We Will Take From Them The Beaches

We Will Take From Them The Beaches

We Will Take From Them The Foreshore;

We Will Take From Them The Islands;

We Will Take From Them The Water;

We Will Take From Them The Land;

We Will Take From Them The Rivers;

We Will Take From Them The Mountains;

We Will Push Them Into The Sea.

Is this the National Party government’s death knell? How could anyone other than those in the blues seeking election actually vote for National?

MARINE AND COASTAL AREA APPLICATION

You are hereby notified that Cletus Maanu Paul, on behalf of all Maori, has applied for recognition of customary marine title and protected customary rights (rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga and all ancillary activities) over the entire area of New Zealand, including all islands to the outer limits of the territorial sea; and, the Marine and Coastal Area surrounding all islands and reefs lying off shore from the coastline to a distance of 12 nautical miles; and, the entire foreshore and territorial waters of New Zealand under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011. Notices of appearance in support or in opposition to the applications must be filed by Friday 30 June 2017 in the Rotorua High Court.

• Published Sunday, April 30 2017
• First Published Sunday, April 30 2017

And if that snatch for the entire country doesn’t work, then the khaki mafioso will aim to take it from you, piece-by-piece. Of course, it’s likely that this is not only the tip of the iceberg, but a distraction. It is not necessary for such applications to go through the high court.

All the greedy grabbers need to do is cosy up to whanau Whinlayson, behind the closed doors of his office, to get what they want – by the back door – literally. Perhaps he did turn the cuzzies down on some, because even he couldn’t stomach the mendacious temerity of the claim? Or perhaps he was worried that – come September – the voters might be reminded of his treachery?

Here’s some of the other classified adverts . . .

HIWARAU TURANGAPIKITOI AND OHIWA OF WHAKATOHEA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the …

MAHURANGI NGATI AWA, NGAPUHI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the …

NGA HAPU O NGATI WAI IWI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGA TINI HAPU O MANIAPOTO MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGAI TAI IWI AND THE URI (DESCENDANTS) OF NGAI TAI IWI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions …

NGAI TAMAHAUA HAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGATI HEI CHARITABLE TRUST INCORPORATED MARINE AND COASTAL A REA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all …

NGATI HUARERE KI WHANGAPOUA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGATI KAHU & TE RARAWA TE URIOHINA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine …

NGATI MANU & NGATI RANGI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGATI MURIWAI HAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGATI ONEONE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NGATI RAHIRI TANGATA WHENUA KI TE TII WAITANGI KI TE PEIWHAI RANGI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal …

NGATI TOREHINA KI MATAURE O HAU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

NOTICE TO ALL BENEFICIARIES OF NGATI KAHU KI WHANGAROA AND ASSOCIATED HAPU A Hui-A-Iwi/Hapu has been scheduled for Saturday 27th May at Waitaruke Marae to commence at 11.00am. Purpose: …

O NGA HAPU O TAIAMAI KI TE MARANGAI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

PAKOWHAI HAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT UNDER THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011: CIV 2017-404-546 The Trustees of the Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea Trust, for …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT UNDER THE MARINE A ND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011: CIV 2017-404-545 The Trustees of the Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust, for and …

RIRIWHENUA HAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

ROPU O RANGIRIRI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE AITANGA O NGA URI O WHAREKAURI MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE HAPU O TITOKO NGAI TAMA AND URI (DESCENDANTS) OF TE HAPU O TITOKO NGAI TAMA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with …

TE HIKA O PAPAUMA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE IHUTAI KI ORIRA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE KUPENGA O NGATI HAKO MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE RUNANGA OF NGATI PU INCORPORATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE URI A TEHAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

TE WHANAU O HONE PAPITA RAUA KO REWA ATARIA PAAMA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, …

WHANAU A APANUI HAPU MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …

WHANAU A KAUWHAKATUAKANA MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 APPLICATION In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, all interested …


Another Fifteen Today

Anyone care to check to see if there’s any unclaimed coastline left, now?

