what Act supported when railing against Clark’s legislation.
Vote:What a remarkable U-turn by the now populist Act party.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“Wait, is John Ansell supporting Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act?
“Strange days, indeed.”
Indeed, eszett. This might explain: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/iwikiwi-the-sequel-and-the-prequel/
See in particular the Fishhook ad I wrote for National in 2004 that could be called the long version of Iwi Kiwi. Their view was that Labour’s bill was riddled with out-clauses that iwi could use.
It was based on a suspicion of Labour that turns out to have been unfounded. Yet now they’re slipping in these same out-clauses themselves.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Danyl: For a National supporter you seem weirdly ambivalent about a campaign calling your party leader a race traitor.
For a leftie you’re not ambivalent at all about spreading falsehoods: the posters David (and you) put up were not from the campaign, but from public drafts asking people for comment. They were John Ansell’s own, and not the coalition.
No thanks for trying though.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
glubbster, just get off the National cool aid will you? Haven’t had enough of EST and GST rises?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I like this – its time some questions were asked.
The last national government did some dumb things – wrecked the electrical supply industry (and laid a plan to put electricity prices thru the roof), the bought more LAVs than all the armed forces had staff to drive them, dropped the drinking age, etc.
I put this foreshore thing in the same category. There no doubt that when they screw up, its a real duzzy. What I cant understand (both now and previously) is that they cant see the stupidity of what they are doing. I mean, cant Key see the mess this is likely to lead to?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
berend, how is this hijacking the debate?
This is from the coastal coalition site:
http://www.nzcpr.com/CoastalCoalition.htm
Sound suspiciously supportive to me.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
John, presumably you would have expected this sort of reaction?
Quite a few of the audience won’t bother reading your careful explanations. It’s a risky stir campaign.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
eszett: Sound suspiciously supportive to me.
Because you can’t read. Labour panicked after the 2003 decision and outlawed claims. That wasn’t right. It doesn’t mean that it was likely there were. But taking away people’s right to go to court was wrong. Now National is not letting the Maori go to court to contest claims that parts are not in crown ownership, but through sneaky deals National will give away effective owernship. That’s the issue.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
And we were asking David to comment on them.
Vote:What exactly is wrong with that again, berend?
August 18th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
berend, I can’t help noticing that
a) John Ansell agrees with eszett’s assessment
b) Danyl was referring to dpf’s response to the ad dpf put up
hijack? glass houses calling kettle black etc
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
berend, when you cannot debate the issues you resort to personal attacks. You have now opened it up.
Vote:berend I would say the same about Act, but not sure whether they are a party anymore or a bunch of own goal scoring individuals with at least 3 different political views. A real shame as I sympathise with their opposition to the ETS.
More than happy with GST rises for the Income tax drop. Compared to other countries, our sales taxes are at a fair level. Look at the UK for example.
head out of act’s quicksand berend…
August 18th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
You are right, I cannot read anything that you are saying in what I quoted. Must be between the lines then.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
We were there in January and saw no sign of this. What’s your evidence?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
eszett: You are right, I cannot read anything that you are saying in what I quoted.
Simply: everyone thought the foreshore and seabed were vested in the crown. ACT thought that as well.
You got this part?
That’s why the 2003 decision was such a big deal.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
berend, you are mistaken. National is allowing Maori to go to Court to pursue customary title claims, just as there were allowed to prior to Clark’s knee-jerk reaction. I think you confuse fee simple title with customary rights. Maori never claimed full title over the foreshore. So your whole argument (as with the CC) is misguided and based on faulty facts.
Vote:Your argument is the same as Clark’s knee-jerk reaction so I cannot see how you can criticise then and support it now…??
August 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
glubbster: the coalition’s claim is:
The National Party is planning to repeal Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed in favour of Maori interests.
and:
Under National’s proposal, Maori will be given effective ownership of the foreshore and seabed, not through a rigorous Court process but through negotiation with government Ministers. Their rights would include the power of veto over other coastal operators, and the potential for widespread development – resorts, mining, aquaculture, and so on.
I suppose National can clear up the matter easily then. If what you claim is true, the campaign with fizzle and John Ansell will have a big pie on his face.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Finlayson has been questioned by Hide, Boscawen and Garrett in the house on the issue (I tune in every now and then) and clearly said the ownership would not be Crown’s or Iwi’s but public ownership. Secondly, Finalyson said in the house that the public would not their access to the foreshore restricted by any successful customary title claims.
Vote:Not to the extent that this kind of misinformation and populism can be very effective, look at Winston’s political career for example. It will of course fizzle as soon as the legislation is passed. Hilariously, it is possible Act might end up voting for it, leaving the CC isolated as extremists (which they are).
August 18th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
DPF, when are you going to come out with an opinion on this issue….???
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
We were there in January and saw no sign of this. What’s your evidence
..my own eyes pal..I pushed passed the fat slob and told the tourists he was pestering to ignore the p.o s and to follow me..which they did..to the sound of abuse from said fat slob…he was still there on the return…so I told him he was a thief and to get a job..he called me a white so and so, so I gave him his family pedigree…
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
glubbster, National’s proposal includes:
Maori will be given effective ownership of the foreshore and seabed, not through a rigorous Court process but through negotiation with government Ministers. Their rights would include the power of veto over other coastal operators, and the potential for widespread development – resorts, mining, aquaculture, and so on.
Are you making a distinction between title and effective ownership? I.e. it’s not title, therefore not ownership?
Or are you claiming that Iwi won’t get effective ownership either?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Totally agree with glubbster that CC are a bunch of nutty extremists who typically don’t get their facts right.There is a heavy rascist element to CC’S propaganda so this campaign will be nasty.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Starboard, just because someone acts like they own something, doesn’t mean they do…I suggest you report to the Police forthwith.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Okay, cheers. (Thought you might have confused Robyn Malcolm or Lucy Lawless with said ‘warden’.)
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
According to the Ngai Tahu lawyer, Chris Finlayson, Maori will only be able to claim a couple of thousand kilometers of our coast. And they don’t need to go to court to justify the claim as he will sort it for them. Unfreakingbelievable.
No wonder people think Winston First (who still owes $158,000 plus interest) could be in with a chance.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
I think he’s an opportunist..just turns up off and on maybe…tourists are none the wiser..he could be creaming hundreds a day under the guise of being a maori warden/caretaker of the land , kaumautua?..whatever they call themselves…
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I don’t think there’s a single right-wing blog that’s condemned them,
In as much as this pro-choice, anti drug prohibition blogger is “right wing”, let me be the first.
This campaign = 5% for Winston. So STOP.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
berend, not sure where your source is but having a right of veto is not effective ownership at all. The bottom line is that the foreshore will go into public ownership ie no one owns it. I am uncomfortable about veto powers (have not heard this is happening), these developments should be subject to the RMA and any affected party has the chance to make submissions under that legislation.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
john.bt, please show us your quote or did you just make that up?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
glubbster: having a right of veto is not effective ownership at all.
OK, give me right of veto to your property then. If you want to replace a light bulb, I’ll say no. Maybe you’ll change your mind after you have experienced the “having a right of veto is not effective ownership at all.”
But already veto rights are more rights then anyone else has. Rights based on race.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
“There is a heavy rascist element to CC’S propaganda so this campaign will be nasty.”
You see what I am talking about Mr. Ansell?? Really, you need to wisen up to the filth you are fighting and the nature of the battle. These people have no morality and no qualms whatsoever about methods or tactics.
They cry racism at any opportunity and you have just supplied them with an opportunity they will flog to death.
Starting this without any (apparent) backing from any Maori or Maori group shows a major flaw in planning. Wisen up for chrissakes.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“This campaign = 5% for Winston. So STOP.”
Can’t agree sorry Blair. We cannot allow the threat of Winston showing up again to colour policy choices. And if he did, this would only be one thing in a long line of similar opportunities that the political neophytes and fools Key and Joyce have provided him.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
berend, this is all hypothetical, where did you get your quote from because this veto issue might not even be in National’s plans. I haven’t heard it and cannot understand why National would support it. Probably CC propaganda.
Vote:I think the point is that private or Maori interests who own land next to the foreshore may want to develop on the foreshore for commercial benefit. Of course, the foreshore will be owned by everyone so it is not the same as me giving you a power of veto on a house. Even if what CC is saying is true, which I highly doubt, it is not as black and white as you claim it to be.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Glubbster……. Words from his mouth on Q&A. “Probably only 10% of the coast will be affected” . Out of 20,000 km.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
glubbster, quote from here.
glubbster: Probably CC propaganda.
Sure. Let’s here what John Key will say next.
glubbster: I think the point is that private or Maori interests who own land next to the foreshore may want to develop on the foreshore for commercial benefit.
Right, just like every other race?
glubbster: Of course, the foreshore will be owned by everyone so it is not the same as me giving you a power of veto on a house.
You just claimed it was just veto power. No it isn’t veto power??
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
berend, that rubbish you are spouting about veto rights is not correct.
Vote:http://www.beehive.govt.nz/foreshore/foreshore-seabed-faq.pdf
“The environmental effects of activities undertaken in the foreshore and seabed
will still be managed under the Resource Management Act. Resource
Management Act processes will only be able to restrict the customary activity for
the purposes of ensuring sustainability of the environment. Councils will also
need to consider whether resource consent applications relating to the foreshore
and seabed have an effect on a customary right.”
August 18th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
john.bt, we are talking about customary title here, not outright ownership so what Key has said is correct.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“B1 Under the government’s proposals, how will customary rights and
interests of whanau, hapu and iwi be identified and protected?
The Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be amended to provide a new statutory code
for the Maori Land Court to identify and recognise customary rights. The Maori
Land Court will be able to award a customary title that would sit alongside the
public domain title.”
“B2 Will a customary title under the government’s proposals be able to
Vote:provide whanau, hapu or iwi with ownership of the foreshore and
seabed?
No. The government’s proposal is to legislate that the statutory concept of
‘customary title’ is different from and replaces the common law concept of
‘customary title’. The statutory customary title would be a new and more fully
developed form of entitlement that:
-Recognises the holder of the customary title has mana and ancestral
connection over an area of the foreshore and seabed;
- Provides the customary title holder with an enhanced ability to participate in
relevant local and central government decision making processes concerning
the foreshore and seabed;”
August 18th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
glubbster: Councils will also need to consider whether resource consent applications relating to the foreshore
and seabed have an effect on a customary right.
So what does that mean?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
“D1 Will the public still have access to the foreshore and seabed? Will all
New Zealanders be able to go to whatever beach they want to?
Yes. The government will legislate to create a general public right of reasonable
and appropriate access over the foreshore and seabed that is held in public
domain title. There may, on occasions, be areas of the foreshore and seabed
where public access is limited or even excluded, for example, around working
ports, urupa, and sensitive wildlife areas.”
Hope that answers all your questions, anymore, read the document, I am not your spoonfeeder.