Published Monday, May 01 2017

Public notice of an Application for an order under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 CIV-2017-485-000250 Application by Te Tawharau o Ngati Pukenga on behalf of …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-558 An application by RIHARI DARGAVILLE on behalf of the Ngaitawake, …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-2017-404-565 An application by HONOURABLE DOVER SAMUELS on behalf of the …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-542 An application by MARAMA STEAD on behalf of the Te Taou, being …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-537 An application by JOSEPH ROBERT KINGI on behalf of the Nga Puhi …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-538 An application by RIHARI DARGAVILLE on behalf of the New Zealand …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-TBA An application by RIHARI DARGAVILLE on behalf of the Taitokerau District …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-TBA An application by RIHARI DARGAVILLE on behalf of the Ngaitawake, being …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-539 An application by RIHARI DARGAVILLE on behalf of the Ngati Kauwau, …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-TBA An application by RIUHA LOUISA COLLIER on behalf of the Ngati Kawau, …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 103 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 CIV-404-573 An application by MAIA MARIA NOVA on behalf of the Ngai Tahuhu, …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT UNDER THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011: CIV-2017-485-240 The Trustees of the Parengarenga Incorporation, for and on behalf …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION UNDER S100 OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 (“MACA”) Notice is given on behalf of Ngati Maraeariki and its hapu Ngati Raupo, Ngati …

PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION UNDER THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT 2011 Te Whanau a Haunui (Royal Family) In accordance with the provisions of the Marine and Coastal …

Public Notice of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu’s application on behalf of Ngai Tahu Whanui for an order recognising customary marine title under section 98 of the Marine and Coastal Area …


An Earlier 1Law4All Blog Post on This Matter

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Map 1In Twisting the Treaty, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is described as “the greatest swindle in New Zealand history” and that is exactly how it is turning out. A large part of the North Island (see map) is already under claim by greedy and opportunistic tribal groups. Often led by people who are only one eighth or one sixteenth Maori.

While some claims are decided in secret by the biased Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, others are proceeding through the High Court process.

The secret deals which strip the public of long held rights to our beaches and coast are done without the public having any input or being consulted in any way. To give some semblance of “respectability” to these dirty deals, Finlayson is handing oversight of them (on a jobs for the girls basis) to people from whom he gets the result he wants. People like Judith Potter, a retired High Court judge, whom he is paying with taxpayers’ money to advise him on the Ngati Porou claim on the East Coast. She has shown her bias from the start.

Known for her arrogance, she has carried this unfortunate trait over to her new job as Finlayson’s puppet by refusing to hear any argument against granting customary marine title to tribes from the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ). That organisation represents tens of thousands of outdoor recreational people whose rights will be adversely affected by any grant of customary marine title that she might recommend.

Not all claims for customary marine title are going through Finlayson’s secret deal negotiations. Some are going through the High Court process – as allowed by the Act. Even here we can see the full extent of Finlayson’s machinations.

When a tribe wants to claim customary marine title through the High Court, it is required by the Marine and Coastal Area Act to insert one advertisement in the Public Notices section of one local daily paper ONCE ONLY. Finlayson sneaked this into the Act so as to keep the public in the dark as much as possible about this massive swindle of their rights. Who reads the Public Notices anyway?

Map 2Thus did a claim for two of the Titi islands, south-west of Stewart Island, get to the High Court without CORANZ or any other organisation becoming aware of it. When CORANZ eventually found out, they applied to become a party to the action so as to protect the public interest (nobody else was going to) but they were rejected for being out of time.

It is not possible for any organisation to read the Public Notices in every daily newspaper every day and so the claim over the Titi islands is more likely to proceed for the lack of opposition to the claim by anyone like CORANZ. It is the traditional role of the Attorney-General to protect the public interest but, as the biased and deeply compromised Treaty Minister Finlayson is also the Attorney-General, the people of New Zealand no longer have a Minister to protect the public interest protection that they have had in the past.

Fortunately CORANZ did become aware of the cheeky and greedy claim to the whole of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula (out to 22.2 km at sea) and from Paritu to the mouth of the Nuhaka River. The claim was lodged by the local part-Maori radical, Pauline Tangiora, JP, QSO, QSM, believed to have been born in Woodville and grown up in that area and Palmerston North.