Vote:Clearly the CC has not even considered this document, they simply make up propaganda on the hoof.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Everybody arguing about who gets the most tsunami-prone parts of the country… has Al Qaeda put something in NZ’s drinking water reservoirs?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
berend, that is something you should ask Finlayson, but Maori interests are already protected by the RMA process as is any affected person’s, including neighbours etc.
Vote:The CC have every right to challenge each application for customary title through the Court process so its not like any rights have been taken away.
The campaign is an exercise in misinformation and populism.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Glubbster doth protest too much. Is he unaware that the Government has stated an intention to relax the requirements for establishing customary title before a Court. And of course Finlayson is setting the Government up for making major concessions in the process of negotiation. The self appointed Iwi Leaders forum has been exerting major pressure on Govt; in Finlayson they have found a willing ally.
Vote:The fact that Hugh Barr is leading this campaign gives it credibility in my mind; Hugh has never been a party aligned political activist but has an enviable record of promoting outdoor recreation and the preservation of wild landscape. He has researched this issue and has managed to see through the obfuscation that is intended to conceal secret negotiations and seen the giveaway of Kiwi heritage for what it is.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Could somebody lay out clearly and simply the facts without any spin or bullshit Thanks
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Trout, customary title does not equal effective ownership. CC is claiming effective ownership is being transferred to Maori. Ridiculous propaganda.
Vote:As for the rest of your claims, all I can say is we will see as I am not going to debate your speculation without any evidence.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
# Pete George (6,504) Says:
“How accurate is this claim?
“Under National’s proposal, Maori will be given effective ownership of the foreshore and seabed, not through a rigorous Court process but through negotiation with government Ministers. Their rights would include the power of veto over other coastal operators, and the potential for widespread development – resorts, mining, aquaculture, and so on. ”
Pete George, this is all true. I went to the meeting and listened to what Chris Finlayson had to say. Remember when National announced Finlayson would go around the country to get the taxpayers’ opinion?? He got a lot of opinions but he had his mind made up before he left. I was suprised only a handful of people showed up but hopefully John Ansell’s billboard will start waking people up. Maori will be able to go to him and negotiate a deal. That’s like appointing a convicted rapist to a principal position in an all girl school. I say this because Chris Finlayson has represented Maori in treaty settlements. Never the opposite. He should resign because of conflict of interest. The news media is hiding all this. He plans to open the foreshore and seabed to Maori. I talked to our local National mp and I asked him about this new law and his reply was the treaty of whaitangi is a legal document and Maori had the foreshore and seabed when it was signed. This is National’s view. He also said it was a political decision to allow Maori to negotiate with ministers not the “want to save the crown legal costs” as they put in this lame news media. The Maori elite have billions, I heard it was 15 but read it was up to 25 billion in trusts. This is what National is looking at.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Sorry to be a pedant, but promoting separatism might make you a craven coward but it doesn’t make you a traitor, as in one who betrays his country, because last time I checked Maori were a part of NZ and had been longer than Pakeha.
Unless the word’s being used in the sense of race traitor, which would be particularly ugly. And if not, to which group is Key a traitor (because by definition you have to be a member of something, then betray it, to be defined as one)?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
1. The foreshore will become public ownership (not Crown or Iwi).
Vote:2. Maori will have the right to apply to the Maori Land Court for customary title. Key has estimated 10% of the foreshore might be claimed as customary title and this will co-exist with public ownership, not override it.
3. Customary title is not fee simple ownership, or anything like it, it does not give Maori rights of ownership, simply rights of consultation, access and use.
4. The public will be entitled to unrestricted access to the foreshore (other than for pre-existing private ownership).
5. Pre-existing private ownership of the foreshore will remain largely unaffected.
A neat solution all round.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Glubbster……… Can I interest you in some shares in a large bridge I have up in Auckland ???
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
@john.bt – Glubbster doesn’t need a bridge. Just a seabed mining rig for execution of his/her soon-to-be-actioned customary right
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Well thats cleared everything up
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
No one will own it for the time being but cultural rights will be about the same as ownership. They will have most mineral rights out to the 12 mile zone, have all veto rights which will be incorporated into the resource management act, have air wave rights, all fishing rights, charge for usage of the waterways, marinas, etc. Shit, the more I type, I wish I was born Maori… why, God, do I have white skin???
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Don’t worry it’s unclear.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“Sorry to be a pedant, but promoting separatism might make you a craven coward but it doesn’t make you a traitor, as in one who betrays his country, because last time I checked Maori were a part of NZ and had been longer than Pakeha.”
It is not that kind of traitor. Many people voted for National because they thought it would be the end of the Maori Party. That Key then went into coalition with them was a betrayal. Now this which is even worse. He is a traitor not because he betrayed the country, but because he betrayed his supporters. If you are suggesting “Traitor” can only be applied in the country sense, then I might agree, but its not a distinction that is important. Basically a traitor is someone who turns against a belief or an idea and the people who he was once aligned with in those ideas.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
The first is simple and effective.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Ha, Talk about spin, Red. Sounds like weaselspeak to me.
Vote:Maybe you are a traitor to your own principles now?
August 18th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Still waiting for a referendum on Maori seats, till then this will do.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Just been mocked and misrepresented by David Farrar and Cameron Slater on Larry Williams. David said the Traitor ad said Race Traitor. Cameron said people had moved on from this issue.
74% of people on Stuff don’t seem to agree, guys.
The Traitor ad was an extreme concept which I was testing among others and inviting readers to comment on. You can see the results in the comments section of this post http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/we-will-fight-key-on-the-beaches-join-the-campaign-focus-group/
It was obviously designed to shock, and if fully written up would have made the case that Key has betrayed his voters. That’s absolutely true. His mandate was to abolish the Maori seats, not be a cheerleader for the Maori sovereignty movement.
If he’s allowing his iwi allies’ friends to take possession of billions of dollars worth of New Zealanders’ property in secret meetings with Ngai Tahu’s former lawyer (as was indicated in National’s proposal), it’s just a question of what words you put to that concept. That word was the unminced option.
The purpose of this campaign is to get Key not to do that, and if these ads give him a taste of the whirlwind he’s going to reap if he does do that, then accusations of shrillness against me will have been worth it.
Larry Williams, by the way, was more sympathetic to the Coastal Coalition’s position. Hugh Barr created doubt in his mind, and Larry was a lot less convinced of his previous scepticism after Hugh had spelt out the details.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I’ve said this before a few times, I have sensed a change in Farrar’s attitude toward John key. he seems to be protecting John Key by not mentioning some of the things that happened to him. I can’t put my finger on it, but I get a feeling Farrar is on John Key’s payroll.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Cameron also concluded from his sources that I was in league with John Boscawen and ACT. I’d have no problem if that were true, but it isn’t.
Former ACT deputy leader Muriel Newman is one of many people from the left, right and centre in the Coastal Coalition (spokeman Hugh Barr told me he’s left of centre), but you may recall Muriel lost her job some years ago to one Heather Roy.
I don’t imagine she’s all that well disposed towards ACT for that ludicrous decision, but I don’t know.
Again, this campaign has nothing to do with ACT. It’s a broad coalition in support of an issue whose sympathisers include Jim Anderton and Chris Trotter.
People need to check the facts, not make assumptions. http://www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz has many excellent articles.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
john.bt, krazykiwi, I wouldn’t stoop to your levels to answer, you are both either propaganda merchants or simply ignorant of the concept of customary title.
Vote:-Veto rights are a fiction dreamed up by the CC machine.
-So are any claims that fishing rights will be affected. jackp, are you so ignorant as to not recall that fisheries issues have been settled for good during the Sealord settlement?
Customary title does not exclude any guaranteed public rights, nor exclusive use of any of the foreshore.
Nice try guys.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@glubbster, you have been about as reserved on this issue, as a machine gun is subtle. If there’s propaganda being pedaled here I suspect it’s your multi-post assurances of business as usual. Now, about that mining rig…
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Does guaranteed access mean use as in a right to set a net?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
krazykiwi, would you then please point out where I have espoused propaganda…I have quoted a beehive document to support my case. So all I can conclude is you are full of it. But of course you do resort to bs attacks when you have lost the argument.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I doubt you would be able to go floundering at an estuary if this goes through HJ.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I found this by David Round, professor of Law at Canterbury University and lover of the outdoors:
“So ~ what does the government’s Consultation Document propose? It gives ‘assurances’, of course ~ promises, promises ~ and considers four options (pp 23 and 24) These are Crown notional title (a title able to be defeated by a customary title established before the courts), Crown absolute title, Maori absolute title and (the government’s preferred option) ‘[a] new approach ~ public domain/takiwa iwi whanau’. The foreshore and seabed would actually be named ‘public domain/takiwa iwi whanau’. This label is said to ‘express the essence’ of the new approach.
Yes indeed. Let us ponder the essence of the new approach. Let us ponder these Maori words, in particular. What do they mean? A reasonable question, surely. Words have meanings. If the foreshore and seabed is hereafter in law to be called ‘takiwa iwi whanau’, a phrase which does after all express the essence of the approach, then the meaning of those words will have an effect on the interpretation the courts give this arrangement and what it actually means in practice. Yet nowhere in the consultation document, neither in the glossary nor in the dictionary ‘kupu Maori’ section, does any description or definition of these words appear. So what do they mean?
Well, I don’t know, and anyone who might know, if there should be such a person, is not saying. It is utterly unsatisfactory that we turn the foreshore and seabed into a concept which is undefined and unknown. What will happen, we can be quite sure, is that a wee while down the track some Maori claimant will be arguing that ‘takiwa iwi whanau’ actually means that Maori have some special extra rights we don’t realise right now. Undefined words are a blank cheque for whoever interprets them ~ and Maori words will, of course, be interpreted by Maori. Look no further than all the trouble we have had with kawanatanga, te tino rangatiratanga and taonga. They have proved to be infinitely elastic in meaning and application. ”
Vote:http://www.nzcpr.com/guest189.htm
August 18th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Glubbster, veto rights are fiction????? You had better say that to my local National MP Chris Tremain because he confirmed Maori will have veto rights in this next legislation. As far as the fisheries, that was before I moved here but as far as exclusive use of the foreshore, you had better get your head out of the sand because there are many ways to get exclusive rights to the foreshore by using those “fictional” veto rights all in the name of “cultural rights”. Glubbster, read the legislation and stop spinning.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Well, with respect, David (Round) is wrong. It is quite clear what the government’s intention is: to put the foreshore into public ownership not to Iwi, not to the Crown, with customary title rights sitting side by side with public ownership where that can be shown by Iwi.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@glubbster – Are you suggesting that beehive documents aren’t loaded with propaganda? If so you are a braver man than I.
If customary rights accord one group an entitlement, while denying that same entitlement to another group because of their ethnicity then the issue of ownership is a mute point in my view. What we have is further race-based resource-access policy which moves us closer to apartheid and/or separate statehood. I don’t support this. We are one nation of many ethnicities, and the unending grievance and entitlement industries are destroying this country.