Despite her civil awards, her past actions have included physically trying to stop the pouring of concrete for a public boat ramp and taking the Mahia Boating and Fishing Club to court to try to stop them building their clubhouse. She lost that one and was ordered to pay the club some thousands of dollars in costs. That was several years ago and they have never seen a cent of it. Yet she has the resources to mount an expensive claim as the spokesperson for her adopted coastal tribal group. In other words, she uses the law when it suits her and ignores it when it doesn’t.

By her claim Pauline Tangiora is causing unnecessary racial divisions and much unrest among landowners and local part-Maori, who have got along well together for generations. Furthermore she has only a very small amount of Maori blood and, but for her facial tattoo – presumably to give her some credibility – she could very well pass for a European.

Her claim is completely unjustifiable as the Rongomaiwahine tribe, which she fronts, has NOT had continuing and exclusive use of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula as required by the Act in order to get customary marine title. So, in order to protect the public rights of access to the beaches and sea around this peninsula, CORANZ has become a party to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim in the High Court – as has the Gisborne District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, but the Councils’ resolution to see the matter through is extremely doubtful.

Map 3The case is costing CORANZ a lot of money in legal fees for, as with any complicated civil action, there is a hearing, then more papers, another hearing, and so on.

Here can be seen the full extent of Finlayson’s deviousness as, like his fellow lawyer, Geoffrey Palmer, who allowed claims to the Waitangi Tribunal to go all the way back to 1840, it seems that the greatest reason for the Marine and Coastal Area Act is to make things as complicated as possible so as to create a lawyers’ bonanza – just as Palmer did with hundreds of millions of dollars having gone into the pockets of lawyers from his Treaty process. And lots more to come.

Finlayson has done everything to prevent the public having any say in his theft of the foreshore and seabed. Governments are meant to protect the public interest but this Key government puts private interests – e.g. Sky City and the tribal elite – ahead of the public interest and that is why it is so dangerous.

CORANZ is doing the job that the government should be doing. Its financial resources to pay the continuing legal bills on this one Mahia claim are anything but unlimited and it desperately needs donations so that it can continue to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim which, if left unopposed, might well succeed in whole or in part even though the tribe does not fulfil the requirements of the Act. These days judges do funny things – e.g. Sian Elias’ disgraceful behaviour in the Ngati Apa case when she deliberately ignored the stated law to indulge her own prejudices.

We have reached a terrible state when a relatively small, private organisation like CORANZ has to uphold the public interest because the government is failing to do so. Worse, in his secret negotiations with tribes who pursue that route rather than through the High Court, Finlayson is doling out to his favoured tribes rights that he has stolen off the public of New Zealand by his thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act

Map 41Law4All is very concerned at this theft of public commons and violation of the public interest for the sake of the racist and separatist agenda of this government. That is why 1Law4All sponsored a public meeting on the matter on 2nd February at the Napier Sailing Club. Dr. Hugh Barr, the secretary of CORANZ and author of the book, The Gathering Storm over the Foreshore and Seabed,  spoke to about 80 people and informed them of the issues.

1Law4All will continue to oppose this Mahia claim on the grounds that it is racist, separatist, thieving and does not meet the requirements of the Act. We strongly urge our members to bring this matter to the attention of as many people as possible. Perhaps even donate to the special account that has been set up by CORANZ for its legal costs and for no other purpose. It is CORANZ Rongomaiwahine Trust Fund Account 03-0566-0207094-26 or cheques to the same fund at CORANZ, P.O. Box 1876, Wellington 6140. This is one thing that we can do to ensure that future generations will have the same rights and enjoyment of the beaches and coast that we have. For now!

The beaches and seabed of our country should belong to all New Zealanders EQUALLY – as they did before Key’s National government descended into the muck of racist politics for selfish and crooked reasons. We are all New Zealanders whatever the colour of our skins or our bloodlines and there is nothing more repugnant than legislation that gives superior rights to people of a particular race or tribe.

We all pay the same taxes, we are all liable for service in war time, so why should people with one particular bloodline in a coastal tribe be given superior rights over other citizens? That is a throwback to the tribalism and feudalism that the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to get away from.

If we don’t stand up for our rights and for a democratic and non-racial New Zealand, then we will soon be second class citizens in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of out pioneer forebears.

Hugh Barr

Mahia Peninsula Grab Public Meeting

Mahia Peninsula Grab Public Meeting.

At a 7.00pm meeting on 2 February, approximately 100 people turned out to hear Dr Hugh Barr speak about the claim for the entire Mahia peninsula, under the Marine & Coastal Area Act [MCA] drafted by Chris Finlayson, favoured friend to iwis, arch enemy of kiwis. Information about the meeting was in an earlier blog post, here.

Somewhat surprisingly, the local paper turned out a reporter and photographer.  See that article here – and comment while you can. In that article, note the assertion by Ms Tangiora that the claim was to provide for the protection of burial grounds.

Who’s kidding who? Since when did part-Maori start interring bodies below the mean high water mark? Or at sea, over the side of a waka hearse? The MCA only allows for claims for foreshore and seabed areas from the high tide mark, out to sea.

Ms Tangiora spoke briefly to the meeting, but was unable or unwilling to say how she or the claimant group would prove or be able to prove that they had: exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

58 Customary marine title
(1) Customary marine title exists in a specified area . . . if the applicant group—
(b) has, in relation to the specified area,—
(i) exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption;

As one observer put it:

as proving exclusive largely uninterrupted use was virtually impossible, why bother? What’s the real purpose here? What are we [second class kiwis] not being told about the actual intention?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA


Later News

In his Waitangi Day HB Today editorial comment, Doug Laing promotes again the apartheid way – something his editor has gained a reputation for, despite being an ex-pat South African.

Obviously brainwashed, Laing trots out the canard of ‘historical grievances,’ implying that such relate to the Rongomaiwahine claim, despite the Mahia Peninsula claim having absolutely nothing to do with such alleged and unspecified grievances.  Read the editorial text for yourself:

Editorial: We must all help resolve grievances

By Doug Laing
6 Feb 2015

Those claiming Waitangi Day is being hijacked by radical Maori groups for political purposes may ponder the antics of an outdoor recreation group which is opposing customary rights applications being made under the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations, or more particularly spokesman Hugh Barr, staged a meeting at Mahia over the Christmas holidays and another last Monday, claiming, “Prime Minister John Key gave away public ownership of the coastal area”.

Mr Barr has claimed bach owners, fishing enthusiasts, surfers and boaties face losing access to the coast, or at least may have to pay heaps for it, if the applications are granted.

This may also be seen as politically highjacking the agenda, for it moves to pre-empt a process which is yet to be undertaken. The tone of this opposition – “echo of apartheid”, really? – and claiming the process to be secretive is both unhelpfully emotive and mischievous in the context of the ground on which we stand today.

Waitangi Day is, indeed, a day on which we should all be thinking about how we can all contribute to a process of resolving historical grievances and issues, which in some cases can only ever be modestly addressed.

Thus, rather than to seek to deprive anyone of any of the rights they currently have, the foremost desire of iwi making applications under the act, and claimants, is to ensure beaches and such resources are available to and accessible by all, and hopefully in better nick than they may be at this point in time.

It is not an exclusive concept at all, and seeks to protect resources for all of us, and all of those who shall come after us, our children, and grandchildren, our tamariki and mokopuna, the next generations.

– Hawke’s Bay Today

Revelations About The Disastrous Marine & Coastal Area Act

Revelations About The Disastrous Marine & Coastal Area Act.

Ten things you wont be told by the government or part-Maori.

The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 [MCA], passed by National as part of its secret deal to buy the Parliamentary votes of the race-based Maori Party, is arguably the greatest swindle in New Zealand history.

Ever since the introduction of British law in 1840, the foreshore and seabed were owned by the Crown – i.e. public ownership for the benefit of all.