Do you, per chance, have any personal interest in customary rights that will become actionable once Key sneaks this legislation through prior to Christmas?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
jackp, I think you might want to get your quote from the Minister not a local MP. Having said that, can you point me to the written quote or did you just make that up?
Vote:So you think customary rights will allow Iwi exclusive development rights jackp? What planet have you come from?
August 18th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
@glubbster – If I, “the public”, am to own something, then the Crown is the entity which assumes ownership on my behalf. You keep suggesting that public ownership can exist without the involvement of the crown. How?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Glubster; Nothing is ever settled with Maori, it is simply rehashed , redefined and regurgitated for another round with each passing generation. We have a constant round of claims and more claims over the same issues and its well known and documented.
Why would you be surprised that so many simply don’t trust this legislation?
As for the change in DPF’s sentiments. Its been apparent for sometime but its what we could expect. Why should David give Key a negative light. That’s not his inclination nor his role. Whether that’s right or wrong depends on your own views. Plenty of us here do give Key a bit of stick and IMHO rightly so as he has done as suggested in the posters and let his voters down.
Vote:Its no use blaming someone else.
But here’s the rub.
Key actually has little choice. The Maori in parliament, as a group, control parliament by simple numbers. Said it plenty of times before.
He also has the Dipton faction to placate and without a much stronger ACT presence really has an uphill job.
Lets face it Key is a trader by nature and given half a chance and a tail wind would soon be selling stuff but he made a promise not to do so this term and won’t. So as long as the Maori rule by numbers and National has its factions (which it does), then that’s what we’ve got. DPF doesn’t want Key to fall over so he won’t criticize him like we do and neither he should.
No reason though why he should comment on the policy and he does, not always critically though.
Still at least we get to have our say and we have DPF for that. And unlike so many other supposed blogs we don’t get moderated.
About the adverts. Right adverts will be good for discussion and we need a lot more discussion and less of the kind of legislation foisted upon us by Nick Smith and Key.
All good in my view.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
…the whole thing smells…if its going to put ANY restrictions on Joe Kiwi’s access to the coast anywhere in NZ it needs binning.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
krazikiwi, you are a smearer aren’t you. Answer is no, I have no interest whatsoever (am NZ European) and am off to live overseas shortly in any case. The beehive document seemed sound to me, straight q’s, straight answers. Sorry it doesn’t meet your insecurities.
Vote:krazikiwi, customary property rights have been around for over a century, its a world recognised (limited) form of ownership. Your objection shows itself up to be merely ideological rather than of substance. Thanks for that piece of info.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
I’m happy to cane the liar Neville Key and his wimp associates hard. The cowards are doing exactly the opposite of what they campaigned on.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
krazykiwi, quite simply, there are many areas that do not have specific land titles issue to anyone. Where the Crown does not own them, they are in the public ownership. And that is the beauty of it, the Crown can put covenants on it when it likes to control any future issues with development to ensure public access etc.
Vote:starboard, private owners already can restrict access to certain areas of the foreshore such as the Malborough Sounds and farm land (remember the objections when Labour stupidly tried to force farmers to open their land up so that people could access the coast). Are you saying they should be forced to open up? That would cut across their property rights.
For the record, customary ownership gives Iwi NO right to restrict access.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
starboard, private owners already can restrict access to certain areas of the foreshore such as the Malborough Sounds. Are you saying they should be forced to open up
..no , they are within their rights because it is private property , they have purchased and paid for it it. They can restrict access.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Viking, Finalyson is currently in the process of trying to settle all of the Maori Treaty claims. Iwi want to move on as much as the Crown. Remember there are over 50 Iwi so there is a lot to do!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Hmmm, nope. I can’t think of any. Could you provide a few examples with evidence? I contend that public ownership of anything cannot happen without the Crown owning on my behalf, whether a title deed exists or otherwise. Happy to be convinced otherwise. Over to you.
And me a smearer? Don’t be so sniffy. Spine is good. I’ve learned that anyone who vehemently defends a position can and should expect to have their motivations questioned. It’s has happened to me, and you should expect the same given your very evident passion on this subject.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Define irony.
The majority of people against redressing the legitimate land grievances held by Maori are probably the same people that don’t want the Chinese bying land in New Zealand.
Go figure!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Glubster. That line is about as old as the Treaty itself. There were how many canoes? If you believe that story?
Vote:We don’t even have the correct version of the Treaty in our law which is of course why we have most of this bullshit anyway.
I don’t object to the foreshore being put into Public Domain because as it is right now the Crown can do what they like with it. No restraints on it all.
What I object to is Maori being able to cross a Cabinet Ministers palms and obtain rights that they have no properly argued in open court.
Lord what would happen if we had another Matt Rata as that person or Hone Harawira.
Bad enough that we have activist, socialist judges jerking us about without allowing voter seekers to exercise that power.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
DPF:
They are as racist, misleading about history, and generally appalling as Ansell’s ones for Brash were.
Here’s one on the “left” who had hoped this racist shit would not resurface. I don’t give credit to National for much, but even though thier progress is to date somewhat hamfisted, I will give them credit if they succeed in repealing the racist abomination that is the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
I’m not in the camp of those who see property rights as inalienable human rights. But whatever status you give property rights, they should not be racially selective.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
toad, that’s one for the index. saved!
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Lol, a member of the Greens labelling something as racist.
This from a party that thinks that non Maori have no right to have a say in how our country is run.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
customary titles will be given to iwi,
stratigic areas that include marina, ports, minerals, tourism etc, will be targeted.
Iwi will need consultation and compensation.
RedBaiter is correct. Willie Jackson will be on the lead news item, calling John Ansell and the CC a bunch of white racists.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
118 posts and nobody, but nobody, has touched upon the precedent already set for this action.
Vote:The Maori people had Mount Tarawera returned to them.
The Maori, not all that keen on diligent work, subcontracted their property out to a priivate company that had Maori directors and an address for service in Ngongotaha. I use address for service as that term is defined in the Companies Act 1993.
That company then proceeded to charge exhorbitant fees for visitors to visit the summit of Mount Tarawera.
The precedent is there. It is there for all to see. It cost $127 for my brother, my wife and I to visit the summit of Mount Tarawera. Now, if we could get the Maori to do the same thing at Piha, then we might get some progress. But I think an extremely clever currency trader would restrict the tangata whenua to some beach out the back of beyond where mainstream journalists rarely venture. I mention Piha because the chattering classes and the commentariat do not move in that part of the North Island between Bombay Hills and Paekakariki.
And how did I get my information in the second paragraph; I insisted upon a tax invoice which showed the name of the company, which I was then able to search on the Ministry of Economic Development’s web site.
John Ansell’s campaign deserves our utmost support.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
The very fact that all you people are arguing back and forth about who might be able to claim what in the future simply means, to me, that this country is now irrevocably fucked as a western democracy.
Stop your ideological left/right point-scoring FFS and just THINK about what’s going on here for a moment.
This asshole treasonous bastard John Key and his quisling party is planning to RELINQUISH THE COUNTRY’S OWNERSHIP OF ITS OWN BEACHES AND FORESHORE!!! This will inevitably open up claims and counter-claims indefinitely about what can or cannot be done with this vital strategic asset which, up until now, has been ownes by all New Zealanders in the name of the ‘Crown’.
Wake the fucks sake up people.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
John Ansell I take it you speak for the redneck vote ?
Vote:So a question, would you be happy to see ALL the foreshore in crown hands ?
Or do you want two laws, one for those pakeha who own parts of the foreshore and another for Maori ?
Have not been able to find a token hori to front for you, no surprise in that.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Toad Says:
They are as racist, misleading about history, and generally appalling as Ansell’s ones for Brash were.
Here’s one on the “left” who had hoped this racist shit would not resurface. I don’t give credit to National for much, but even though thier progress is to date somewhat hamfisted, I will give them credit if they succeed in repealing the racist abomination that is the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
…………
At the 2002 Green Party conference Turei put a remit forward calling for the Greens to endorse the “Maori” version of the Treaty Of Waitangi.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/37180151/GREENS-FACE-OBILIVION
Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.
* So it’s a Treaty issue then?
It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.
However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
Kevin Hague:
“The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori. ”
This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.
Catherine Delahunty:
Vote:“I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beach” generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day. Yet she had been refused a chance to speak. I also waved a copy of Te Tiriti around in a flamboyant manner.
http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/diary-debacle-archive-6th-september-15th-september
August 18th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I’d heard that about Tarawera too, Tauhei.
Your first name sounds Maori, but your comment above suggests otherwise.
Redbaiter is right: it would be helpful to hear from some Maori members of the Coastal Coalition. Not being a member, I’m not sure whether there are Maori members or not.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
@grumpyoldhori – there will currently be individuals of various ethnic origins who are private land owners of NZ foreshore. So there is no suggestion of ‘two laws, one for pakaha and the other for maori’ unless we accept than customary title will be interpreted as de-facto ownership as per the Mount Tarawera example outlined by Tauhei Notts above.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Betty must have been an old lady?
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
What do you mean, toad. This isn’t racism this is politics. MP permy divorce from Liarbore forever. Those are the stakes.
Don’t do it JK. It’s not yours.
Apparently the bill is to be tabled soon.
Let’s wait and see what it says.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Glubbster, yes I do. Cultural rights will lead to exclusive rights. I am from planet earth, the REAL earth Our local National MP is the National Government, he is more informed than I am or you for that matter. He said Maori will have the power to veto any construction or marina, or minerals found in the foreshore and seabed if they get the cultural rights. As Vicking said, all they have to do is go and see Chris Finlayson, go behind closed doors, without any regard to the rest of the 98 percent of the population, and make their deals. My point is how much will it take for who ever wants to come in strike a deal with Maori and build what they want to build, or get minerals out of the seabed,how much will Maori get in royalties. Do you actually think a family getting access to the beach is what this is all about?? If you don’t think this will happen, you are mistaken.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Toad , you are always reliable for one thing, the race card. what we are talking about is this rediculous legislation giving power to one man, omitting the courts, who’s decision can change the coast line of New Zealand. That is too much power for one man.
Vote:August 18th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
We live in a Parliamentary dictatorship.
John Key has a mandate to abolish the Maori seats, not be a cheerleader for the Maori sovereignty movement.
Give the Maori Party an inch and they’ll take 12 nautical miles.
Give them 12 nautical miles (22km) and they’ll want the 200 mile economic zone.
Give them that and they’ll want the farms, if the Communist Chinese haven’t got them first. Etc.
The last para might be exaggeration, but Metiria Turei has already said Maori deserve the Economic Zone.
There’s only one way not to be labelled a racist in this country.
That’s to give the Maori aristocracy (and their lawyers) the whole country, and all the sea beyond it, and all the sky above.