This long-standing pillar of British law was stood on its head by Chief Justice Sian Elias and her fellow judges in 2003 in the Ngati Apa case when, ignoring long-standing precedents, if not their judicial oaths, they indulged their own prejudices by declaring that after all these years the Crown did not own the foreshore and seabed, thus throwing the whole of our hitherto publicly owned coast and seabed open to claims by opportunistic coastal tribes, which was likely the whole point of Elias’ trickery.

To remedy this dishonest and absurd decision the Labour/N.Z. First government brought in the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which restored the traditional legal position that these vital and valuable resources were owned by the Crown, i.e. you and me. End of story.

Well, it would have been but for John Key’s dirty deal in selling out the people of New Zealand so as to buy the Parliamentary votes of the small and unrepresentative Maori Party.

With his usual intellectual laziness, Key handed the whole matter over to Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, the biased, deceitful, unscrupulous and deeply compromised ex-lawyer for Ngai Tahu in their dodgy Treaty settlement and whose actions as a minister suggest that he might well still be working for them since, under his thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act, Ngai Tahu stand to benefit in no small way.

The Marine and Coastal Area Act repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and legislatively took the foreshore and seabed out of Crown (public) ownership for the first time since 1840, so that it was owned by nobody. And, if nobody owns it, there is nobody to defend it against claims by coastal tribes for a “Customary Marine Title” under the Act.

Not surprisingly, much of the coast and seabed is now under claim by tribes for Customary Marine Title which, as we will see below, is effectively full ownership of these former public commons.

Among the rights that can be exercised by the lucky applicant groups that win Customary Marine Title over an area of foreshore and seabed are:

1. Unlike others, it does not have to pay coastal occupation charges under the Resource Management Act or royalties for taking sand and shingle from the beach. Section 60 (b).

2. It has the sole right to issue permits for watching marine mammals like whales. For a fee, of course. Section 62 (1) (d).

3. It can issue, change, review and revoke a New Zealand coastal policy statement. Section 62 (1) (d).

4. Anyone who gets permission under the Resource Management Act to carry out an activity in a Customary Marine Title area – e.g. building or extending a boat shed on piles like those in Auckland’s Orakei Basin and at Paremata and Evans Bay in Wellington, must also get the permission of the tribe that holds customary marine title over the area – again for a fee. If you build such a structure without tribal permission, you can be IMPRISONED for up to two years or fined up to $300,000, of which only 10% of the fine goes to the Crown while the other 90% goes to the tribe, thus giving the tribe a huge financial incentive for vigorous, if not vindictive, policing. Section 69.

5. A group that holds a Customary Marine Title can veto DoC proposals within the Customary Marine Title area [ Section 72 (1) ] and there is no right of appeal against any refusal of permission. Section 73 (3) (b).

6. The group can declare any part of its customary marine title area to be “wahi tapu” [ Section 78 (1) ] to which it can restrict or FORBID public access. Section 26 (2) and (3) and Section 79 (1) (b). “Wahi tapu” means any place alleged to be “sacred to Maori in a traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual or mythological sense.” Section 9 and section 6 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. So, allowing “wahi tapu” to be declared on the basis of myth opens the way for the tribe to close off the best fishing grounds and surf breaks to the public for any reason they can dream up on the grounds of a conveniently concocted myth.

There is nothing in the Act to prevent a tribe declaring the WHOLE of their customary marine title area to be wahi tapu although this is more likely to be done on a progressive basis over the years since section 79 (3) (a) and (b) allows agreements over wahi tapu to be “varied.” However, since the whole purpose of the Act is to swipe from the public and give to part-Maori groups NZ’s foreshore and seabed, any “variation” will almost certainly be to expand the wahi tapu area. A part-Maori Labour M.P. once hissed under his breath in Parliament, “We will eventually get ALL of the coast through wahi tapu” and, by this Act, Finlayson has opened the gates for such wholesale theft from, and betrayal of, the people of New Zealand.

7. To enforce a “wahi tapu” ban against the anglers, boaties, surfers, dog walkers and other beach users “trespassing”on these formerly publicly owned areas, tribal wardens can enforce fines of up to $5,000. Yes – a fine of up to $5,000 for intentionally walking on or swimming in an area that used to be publicly owned. Section 81 (2).

8. A tribe with customary marine title owns all the minerals on or under the seabed – out to 22.2km – except for petroleum, gold, silver and uranium, and can charge royalties for their extraction – money that used to go to the Treasury to help finance things such as health and education but under the Act are now for the sole benefit of the numerically small tribe. The most common and valuable mineral under the sea is iron sands, for which these lucky tribal members will get the benefits based on nothing more than happening to be born with a particular (and privileged) bloodline. Sections 62 (1) (f) and section 83.

9. Tribes with customary marine title can also charge royalties to councils and others for taking sand and shingle from the beach. Section 84 (2) (b)

10. The tribe can make its own planning document – Sections 62 (1) (g) and section 85 – which impose obligations on the Director-General of Conservation in formulating policy (Section 90), on the Minister of Fisheries in settling or varying sustainability measures (Section 91), and on regional councils (Section 93).

Thus do the tribes get what is effectively full ownership of areas that always have been in public ownership and still should be. Tribes never had any of these rights before Finlayson introduced this thieving Act to benefit his ex-client, Ngai Tahu, and his other favoured tribes.

Every one of these above-mentioned advantages for undeserving tribes is a violation of the long held rights of all other New Zealanders.

Of all the racist and divisive laws that have afflicted New Zealand in recent years for no other reason than to enrich the pale faced, tribal elite, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is by far the worst. Hardly surprising since its creator, Christopher Finlayson, is almost certainly the most deceitful, unethical and compromised Minister in our history.

Unless we are to become a totally apartheid society it will have to be repealed and any customary marine titles granted under it will have to be annulled without compensation. But that won’t happen until we have a more honest and accountable government – one that does not sell out the rights of ordinary New Zealanders in order to buy temporary political support from the tribal elite.

The beaches and seabed of our beautiful country should belong to all New Zealanders EQUALLY – as they did before Key’s National government descended into the mud of racist politics for selfish and crooked reasons.

We are all New Zealanders whatever the colour of our skins or our bloodlines and there is nothing more repugnant than legislation that gives superior rights to people of a particular race or tribe.

We all pay the same taxes, we are all liable for service in war time, so why should people with one particular bloodline to a coastal tribe be given superior rights over other citizens? That is a throwback to the tribalism and feudalism that the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to get away from.

If we don’t stand up for our rights and for a democratic and non-racial New Zealand, then we will soon be second class citizens in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of our pioneer forebears.

Mahia Peninsula Grab

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

Mahia Meeting Advert

This is the extent of the Mahia Peninsula claim under the Marine & Coastal Area Act.

Mahia Peninsula Grab
Click on the picture to see a larger map.


MARINE & COASTAL AREA ACT DECEPTION

Supporters of the Marine and Coastal Area Act [MCA] will assert there are certain public protections under the Act. Don’t be fooled. That’s a seductive sophistry, exposed in the next few paragraphs.

Before dealing with those devilish details, the paramount thing to appreciate is that the MCA ended public ownership – through the Crown – of the beaches and inner sea waters of NZ. In so doing, the Act allows race-based groups of part-Maori to forbid and / or restrict general NZ public access to parts of the nation’s coastline.

What will be trumpeted by Chris Finlayson and his sycophants is MCA section 26. Rights of access:  “Every individual has, without charge, the right to enter, stay in or on, and leave the common marine and coastal area: to pass and repass in, on, over, and across the common marine and coastal area: to engage in recreational activities in or on the common marine and coastal area.”

signs_montage

What people will not be told is latter parts of that same section which cover Restrictions on Rights of access: “Those rights are subject to any authorised prohibitions or restrictions that are imposed under section 79, being a prohibition or restriction on any or all of the rights in section 26, including: one or more ways of exercising those rights; one or more defined periods, or an indefinite period, or recurring periods of a stated kind; one or more specified areas.”

So what’s section 79 about? Forbidding or restricting public access based on wahi tapu, meaning any place alleged to be sacred to Maori in a traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or mythological sense.