Maori like Margaret Mutu see non-Maori as visitors – visitors who are welcome, but not equal – immigrants with less claim to the country’s resources than the descendants of the immigrants who came before them from Polynesia.
So we have a choice: walk out on New Zealand for fear of being called racist, or fight the emotional blackmail with facts.
The facts may change as a result of this campaign, as National ‘clarify’ their position under a good deal more public scrutiny than they have hitherto had to bear.
Is that ?
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:10 am
If being in the “public domain” means that the foreshore is neither owned by the crown nor the iwi, what would happen if a large oil tanker ran aground on a reef and spilled large amounts of oil onto the foreshore ?
If the shipping company were shown not to be liable, a victim of a massive storm perhaps, then who would pay for the cleanup ?
Local iwi, especially if they were in the process of claiming customary rights, or the taxpayer, even though the crown doesn’t own it ?
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:28 am
I’ve been a bit busy to blog, but just for the record, I think these things are lunatic and appalling.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:16 am
David I’m on the left and would do nothing but condemn these.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Professor Roger Bowden
Vote:Just in case you hadn’t heard, it’s now official; under the coalition Government’s proposed Foreshore and Seabed Act Mark II, customary title is recognised as ownership. No longer is ‘nobody is to own’ the foreshore and seabed, the way it was sold in the consultation document. Instead, iwi and hapu will have the right to claim a new form of title , which will sit over and above the residual public domain ‘in much the same way that fee simple title sits over the Crown’s radical title to land’, in the words of the Attorney General. From the economic point of view, that amounts to ownership. I am sceptical that it can even be reconciled with the weaker notion of public domain, which is left as an undefined residual and as such, subject to constant encroachment from activities and exclusions possible under the new title. So much for the reassuring words about an undefined ‘public access’ right.
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest200.htm
August 19th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Russell Brown Says:
I’ve been a bit busy to blog, but just for the record, I think these things are lunatic and appalling.
……
Ahh at last a plumber is going to come and plug up all the leaking doubt and uncertainty.
This is definitely an outbreak of Right Wing syndrome.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 9:04 am
I didn’t realise Prof R Bowden was a legal expert!
Vote:Right of way is Way of Right very good point.
I’m over arguing this, lets just wait and see.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am
If theirs something strange
Vote:Down on the Coast
who y’gonna call:…..
Right-Wing Busters!
False Claims Flyin Around!
Who y’gonna call:…..
Right-Wing Busters!
Didda daa daaa daaa
didda dada….
August 19th, 2010 at 9:48 am
@ John Ansell 10.55pm
That was one of the most succinct summaries of New Zealand’s race relations that I have read in the last few years. Thank you.
Oh, and please note that soon the main primary escape route for Kiwis, Australia, will be closed so either get out while you can or stand up and fight.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Dave, bollocks, another misleading report you trust. In no way shape or form will the Coalition be preventing free entry for Kiwis into Australia. This is secured by the CER between the Countries.
Vote:Ansell hyperbole at his most dangerous.
hj, false claims flying around…haha CC is full of them! Perhaps if they got their facts right they would be taken more seriously!
August 19th, 2010 at 9:59 am
@glubbster – perhaps you could take the time to refute John Ansell’s comments one by one. Or just call it all hyperbole and walk away. Up to you.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Thanks John, your hard work is much appreciated.
Help fund the ads into weekend newspapers:
http://www.nzcpr.com/support_AdvertisingF&S.htm
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
hj, false claims flying around…haha CC is full of them! Perhaps if they got their facts right they would be taken more seriously!
Vote:…
The left view the issue as a right-wing outbreak by default…. unless they have a water tight understanding of the surface down there at said coast where things are looking squishy to me.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:49 am
HAPU PROFESSIONALISES KAITIAKI ROLES
Northland’s Ngati Rehia has set up its own hapu rangers to care for its whenua around Takou Bay north of the Bay of Islands.
Clinton Rameka, the project manager for the Takou Were-Te-Mokai group, says rangatahi are give training through NorthTec in pest management and ecology.
He says having locals on the job breaks down barriers, so they know who to ask for access when monitoring the waterways and setting trap lines.
Takou Were-Te-Mokai is working with other hapu who want to train rangatahi to become rangers.
Vote:waatea.blogsot.com
August 19th, 2010 at 10:51 am
There are NO Maori members of the so called Coastel coalition.
Vote:It is an organisation for Pakeha visitors only.
Besides, bedsheets do not look that good on hories.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Glubbster, like so many on this subject you a misinformed, either by choice or ignorance.
Vote:Maori Iwi will be able to negotiate directly with the government under the proposed legislation, they do NOT have to go to court.
Act supported Maori being able to go to court to test there case at the time.
This new legislation proposes to allow direct negotiation and bypass the courts, AND most importantly lowers the criteria to prove customary title.
This drive by Iwi for rights that have never existed is NOT about beach access you dumbass, it is about develpoment rights, mineral rights, aquaculture rights.
They want to exclude non Iwi from all of the above.
It is about money at the end of the day.
Customary title, if you bothered to read the governments proposal, is OWNERSHIP in all but name.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chance are it is a duck!
The only thing they will not be able to do is sell the seabed and foreshore.
As the criteria to prove customary title, (which by the way Iwi had the ability to do under the existing legislation) is proposed to be lowered, we could potentially see vast tracts of coastline, harbours, ports, and estuaries being controlled by Iwi.
These resources are currently controlled by the Crown on behalf of ALL New Zealanders.
What is wrong with this concept? This has yet to be pointed out to me.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:54 am
So, how many of you pakeha visitors are running away to Aus or returning to septic land ?
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Who owns the fish in an area with a customary title?
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
hj, I am not “the left” thank you very much! Just not on the far right like the CC and its supporters.
John, you dont know what you are talking about. Ownership entails exclusive possession and the right to use resources on land exclusively and restrict access. Would you please explain how customary rights do this….laughable.
Why waste a whole lot of costs on litigation where good faith settlements can be made where certain Iwi have strong claims to customary rights over certain areas of the foreshore. The remaining claimants will still need to go to Court to prove their claim.
Vote:The Crown negotiates with private interests as well, I cannot see the distinction.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:16 am
What a banal q hj. For a start, everyone (including Maori) should have the right to fish, subject to reasonable limits.
Vote:As for commercial fishing, the Sealords settlement in the 1990′s dealt with the fisheries claims from Maori.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:44 am
@ Redbaiter- Ansell Rocks! Here is a man with intellingence and a good sense of humour! Ansell for PM!! As for the Fijians having something to offer-maybe we should all have a (red) one party stste as well with Goof as president for life, ha bloody ha.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 11:47 am
grumpyoldhori, your ignorance is astounding!!
Vote:No where on the coastal coalition site do I see a skin colour filter…….. I suggest this exists in your mind only.
The site does not ask for ethnicity information, so how have you arrived at the conclusion there are no Maori in the coastal coalition?
You also infer that if there are in fact no Maori in the organisation it has no validity and they must have KKK tendencies.
People other than Iwi also care deeply about this country, its direction and future, and the future of those that carry on after us!
Some of us actually look at what is best for the nation as a whole, not just what is best for my tribe, my iwi, or my ethnic group.
As with a typical bigot you do not address the issue but bring other irrelevent nonsense into the discussion.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am
John Ansell “This is not about Maori v Whites. It’s about the Nats and the tribal aristocracy v the rest of Maori and the rest of New Zealand”
Vote:You are ABSOLUTELY right on this. In fact it is the Nat psuedo-aristocracy and the tribal aristocracy…” National cares nothing for this country-they will sell our birthright in order to push their own agenda.
They are to be trusted about as much as Labour, which is not at all. It is not by co-incidence that they loaded their list with useless and lazy token Maori, even ignoring the wishes of their own electorate committees to do so. There are so many Maori of value and integrity, but they could find nary a one to put on their list (except Georgina-and they silenced her)
August 19th, 2010 at 11:59 am
What a banal q hj For a start, everyone (including Maori) should have the right to fish, subject to reasonable limits..
Vote:……
but every issue like this has to be watertight.
Who owns the “fisheries”?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:59 am
John Ansell “I’m all for iwi trying to prove their claims in court, but the Nats want them to be able to do so in Chris Finlayson’s office.” And believe me that is not the only dodgy thing going on in Chrissy’s orrifice (oops office!)
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
grumpyoldhori “So, how many of you pakeha visitors are running away to Aus or returning to septic land ?” I find the very term “pakeha” extremely offensive and discriminatory. I am a New Zealander for future refernce. You may choose not to be a New Zealander and participate in a democracy that value all cultures equally. That is your right, but then the terminology is you=non-New Zealander and me-New Zealander. Get it??
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Grumpy old hori you’re a fuckwit red neck racist maori …im off to polish up the old pumpy side by side. Im prepared to stand up.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Meanwhile
Updated at 9:05am on 19 August 2010
An eminent historian has endorsed the claim of Northland’s Ngapuhi people that they did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi.
Ngapuhi say the Maori language document they signed is the only valid treaty, and that in it, they ceded to the Queen kawanatanga (right to govern) but not the right to usurp their ultimate authority.
Dame Anne Salmond has supported that, saying in her evidence that kawanatanga was not an accurate or even plausible translation of sovereignty – the word used in the English draft.
She says it therefore fails the test of securing the free and intelligent consent of the rangatira to the cession of sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
Vote:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/54631/dame-anne-salmond-backs-ngapuhi-sovereignty-claim
which is no surprise when a treaty was signed at a point in time when there was a massive power imbalance. Maori can also use the treaty as a basis for claiming the foreshore and seabed under article 2. It is in Maori interest to pretend that the treaty represents achievable ends but in fact it gives us no acceptable basis for our modern state with its population levels and demographics.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Bangladesh is overcrowded and many would jump at the chance to live here. I have no compunction in saying they can’t because here (NZ) is mine. Once Maori get a title to coastal areas they will (if they don’t already) feel the same… that’s human nature.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
hj 12:12pm-all this crap about who signed and who didn’t sign and who didn’t know what they were signing is accademic bullshit! We live in the 21st century now. Are we to return to the paleolithic? We can hand everything back but then we’ll have to pack up all the permanent buildings, roads, electricty supplies as well as all medical and technological innovations ans move elsewhere. Get a life bro!
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
starboard,
Vote:Do try and stretch to make your full 5′ 5″ height dear boy, we have an eleven herb and spice marinade for you
August 19th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Starboard 12.10 If you have a “side by side pumpy” I’d like to see it! That would be one rare shotgun…
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
CJD but are you a real Kiwi, born in NZ or a visitor ? like so many others who rant on this board ?
Vote:Don’t like the term pakeha, tough.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Hori, why do you consider non-cuzzies as “pakeha visitors”? As the bros are already mixed with so-called “pakeha blood”, at what point do they become a “visitor”?
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
CJD who is this tribal aristocracy you go on about ?