That’s right: a law based on myths! Any intentional breaches of a Customary Marine Title carry penalties of up to $600,000! And 90% of any fines like that must be paid to the Customary Marine Title holder – a great tribal policing incentive, if ever there was one! Imagine if 90% of speeding fines went to the police officer.

MCA supporters will offer further soothing platitudes about the burden of proof needed to establish a Customary Marine Title Recognition Order in the NZ High Court. Viz. The applicant part-Maori group needs to prove that it has exclusively used and occupied a foreshore area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption. That may prove quite difficult, prompting the question: why bother? Because a back door option leads to Chris Finlayson’s office.

If a Court turns down a Customary Marine Title Order application, the applicant group can seek a Recognition Agreement (for a Customary Marine Title) with the Crown. That would be done through Chris Whinlayson and the MCA does not require him to consult with any other potentially interested parties.

So if it didn’t fly in Court, there’s a sympathetic, if not quisling Minister for an easy get-around-it appeal process. And we know where his sympathies lie. Bad? Right. But it gets even worse . . .

If you thought getting a Resource Consent was bad enough, besides forbidding or restricting public use and access, a Customary Marine Title also creates a secondary bureaucratic layer called a “permission right.” Among other things, it means that a Resource Consent from a Council to build a beach bach is subject to a “permission right,” from a part-Maori tribal group that has any Customary Marine Title for the area.

Beach baches

And, wouldn’t you know it, there is no right of appeal. Viz. “To avoid doubt, a decision of a customary marine title group to give or to decline permission for an activity is not subject to any right of appeal or a right of objection under the Resource Management Act 1991.’

So there you have a snapshot of this disaster. The foregoing enigmatic, tortuous and twisted convolutions of the MCA reflect well the mendacious mind of its prime architect.


 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(Added 5 February 2015)

Battle Line Drawn Over Mahia Iwi Coast Claim

by Kristine Walsh of the Gisborne Herald • Monday, January 5, 2015

More than 80 bach owners and other parties have signed up to stake their own claim to use of the foreshore and seabed around Mahia Peninsula. The sign-on was carried out at a meeting at Mahia’s Mokotahi Hall on Saturday, where around 120 interested parties gathered to hear about the Rongomaiwahine claim for recognition of a protected customary right and customary marine title.

The area involved covers 100 kilometres around the Mahia Peninsula from near Whareongaonga in the north to the Nuhaka River mouth in the west, running from the high tide mark out 22 kilometres to New Zealand’s territorial limit. To claim customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Act 2011 — for which iwi trust representative Pauline Tangiora made an application to the High Court in 2013 — Rongomaiwahine will have to prove a longstanding and exclusive history of use and occupation.

However, the stakeholders who signed up on Saturday say they will offer statements to prove that Rongomaiwahine has not had exclusive use and occupation, “thereby showing where and when they, too, had swum, fished, boated and walked the beach without restriction”. In Mahia to address the meeting on Saturday, Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand secretary Dr Hugh Barr said that, if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area, “with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission”.

Dr Barr told the sometimes-rowdy meeting that from 1840 to 2011, New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders as a public common, available to everyone. This changed with the 2011 Marine and Coastal Act, which allows coastal tribes to gain customary marine title if they can show that they have exclusively occupied and used the foreshore and seabed since 1840.

The title gives the right of veto, the ability to charge fees for use of current and new slipways, wharves, aquaculture areas, marinas and exclusive mining rights to iron-sand and minerals in the area, he said. Dr Barr told the gathering there was a lot of secrecy surrounding the claim lodged with the High Court. However, Rongomaiwahine legal representative Leo Watson informed Gisbome District Council of the intent to file in August 2013, saying the iwi “looks forward to working constructively with the relevant territorial authorities in relation to this application”.

At a meeting the following month, the council’s environment and policy committee moved to have its lawyer oppose the application, largely on the grounds that customary marine title would allow the iwi to independently veto or permit resource consent applications.