Vote:So which Ariki do you speak of ? in reo if you like, whoops sorry, forgot, like too many other pakeha you can handle only one language.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Maybe this:
A ‘culturalist’ orthodoxy dominates the nation’s discussions of Maori issues, ethnic and cultural diversity, and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi.
According to supporters of culturalism, recognising the Treaty leads to justice for Maori and provides a sound foundation for New Zealand’s ethnically diverse society. I argue the opposite case claiming that culturalism leads to the establishment of pre-modern, anti-democratic conditions with serious consequences for New Zealand’s future.
Vote:http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=92
August 19th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
EverlastingFire because it winds up the foaming at the mouth reich wing idiots.
Vote:Well, I call my English born pakeha wife a visitor, from a safe distance and out of her earshot
Damn white of me to marry a pakeha was it not ?
August 19th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
grumpyoldhori “So which Ariki do you speak of ? in reo if you like, whoops sorry, forgot, like too many other pakeha you can handle only orine language.”
Vote:Actually I speak two major languages fluently and have a working use of several asian and european languages. I would love to learn Te Reo, but own my own terms, not by having it rammed down my throat as some elite, special thing belonging to some supremacist group that seeks to dominate NZ, but as a unifying and unique taonga belonging to all New Zealanders. Get over yourself, you a a little man who’s ancestors happen to have stumbled upon a little blip on the map somewhere in the Pacific-you and your kind are NOT the centre of the universe as you may think. Most of the world doen’t even know you exist
August 19th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
And p.s. grumpyoldhori-your poor wife! To be stuck with a man who is obviously stuntedly trapped between two cultures-wow she deserves a medal!
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
john Oh for information, iwi is not capitalised.
Vote:Believe me if the so called coastal coalition had a token hori like Henare was for the Nats, they would have him front and center.
Not a bunch who would be comfortable in white sheets, why do I have my doubts about that .
Of course if they do manage do find a token hori he would find himself sent to Coventry in no time.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
CJD, I know, terrible that a white woman would marry outside of her race is it not ?
So you have suggesting you are an expert on high born hories, so which Ariki do you speak of ? simple question dear boy.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Starboard 12.10 If you have a “side by side pumpy” I’d like to see it! That would be one rare shotgun
heh..its an under/over…you jst tilt it on its side..bingo..s/s…
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
grumpyoldhori “CJD, I know, terrible that a white woman would marry outside of her race is it not ?”
Vote:Not at all-my girl is Ngati Porou. You need to get your innate racism under control though-you really seem to carry a cultural burden. See me after-I know some choice councillors
August 19th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
..and get over yaself hori…you and ya bros signed over the land and we got it now… ya aint gettin it back…so I suggest if u dont like it hop back in ya paddlin boat and head north to ya banana isles where ye came from…
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
grumpyoldhori I am truly worried about you-you shouldnt have such a negative self image. You guys are every bit as good as us white people, so just relax bro
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
@OTGO 12:45 pm
I thought starboard was talking about pumping his dick.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Good to see Toad is all class as ever!
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
@CJD 2:38 pm And you have a go at my response to someone making not-so-veiled threats of lethal violence on this thread, CJD! Can’t figure that.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
You might want to contribute to Stuff’s pole about the billboards.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4034126/Beach-campaign-disgraceful-scaremongering
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Chill Toad-I don’t even know you. I am sure starboard was speaking metaphorically. If not…oh well!
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
@ glubbster 9.54am
When I say that soon the main primary escape route for Kiwis, Australia, will be closed I am not referring to John Ansell…. I am referring to the widely reported fact that there is an immigration debate going on in Australia at present and their opposition leader Tony Abbott has said that if they win the election they will ‘review immigration’ – and this includes New Zealanders. I would imagine that if Labour wins then at least some sort of review would not be far behind either.
Regardless…. in the medium term I fully expect that Australia will close its doors to uncontrolled immigration from New Zealand because, even though the place is absolutely fucking huge compared to its miniscule population, both parties there seem to have succumbed to the malthusian madness which has engulfed western democracies and everybody is shitting themselves that there are ‘too many people’.
It has nothing to do with CER.
Vote:August 19th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Dave Mann, in the medium term, I fully expect you to be proved wrong.
Vote:hj you are hilarious. Can you actually grasp the concept that customary title has nothing to do with the Treaty.
All your silly articles about the treaty are irrelevant since we are talking about discussing customary rights, these are distinct from Maori compensation claims and settlements by the Crown for wrongs committed under the Treaty.
But since you raise them, I’ll discuss them. While you might disagree with the Crown settling treaty claims, there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary and the Crown has acknowledged this. Like you, I wish it was not this way, but repairing those injustices is the only way forward for NZ IMHO.
Unfornately the CC in their smear campaign may also have forgotten this distinction.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“Can you actually grasp the concept that customary title has nothing to do with the Treaty.
Vote:All your silly articles about the treaty are irrelevant since we are talking about discussing customary rights, these are distinct from Maori compensation claims and settlements by the Crown for wrongs committed under the Treaty.”
…….
I’m not talking about Maori compensation claims I’m pointing out that apart from customary title the foreshore and seabed is also a treaty issue so there is another front to the issue and whatever goes down re customary rights there can also be a much more fundamental claim under tino rangitiratanga (which the Greens and Maori Party endorse). To me that suggests that whatever the implications of customary title turn out to be there is still a considerable body pushing for more. Perhaps that isn’t relevant but I think it puts the issue in perspective.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
While you might disagree with the Crown settling treaty claims, there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary and the Crown has acknowledged this. Like you, I wish it was not this way, but repairing those injustices is the only way forward for NZ IMHO.
Vote:….
I don’t disagree, but I would point out that Tariana Turia says her tribes settlements represent only 1.5% of what was taken and the “crown” shouldn’t expect these to be full and final.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Glubster says “john, you dont know what you are talking about. Ownership entails exclusive possession and the right to use resources on land exclusively and restrict access. Would you please explain how customary rights do this….laughable.”
Well there you go, Glubstar, you have just proved you are not across this at all…LOL
Vote:The legislation is about customary title NOT customary rights.
Customary RIGHTS already exist.
We are talking about a new concept, customary title.
Read the governments proposal, it does in fact give exclusive possession and rights of the seabed and foreshore to iwi (is that better grumpyoldhori?) that gain customary title.
Minerals, aquaculture enterprises, and any development in areas that gain customary title WILL be controlled by the iwi involved.
It is not about public access to the beach, as Mr Key is trying to fool the public into thinking.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
hj, the documents are legally binding so once signed Maori have accepted full and final settlement and will be estopped from arguing otherwise. They dont have to sign the settlement deed, its up to them.
Vote:No, it shouldn’t be a treaty issue at all! This fundamental claim might be raised by the Greens but it doesn’t exist so forget it.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
John, you are being silly and pedantic, I was using customary (property) rights and customary title interchangeably.
Vote:I have read it John and it doesn’t (no matter how the CC try to interpret it). It just simply shows you know nothing about this subject.
It always was about public access to the beaches, that is why Clark decided on her knee-jerk piece of rubbish Foreshore and Seabed Act.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
From Indymedia:
Danyl Strype lifts the veil of an ACT front-group presenting itself an a coalition of concerned citizens concerned about public access to the beach.
While staying in Karamea recently, I came across a leaflet on a community noticeboard outside the post office promoting a group called the Coastal Coalition (1). According to the leaflet, the CC “feel strongly that the Foreshore & Seabed (F&S) should stay in Crown ownership”.
As well as raising the familiar lie that the F&S ownership debate is about whether people can have picnics on the beach, the leaflet carefully ignores the obvious fact: since tangata whenua never sold the foreshore and seabed to the Crown, it has no legitimate claim to own it in the first place. CC claim that:
“The foreshore and seabed were vested in the Crown when New Zealand adopted British common law in the 1800s.”
Obviously tangata whenua disagree, and the Court of Appeal took their side in 2003, opening up the possibility that whānau, hapū, and iwi could take claims to the Māori Land Court to have their ownership of specific areas recognised. The Labour-led government reacted with legislation in 2004 claiming Crown ownership of the whole lot (except a few private beaches held under freehold title by pākeha), denying tangata whenua their day in court. So much for ‘one law for all’.
Vote:http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/78806/coastal-coalition-unsure-about-foreshore
August 20th, 2010 at 12:49 am
190 comments so far – not quite the record 505 after our Free Speech Coalition campaign David, but I think we can say the debate is now happening and people are slowly becoming more informed.
That was the aim of these ads.
The Coalition has only actually paid for one billboard design – the others (mostly my rough unauthorised PowerPoint drafts) having been run free of charge by kindly newspapers and bloggers like David and Dimpost – and even some who actually like the campaign like Crusader Rabbitt.
A couple of interesting things happened yesterday…
First, stuff completely bought the Nat/Green/Maori Party line that the ads are ‘disgraceful scaremongering’ and headed their article with those words.
So you’d think the readers would have leapt to the desired conclusion and voted heavily against the Coastal Coalition’s position in their poll.
But blow me down, after 8000 votes they were voting in favour by a margin of three to one: 74%-26%.
Another interesting thing happened on Jim Mora’s radio show.
Coalition spokesman Dr Hugh Barr was subjected to a barrage of verbiage from an apoplectic Linda Clark and the likeminded Tim someone.
Jim did his best to keep control as the mild-mannered and inexperienced Dr Barr calmly made his points.
Again, you’d think the listeners would have been won over by Linda and Tim’s potent cocktail of socialistic scorn and superior elocution.
But again, not so.
Anyone here who heard today’s show may like to confirm or deny, but I’m told that the listeners’ emails (on nanny National Radio, remember) were strongly critical of the way Hugh was effectively bullied by the more experienced and infinitely louder and haughtier Clark. (Clark? Haughty? Sorry, just having a nightmare.)
From this I assume the unassuming Hugh won the day.
I’ve now spent a bit of time with Hugh Barr. He’s a scientist and mathematician. Definitely not a showman.
But as the head of the Outdoor Recreation Association (or similar) he knows the facts on the foreshore and seabed inside out and backwards.
If the media will give him a fair go (instead of following his segments with put-downs by politicians and not giving him the right of reply) he will surprise people.
Most of his critics are still sounding off without having studied the government’s plans.
The Nats are saying our claims aren’t accurate, of course, and doing their best to look relaxed and dismissive. But their nerves are showing.
You may have seen that for the first time Chris Finlayson and John Key are saying that access to beaches will now be free.
(Well, we’ll see about that. I urge you to pay very careful attention to the precise wording of the actual bill. Pay particular attention to whether it explicitly guarantees in so many words that access to the foreshore and seabed will be free to all New Zealanders.)
I say ‘for the first time’ above.
That’s because in three separate attempts by David Garrett to get Chris to give a straight answer in Parliament to the question of whether guaranteed access would be free, he was strangely unable to do so.
But here’s the thing.
The day after the first of these billboards was revealed on Muriel Newman’s Breaking News blog (also published on mine http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/iwikiwi-the-sequel-and-the-prequel/, the Minister of Treaty Settlements/Attorney-General/Ngai Tahu lawyer was suddenly much more certain.
And the day the first press article about the coming billboards ran, he went as far as to say that free public access ‘has always been government policy’.
Really? Then why did my learned friend find it so hard to say ‘Yes’ on those three previous occasions?
This just gives you an idea of how the government expects its authority to carry the day against the rough-hewn little guys like Hugh Barr.
But it appears to be backfiring every time it’s tried – funny that.
Now one last thing. Access to the beaches – free or otherwise – is not the main issue in this campaign.
The main issue is the confiscation of potentially billions of dollars worth of resources from ordinary Kiwis (be they Maori, Pakeha, Somali or Serbo-Croat) and the handing of it to a small, rich tribal elite and their lawyers IN EXCHANGE FOR MAORI PARTY VOTES.
We need to decide whether New Zealand is one country or two – whether we want to continue being a democracy or revert to a Tongan-style tribal aristocracy.
It’s clear from their statements that the part-Maori Party won’t be happy till they’ve got the lot – foreshore, seabed, 200 mile economic zone, airspace, airwaves, mining vetos, etc.
It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough’.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Ansell, free access was always a bottom line, its in the beehive document and I have heard Finlayson says so both in and outside Parliament. Its a case of you and your CC cronies having your facts wrong and instead of getting clarification or doing some research, you have decided to launch a propaganda campaign.
Vote:You are right about one thing: lets wait for the bill. But this also shows that the CC’s campaign is, at the very least, both scaremongering and premature.
For the record, there is nothing wrong with campaigning, but when you have your facts wrong or, as you admit, are at least in doubt, the CC should be accountable to the Advertising Standards Authority.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Finlayson is in fairy land most of the time-how could you trust this guy with anything? Answer you can’t!!
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 9:27 am
@John – good on you. I’ll be supporting the campaign. The trading of a public resource for votes is a disgraceful abuse of power.
@glubbster – The bottom line for me is the creation of a new form of ‘ownership’, which flys under the public’s radar as ‘public access’ is promoted as the major issue. Saying everything’s ok beacuse beach access is (or should be) guaranteed would be like the Auditor General taking your kids off you and then allowing you access.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 9:35 am
The truth is while we maintain two New Zealand with one party mistrusting “the crown” we will never get anywhere. It suites Maori to talk of “the crown” as it implies some form of external oppression, when in fact it the the NEW ZEALAND government which is negotiating with a small portion of its citizens while denying the rights of the majority.
Vote:One New Zealand please Santa! One with universal law and justice that applies to all.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:50 am
The basic problem in this whole debate is this: the power is finally in the hands of the colonisers. It needs to be more equal than it currently is, otherwise we are simply talking about the tyranny of the majority.
How about this: we vest total, fee simple ownership of the foreshore and seabed in Maori (pay compensation to the current owners). We then appoint a tribunal, say the Colonisers Foreshore and Seabed Tribunal (CFST), with members appointed by consensus, to determine the rights of the colonisers.
Simple, really.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Colonisers..you mean the Hansens?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Luc Hansen “the tyranny of the majority” I don’t quite get it. The rules change whether you are white or black. In Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia, you got to rule the whole place because you are balck and in majority. The whole world including us thought this was a good thing. Now you are telling me because Maori are in the minority we need to bend the rules of democracy to accomodate them?? Odd really!
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 11:29 am
no krazyk, new form of ‘ownership’: no, customary title has been around for hundreds of years. It also makes no sense that National is trading resources for votes, given that Iwi are a small minority of voters in NZ and that they are likely vote with the Maori Party in any event. National have already done enough to retain the Maori Party support, National does not need to break their own legs to keep doing so.
Vote:Luc, your view is worse than even the CC. You clearly do not have any clue about property rights, customary or otherwise.
CJD, Finalyson is the most able and hardworking Minister in this area for a very long time. Your accusations are rubbish and a personal attack without an inking of any evidence other than innuendo. Shame on you CC’ers. Remember, it was Clark that created this problem with her rubbish legislation.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Glubbster-Just because Finlayson is giving Maori everything does not make him “the most able and hardworking Minister in this area for a very long time.” I worked with him for a quite a while and I found him to be a petulant, whiney little troll. As for his intellectual capabilites he never once had a conversation with me that convinced me that he had a superior intellect. He seemed more keen on talking to young boys at events than engaging with adults.
Vote:As for a personal attack-despite his petty poor and disloyal treatment of me I still grudgingly like the guy and feel some pity for his deeply flawed personality. That is not attack-that is my opinion. Which is what blogs are all about.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
*** Metiria Turei: Denial of customary rights unacceptable, say Greens ***
Media release, 18 August 2003
The Green Party is calling on the Government to recognise Maori rights in regard to the foreshore and seabed.
Green Maori Affairs spokesperson, Metiria Turei said today that the reduction of the term ‘customary title’ into ‘customary interests’ in the Government’s consultation paper and Government prescription of what constitutes customary activity is an abrogation of the Treaty.
“Where is the good faith relationship?” Metiria asked. “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.
Metiria welcomed the Government’s decision not to legislate for crown ownership, but she is concerned that the proposal comes perilously close to a confiscation of customary rights.
“The Greens support responsible access to the foreshore, which is compatible with Customary Ownership governed by tikanga Maori and the concept of public domain.
“The clearest example is Lake Taupo, where ownership of the lake bed rests with Maori but everyone enjoys recreational access.
“Customary ownership does not provide for the sale of land in the way that freehold title and western forms of property ownership do.”
Metiria is also disturbed by the timeframe for consultation over the plan.
“Seven weeks is a ridiculously short period for consultation over such an important issue. Maori have been waiting 150 years for justice but the whole country has a stake in the fair resolution of this issue. The Government is treating New Zealanders with disdain by trying to foist this settlement on us in just seven weeks.
“The speed of this process suggests that the consultation will be a sham and that the Government’s mind is made up.”
The Green Party is appalled that environmental concerns have been ignored in the consultation proposal.
“Responsible stewardship of our coasts is essential for a sustainable future,” said Metiria. “That’s something Maori have a major stake in. We want to make our coast the shared responsibility of all, for the private profit of none.”
Vote:http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/66614/foreshore-and-seabed-protecting-public-a?page=1
August 20th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
glubbster: “Ansell, free access was always a bottom line, its in the beehive document…”
FIND IT AND SHOW ME AND I WILL APOLOGISE. OTHERWISE YOU APOLOGISE.
My search of the Beehive document revealed 10 instances of ‘public access’ and none of those were accompanied by the word ‘free’.
For example:
‘The government gives all New Zealanders these assurances:
‘Public access for all – access will be guaranteed for all New Zealanders subject to certain exceptions,
for example, for health and safety reasons in port operational areas, or protection of wāhi tapu such
as urupā (burial grounds);’
It could well be that the word ‘free’ is concealed somewhere in that sentence at a type size too minuscule for my eyes to detect. Or maybe you shot your mouth off without engaging eyes.
glubbster: “and I have heard Finlayson says so both in and outside Parliament.”
SHOW ME WHERE HE HAS SAID THAT BEFORE THIS CAMPAIGN STARTED ON 2 AUGUST AND I WILL APOLOGISE. OTHERWISE YOU APOLOGISE.
Look at these various attempts to avoid saying the word Yes.
Hansard, 22 June:
David Garrett: Will he be advising the Attorney-General that the foreshore and seabed legislation should specifically prohibit any holder of customary title from charging those who wish to enjoy customary recreations, such as fishing and swimming, for access to areas of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Attorney-General and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations exchange pleasantries all the time, and I imagine that the issue of the—
[Mallard interjected. I won't bore you with their irrelevant exchange or the Speaker's replies.]
David Garrett: My question was carefully worded, and it asked whether the Minister would be advising the Attorney-General with regard to the content of legislation. The answer I got was related to social intercourse between himself and that Minister, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, there will be discussion between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Ministry of Justice. I can assure the member that what I said yesterday was right in that there is no question regarding access to the foreshore and seabed. He need not have any worry about that issue
Look at that wording: ‘no question regarding access’. But it wasn’t a question regarding access, was it? It was a question about free access.
Later on 22 June:
David Garrett: Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title but free public access, and that no iwi or hapū will be permitted to charge members of the public who are enjoying traditional customary leisure activities on the foreshore and seabed under this customary code?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If anyone is enjoying a customary leisure activity on the foreshore and seabed, I have already made it abundantly clear that public access is guaranteed, and I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why there would be charging for the average New Zealander enjoying public access along the lines of what the member said.
‘Can’t conceive of’ – classic lawyerly deviation.
29 June:
9. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will any legislation replacing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 contain a clause preventing the Māori owners of sections of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title from charging or attempting to charge other New Zealanders for access to the beach?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Cabinet has not yet made final decisions on the content of the draft legislation. It is not for me to prejudge Cabinet deliberations, and, of course, one must pay close attention to the detail of the legislation. What I can say is that public access in, on, and over the public foreshore and seabed will be guaranteed, subject to authorised limits, such as for public health and safety reasons. For example, no one reasonably expects the public to have unfettered picnic rights at naval bases.
And yet Mr Finlayson is reported to have said on Wednesday that free public access had ‘always been government policy’.
Only on 3 August did the tune change. The day after the release of our first Iwi/Kiwi billboard, which went to John Key’s inbox.
PLEASE NOTE: BEACH ACCESS IS BY NO MEANS THE MAIN ISSUE. THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
“THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS. (the main issue)”
Actually, its worse than that. It is a separation, a carve off of government power and legal jurisdiction, based on perceived notions of racial privilege. A fascist abomination.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
I should make the point that I like Chris Finlayson personally and have no issue with John Key apart from the way he runs the country.
I think Chris genuinely believes his Maori friends deserve everything he can win for them.
I just don’t believe he’s fairly representing all New Zealanders, as he’s being paid to do.
The minute someone can show me that I’m operating on substantially false information, I will gladly apologise to them both for my role in this campaign.
However, the above quotes on the relatively minor issue of beach access suggest I’m telling the truth and it was wrong of Chris to say that free public beach access had ‘always’ been government policy.
If it was, why wasn’t it stated in the consultation document? Did the government’s ink quota run out just as they were about to insert the word ‘free’?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
This seems to support what the billboards are saying:
“Righto, the proposal is that these customary interests would not affect public access, fishing, navigation, and existing use rights until the end of their term. But ~ the next thing to be very alarmed about ~ note carefully that these customary interests would be able to affect other things. You may read about these on pages 38 to 41. The holders of customary rights would be able to have input into such things as the allocation of space in the foreshore and seabed, and how coastal permits are granted.Local authorities would have to take the planning documents of coastal iwi and hapu into account when planning under the Resource Management Act. The Historic Places Trust, Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries would have to take them into account.
It is easy to imagine that such a simple thing as the renewal of a whitebait stand (which requires a coastal permit under the RMA) could become involved in racial politics. If Maori have a customary interest, might they not insist that they should own all whitebait stands? One can imagine a hundred situations like this. On page 40 we read that ‘the coastal iwi/hapu would have the right to decide whether an activity requiring a coastal permit could be progressed by the consent authority’. So any Maori with customary title will essentially have a right of veto over innumerable things which might take place on the foreshore and seabed.
They ‘would not be obliged to comply with the requirements of the RMA when giving or declining permission for a coastal permit’. They ‘would have the right to…refuse to give…consent to conservation proposals and applications…’ they might well decide that in future they, with their customary rights, will be the sole users of foreshore and seabed in future. And even if they decide to let other people use the foreshore and seabed, there will, of course, be nothing to stop iwi from accepting a koha ~ a financial inducement ~ in helping them to reach a decision on the matter. You will have heard just in the last couple of days that Meridian Energy has donated money to a West coast iwi which, after initially opposing the proposed Mokihinui dam, changed its mind in the course of the hearing, and now supports the scheme. This is by no menas the first case where financial sweeteners have assisted Maori decision-making. Even blunter expressions than ‘financial inducement’ and ‘sweetener’ may spring to your mind. But this is the future being made possible by the present government. Thanks Chris. Developments may well continue on the foreshore and seabed ~ marine farming is quite profitable, I believe ~ but another opportunity will be given to the new landlord/rentier/parasite class to clip the ticket on each proposal.
And do not think for a second that this will be the end of it. If this proposal goes through it will just be an opportunity for further claims. Most of the coastline will have customary interests claims made over them. Planning documents will proliferate. Before very long things will get so complicated that new legislation will be required, which will give Maori just a bit more. And then more, and more…”
Riding Roughshod Over Our Right to the Foreshore and Seabed
David Round
11 April 2010
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
CJD, Finalyson was a partner at one of the leading law firms in NZ. I think I prefer that to your anonymous word.
Vote:He is not giving Maori everyhting…case and point is the proposed Tuhoi settlement.
hj, the Greens support Maori ownership under the guise of “customary ownership.” They are a bunch of nutters so I wouldn’t bother quoting their releases.
Ansell, Finlayson was a legal advocate in the past, you cant say that means he is probably representing Maori. He is a National Party minister and thus responsible to a National dominated Cabinet.
Ansell, I heard what I heard in Parliament, I have no intention of digging up the archives but I remember it was the last supplementary from Garrett and the answer re unrestricted access for all was “Yes.”
Guaranteed public access means free. You cannot charge someone when you do not have full ownership. Go back to the beehive document and read it again Ansell. To charge implies access isn’t public at all ie its privately owned. You are clutching at straws with your mate Mr populist SST man, David Garrett.
Unlike you, I am quite satisfied with “abundantly clear” and “cannot conceive of.” I think you are scaremongering.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“And yet Mr Finlayson is reported to have said on Wednesday that free public access had ‘always been government policy’.” Finalyson presumably had to clear it up because the CC keeps reading into his responses doubt about the issue. Finalyson presumably thought at the time that his answers had already done so.
Vote:But thank you for clearing this up for everyone! So there is no longer any issue about free access. Can everyone from the CC note this! I am pleased that the debate on this issue is now over.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
FYI, Ansell, commonly we dont say you have a “free” right to go to the beach. We simply say your rights are guaranteed and that access is unrestricted.
Vote:If Garrett had made it clear by saying “does that mean free access”, he would have got the answer “yes.”
August 20th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
hj, the Greens support Maori ownership under the guise of “customary ownership.” They are a bunch of nutters so I wouldn’t bother quoting their releases
Vote:…..
That’s MMP and that’s why there is a billboard campaign.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
The debate is far from over glubbster, and you know it.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Ansell “THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS” the main issue.
Vote:Can you please detail how you see recognising customary rights as somehow “massively transferring property rights”?
And in light of these points:
1) customary title is not full ownership, it does not allow Iwi exclusive possession.
2) what is wrong with having the balance of the foreshore (after pre-existing private ownership) put into public ownership, which is specifically not Maori or Crown owned, but may be regulated by the Crown, through covenants etc?
3) The CA decision permitted Iwi to apply tot he Court for recognition of their customary title claims.
4) Given the CA decision, all the proposal is doing is allowing direct negotiation in respect of customary rights with the Crown, rather than forcing both Iwi and Crown to spend potentially tens of thousands of dollars on each claim, many of which are deemed deserving claims by the government on their facts.
5) The CA decision is no authority for the concept that Iwi could apply for full ownership of the foreshore and even if it did, the new government legislation will prevent this happening (parliamentary sovereignty) as Clark did in such a roughshod way.
6) Finally, those without deserving claims will still have the opportunity to test their customary rights in Court.
Again, this is a neat solution.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Ansell has effectively conceded the point about free access, so half of it is over krazyk.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm Vote:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
@glubbster – John has not conceded anything… unless you unilaterally declaring the matter closed constitutes a concession from him. Not really sure that it does. Let’s recap.
1. John fully cites an absence of ‘free’ in respect of the access suggested, and goes further to document slippery avoidance of any mention of ‘freeness’.
2. You say you’ve heard it stated but “have no intention of digging up the archives” to prove your point.
3. You later offer a quote without attributing it’s source.
So no. Not half over at all.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
hj, Round’s summary does raise some legitimate issues. What round doesn’t say is that there will be a massive transfer of exclusive ownership. Is the CC ready to admit it is also wrong on this point? And scaremongering when it could simply be campaigning on the issues Round raises, which at the very worst only restrict development where there is a customary interest.
I respond as follows to the substance of Round’s objections:
1) Like any other interested objector, they would have the right to oppose a development on reasonable grounds. The developer can then negotiate or simply take a case under the RMA to the Environment Court for resolution.
2) Iwi will not be given veto powers, I suspect that quote has been drafted incorrectly. Veto powers suggest that they can override the whole RMA process which cannot be the intention! More likely, the veto = an objection, requiring the developer to take the case to the Court for resolution.
3) 1 & 2 are fair, since if Iwi have a legitimate customary right, their specific rights should not be trodden upon. If their objection is not sound, it will be exposed in the Environment Court.
4) I do not believe customary rights will spread like wildfire, given that Key has been reported saying that only approximately 10% of the balance of the foreshore will be affected.
Surely engagement with the government is the better way for the CC rather than a hostile billboard and anti-government campaign. Its not the EFA for godsake!
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
krazyk, I was referring to his quote that Finalyson has now cleared up the matter.
Vote:“And yet Mr Finlayson is reported to have said on Wednesday that free public access had ‘always been government policy’.”
So the CC know this, yet they continue unabated, including on the free access issue?
August 20th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
What disgraceful racism. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, any more than ethnicity prevents Maori from understanding chemistry, world history or literature.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Remember, the Govt is still to put through their RMA reforms which should help streamline the process..
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@glubbster – Where is the citation?
“free public access had always been government policy” is meaningless. “Catching up with Australia” has always been government policy too. The statement and the reality are polls apart.
You’re on sinking sand here pal. Hope you paid the local iwi …
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
it is about ownership not access.
That’s deflection and a load of bollocks.
Key and Finlayson need sacking if they think this is acceptable.
They were not put into govt to take away OUR ownership and give it to Maori or any other group.
ALL Kiwi Citizens own the F&S colelctively and the govt of the day administers it for ALL of us.
How hard is this?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I read that differently to you then kk. He refers to a Kiwi connection, not just a Maori connection. I’ve never seen the term Kiwi restricted to Maori. I have always felt I’m a Kiwi. I understand what he is saying.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
ok Pete, I’ll play. When Potiki said…
… who does the ‘ours’ refer to? Was it (a) Maori, (b) All New Zealanders?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
krazy, catching up with Australia is a long term goal. You are foolish indeed to think a miraculous turnaround is forthcoming, especially since Asutralia never fell into recession. Krazy indeed.
Vote:Secondly, it takes time for National’s policies to be implemented and to have an effect..it could be a decade until we conclude whether National’s policies helped or hindered the intended catch up. Things dont happen instantly.
August 20th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@glubbster – open your eyes a bit. The language is the identical. If Findlayson had said “There will never be a charge for public access to any NZ beach. The proposed legislations will make detailed provision to this end.” then that point could be conceded.
But the quote (for which you have yet to provide a citation, link or anything really…) was
… which is a waffly piece of hearsay. Keep working on it…
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I’d say that most Maori and non-Maori Kiwis look on beaches, rivers, mountains and national parks as ours.
I thought the whole point of the Coastal Coalition was an attempt to protect access to our beaches. Those that aren’t held as private property already.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Pete, (a) or (b)? It’s a simple question. Who do you think Potiki was refering to when he said ‘ours’? (a) or (b)?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
My father’s family arrived in NZ in 1840, my mother’s family in 1852 and 95% of my forebears were born and raised in our country. Yes, our country.
Yet I don’t regard myself as any more entitled to special treatment than someone who received their citizenship yesterday.
So remind me why someone with fractional Maori ancestory should be entitled to apatheid-like entitlement to land, mountain, water and coast?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
glubbster, now you’re flat out lying.
‘If Garrett had made it clear by saying “does that mean free access”, he would have got the answer “yes.”’
Once more for glubbster – Garrett to Finlayson, House of Representatives, 22 June 2010:
‘Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title but free public access’
How do you suggest Mr Garrett make himself more clear?
But instead of getting a gracious apology from you as I deserve, I get this:
‘Ansell has effectively conceded the point about free access, so half of it is over krazyk.’
Anybody reading anything by glubbster can safely ignore it, as the person is clearly a shameless, charmless liar.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Ansell, if you knew anything about parliament, you would know that a Minister is only required to answer one part of the question and the answer does not need to be 100% full and complete.
The full version:
David Garrett: Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title but free public access, and that no iwi or hapū will be permitted to charge members of the public who are enjoying traditional customary leisure activities on the foreshore and seabed under this customary code?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If anyone is enjoying a customary leisure activity on the foreshore and seabed, I have already made it abundantly clear that public access is guaranteed, and I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why there would be charging for the average New Zealander enjoying public access along the lines of what the member said.
This answer might not suit Garrett. The truth is Finlayson answered the second part of the question.
Garrett could have asked another supplementary to delve even further into this. He choose not to as most reasonable people would conclude from Finlayson’s answer that it would be free access.
And you did concede the point, you said: “And yet Mr Finlayson is reported to have said on Wednesday that free public access had ‘always been government policy’.” Are you now saying Finlayson didn’t mean it. It was YOUR quote!! Not mine krazy, but his.
I am not overly concered at what you think of me, redneck. I happen to think you are ignorant, but I wasn’t necessarily going to share that, until now.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Is the word ‘FREE” in the legislation? If not, then it won’t be free.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
21 July 2010
. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to oral question No. 3 yesterday, what are “the concerns that New Zealanders had about solely having Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed”, and how does the Government’s proposal to legislate for iwi ownership of the foreshore and seabed alleviate these concerns?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Many concerns have been raised—for example, that the Foreshore and Seabed Act violates property rights, the rule of law, citizens’ right to go to the courts for justice, and the principle of having one law for all. These were the concerns raised by, among others, the then ACT Party leader Richard Prebble in 2004, when his party opposed the current legislation. Mr Prebble also prophesied that the Act would do great and lasting damage to racial harmony. The Government’s proposal protects property rights and removes the discriminatory elements of the current Act.
David Garrett: Will the proposed legislation weaken the test in section 50 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which requires, in order for customary title to be granted, uses or practices to have been carried on since 1840 that are integral to tikanga Māori; if so, in what way will the test for customary title be weakened?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The overarching test will be exclusive use and occupation, without substantial interruption. The test has some emphasis on tikanga Māori. I do not believe that the overall changes will be very great, at all.
23 June 2010
David Garrett: Will the settling of claims to customary title over parts of the foreshore and seabed under the Government’s proposed legislation impact in any way, shape, or form on Treaty claims; if so, in what precise way?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That question raises a number of points. First, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that if an iwi has concluded a Treaty settlement, it will be able to come and talk to the Crown—for example, about extant customary rights it may claim—but the finality of its Treaty settlement will not be able to be challenged.
David Garrett: Will he be advising the Attorney-General that the foreshore and seabed legislation should specifically prohibit any holder of customary title from charging those who wish to enjoy customary recreations, such as fishing and swimming, for access to areas of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, there will be discussion between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Ministry of Justice. I can assure the member that what I said yesterday was right in that there is no question regarding access to the foreshore and seabed. He need not have any worry about that issue.
22 June
David Garrett: Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title but free public access, and that no iwi or hapū will be permitted to charge members of the public who are enjoying traditional customary leisure activities on the foreshore and seabed under this customary code?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If anyone is enjoying a customary leisure activity on the foreshore and seabed, I have already made it abundantly clear that public access is guaranteed, and I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why there would be charging for the average New Zealander enjoying public access along the lines of what the member said.
David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to that answer very carefully. The question began with “Can he guarantee”. His answer, at the tail, was—
Mr SPEAKER: We have heard sufficient. When members ask Ministers whether they can guarantee issues like that, it is extraordinarily difficult. The member cannot expect a yes or no answer with regard to a guarantee like that. I think that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the member’s question
NOTE THIS RULING FROM THE SPEAKER ABOUT THE INABILITY FOR GARRETT TO EXPECT FINLAYSON TO GIVE HIM GUARANTEES. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE MOANING ABOUT ANSELL. PATHETIC.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
@glubbster – you’re making a fool of yourself. If you knew anything about parliament you’d know that “I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason…” is code for “I’m being asked to commit to somthing that I can’t. I need wiggle room”.
If Findlayson had said “There will never be a charge for public access to any NZ beach. The proposed legislations will make detailed provision to this end.” then that your point could be conceded. But he hasn’t, so it isn’t. Keep trying …
@pete – (a) or (b) ?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
jackp, nor does the word “charge” appear in the legislation. Or “exclusive” ownership. The word “free” is not necessary and is frankly redundant since Iwi have no right to charge. How pedantic are you far righties!
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
krazy, I think “abundantly clear” and “cannot for the life of me conceive any reason” is pretty a pretty strong indication!!
Vote:Finalyson will be judged on these words should he backtrack.
See my point re the speaker’s ruling on an absolute guarantee above.
August 20th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
AND HERE IS THE PROOF (I KNEW I HAD HEARD IT!!). APOLOGIES ALL ROUND PLEASE!! SEE THE FIRST AND LAST RESPONSE BUT I HAVE COPIED THE WHOLE LOT FOR COMPLETENESS.
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Access Under Customary Title
5. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Tākou Bay in Northland?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Access will be free for those areas of public foreshore and seabed where public access is guaranteed. The example the member uses is one of property owners whose land adjoins a beach and who are charging a fee for access over their private property. This Government believes in property rights and we will not be legislating away private property rights whether for high country farmers, Waihī residents who live near the beaches, or the landowners of Tākou Bay.
David Garrett: Leaving aside charges for crossing adjoining land, can the Minister explain what the owners of customary title of foreshore and seabed will be able to charge for and what they will not be able to charge for?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Any iwi or group that has customary title may, for example, be able to charge if someone wants to have a development on their area of customary title. That will be a question that will be worked out between the customary titleholder and the applicant for the particular development.
David Garrett: Does the Attorney-General believe that it should be part of the rights of customary title to foreshore and seabed to be able to charge for access to it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member has to understand that there is a distinction between the owner of coastal property and the owner of customary title. I would have thought that that member comes from a party that strongly believes in property rights. If someone wants to have access to the foreshore and seabed over private property, there may well be an instance where that person has to be charged for it.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We appreciate the statement about property rights, but the question was specifically whether the owners of customary title in the foreshore and seabed, as proposed by the Government’s policy, would be able to charge for access—would they have that right? That question was never addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: What I will do is invite David Garrett to repeat his question to make it clear. One of the reasons I am inviting the member to repeat his question is he did not need to have a lecture about what he should understand in the answer. I invite the member to repeat his question.
David Garrett: Does the Attorney-General believe that it should be part of the rights of customary title over foreshore and seabed to be able to charge for access to it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Of course, my beliefs are irrelevant; it is what is Government policy. Government policy is that access to the foreshore and seabed, where those areas are in the public domain, will be free
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@glubbster, *sigh* Finlayson made a statement, but not one that answered Garrett’s question. Surely you can see that?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
“David Garrett: Does the Attorney-General believe that it should be part of the rights of customary title over foreshore and seabed to be able to charge for access to it?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Of course, my beliefs are irrelevant; it is what is Government policy. Government policy is that access to the foreshore and seabed, where those areas are in the public domain, will be free”
How does that not answer the q krazy?
sigh.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Finlayson could have answered Garrett’s question thus:
Government policy is that rights of customary title shall not restrict public access to the foreshore and seabed, and also that no charge may be levied for such access.
But he didn’t did he? Too slippery by far.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
But Government does not set out the rights of customary title. They have been developed at common law.
Vote:Secondly, Finalyson has answered by saying that all areas in the public domain (which include customary title as that sits side by side, not in substitution for) shall not restrict pubulic access and that they will be free. Customary title land is on land vested in the public domain so you are too clever for yourself.
Thirdly, I didn’t see Garrett complaining about this answer….
Fourthly, your statement implies that there will be free access over private land too so it is simply wrong or can at the very least be interpreted that way.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Finlayson said those areas that are in public domain will be free. Still doesn’t say it will be free when customary title is concerned. Why doesn’t Finlayson answer yes or no. I don’t give a shit if Garrett is not complaining about the answer. I am not convinced. Stop trying to convince us. All Finlayson has to do is just say yes or no to the questions. He won’t. Glubbster you haven’t said anything to convince me. These are court room antic bullshit. Maori will charge for using the forehsore if they get customary title to it. If it can’t be simplified to a yes or no answer, then something is being covered up.
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Glubbster, did you know Finlayson said that Maori and Sign language are the official languages of New Zealand? Was he right?
Vote:August 20th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
jackp – From The New Zealand Curriculum – Official languages
What nonsense!
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 1:22 am
glubbster, as you clearly prefer not to recall, I challenged you at 12.56pm to
SHOW ME WHERE HE HAS SAID THAT BEFORE THIS CAMPAIGN STARTED ON 2 AUGUST AND I WILL APOLOGISE. OTHERWISE YOU APOLOGISE.
You then put up a quote where he said it, and gleefully claimed victory. You did not include the date of that quote. Why not?
Because it was 3 August.
No doubt you hoped no one would check.
You are doing exactly what the government is doing – being sneaky.
If a master lawyer who knows the value of every word he uses says ‘I can’t conceive of any reason why not’ when they could much more easily say ‘Yes’, you know there’s something fishy being planned for the foreshore and seabed.
So it’s game over for you glubbster. Now if you have a shred of decency about you, you’ll apologise.
As you’re probably a member of the Labour Party, I won’t hold my breath.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 1:32 am
Once again for those like glubbster who struggle with joined-up reading…
…after weeks of wriggling around like a fish on a hook, the minister only changed his stance when pressured to do so by the advance release of an embarrassing billboard.
So the Coastal Coalition campaign has already forced an amendment to the Nats’ bill — and will keep campaigning until enough people know of their plans that they have no choice but to withdraw it altogether.
John Key’s motto is ‘explaining is losing’.
Mine is ‘great explanations’.
(I hope to provide one in our upcoming full page press ad.)
Let’s see who wins.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 2:15 am
Don’t you mean: REVERSAL of the massive transfer of property rights?
It reminds me of a few years ago, during the Don Brash Maori bashing days, a headline in the NZ Herald: “What Maori Want”, it screamed.
I wrote a letter to the Herald, which kindly published it, and which read something like this:
I stand by what I said above, albeit with some refinement. We, the colonisers, the majority, need to place power in the hands of the colonised for two reasons:
1. Justice is only done when those who were wrong perceive it to be done. Can justice ever be perceived to be done when the colonised are always at the margins of the power equation.
2. We will all be better people for seeing things from the other side.
There you go, words of wisdom. Try to think about it instead of automatically lifting your knee.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 8:57 am
Krazykiwi, my point was the choice of words used. Some would say Finlayson was partially right, others would say he was wrong because he left english out. But if it were to be interpreted in a court of law, English would not be one of the official language. When it comes to making laws that have to be interpreted by the courts, you can’t be too pedantic.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 9:39 am
You have to remember where Finlayson is coming from. He is a LIST mp, 9th on the list. He has no electorate to answer to, only to John Key. I find it appalling that Maori will be able to make a back room deal with him and keep it out of the courts. This allows him to run roughshod over new zealand.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Luc, Helen Clark’s government did the damage to Maori’s ability to claim customary property rights with her knee-jerk legislation. Dont try to rewrite history. Whose party did the Maori Party decide to leave and then discard after the 08 election? Labour.
Brash was campaigning against special entitlements to Maori, “closing the gaps” being one clear example. Of course, this is different to Maori’s ability to go to Court to have their claims heard. If Maori cannot go to Court like private property right holders, then it is not one law for all at all.
Ansell, jackp, I couldn’t care less whether I have convinced you. I’ve said what I have to say on the matter.
You can be as pedantic or as ignorant as you like, all I can say now is lets wait until the bill comes out.
Vote:August 21st, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Don’t you want to say sorry before you run away glubbster?
Vote:August 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Ansell, I know who should be saying sorry to the public for misleading advertising and its not me.
Vote:Despite this, I’m sorry you have a warped view on this issue.