The council was also concerned that there were potential cross-boundary issues with neighbouring iwi Ngai Tamanuhiri, which “may pose issues for the council in relation to its statutory obligations”. Even if the committee did not oppose the application, however, council staff were not confident it would be successful. After discussion with Crown Law Office solicitor Andrew Irwin, the view was that “the information provided in the application and affidavit about the customary activities to be undertaken within the claim area is insufficient”.

Four other claims under the Marine and Coastal Act 2011 are in progress, the largest being Ngati Porou’s claim over about 200 kilometres of the coast north of Gisbome. Ngati Pahauwera is seeking title over 30 kilometres either side of the mouth of the Mohaka River, and there are two separate claims over the Coromandel coast.


Letter to the Editor

Friday, December 13, 2013

Access to New Zealand coasts and waterways belongs to all

As an ordinary member of the public living on the East Coast of the North Island, I am dismayed at the latest claims by Maori tribes for large sections of our coastline.

This present Government has already passed legislation giving Maori ownership to the foreshore and seabed so why these latest claims?

The biggest claim is that of the Ngati Porou for about 200km north of Gisborne and stretches to just west of Lottin Point. The Ngati Pahuwera are claiming rights to around 30km of coastline either side of the Mohaka River. The Rongomaiwahine tribe are also claiming the whole of the Mahia peninsular from the Nuhaka River to just south of Young Nick’s Head. There are also two other claims, one by Ngati Porou Hauraki, which covers a large area of the Coromandel coast including sea and islands. The claim extends from Waikawau Bay, down to and including Kennedy Bay, Cuvier Island and the Mercury Islands. The other piece of the Coromandel on the claims list stretches from Otonga Point down the coast through Mataora Bay to Horokawa, and from there 3.5km out to sea.Why? They already have these rights under government legislation passed in 2011.

This Government promised that the public would have free and unconstricted use of our foreshore and seabed yet these claims strike me as the first leg of privatisation of our former public beaches.

I myself have been subject to abuse and been thrown off former public beaches. Already I have received one complaint of a gate erected across a public road, padlocked and preventing access to a former popular beach, yet local councils are reluctant to enforce the law. Why? Are they scared of these minority groups that hold the country to ransom over that which is legally ours?

These claims are just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come as coastal tribes realise the monetary wealth in our foreshore.

To me this is just pure thieving at the expense of the general public. We all have the right to go swimming, rafting, walking the dog or just fishing on our rivers, lakes, streams and coastlines.

This country is supposed to be made up of peoples of all races and with equal rights to enjoy the freedom of our countryside and coastline. It is called democracy. This country belongs to all of us, not just any select group.

Norrie Day


Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Already causing unrest

Re: Battle line drawn over Mahia iwi coast claim, Jan 5

Rongomaiwahine iwi have not had exclusive use of the Mahia Peninsula. They are causing much unrest among landowners who have got on together for generations.

They should not be allowed to have the control to decide what would affect a whole community. They would not be able to stop conflict, which has already started at the boat ramp, with a Maori lady who said she could do what she liked. “We own the water,” she said. The reply to her was, “Well, we own the hose?”

3rd Generation Landowner


Letter to the Editor

The Gisborne Herald • Tuesday, January 20, 2015

No Battle Lines Drawn For Over A Century

Re: Battle line drawn over Mania iwi Coast claim, January 5 story.

I was sad to read this one-sided article. there is not and has not been battle lines drawn — for over a century or more. The claim of a “sometimes rowdy meeting” only occurred when the gentleman chairing it tried to stop our solicitor Leo Watson from speaking. The audience was very vocal about letting him speak.

Hugh Barr’s credibility must be suspect when he uses inflammatory statements such as: “. . . if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area ‘with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission’.” Further statements are dishonest and if your reporter had spoken to both sides, the article would have been more balanced.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 guarantees free public access, rights of navigation and rights of fishing. Where there is a “customary marine title area” declared, the only restriction on access is in specific wahi tapu sites such as burial grounds or sites of significance — these sites will be identified as part of the evidence to be filed with the court in early 2015. Rongomaiwahine would also have additional rights of consultation in resource consent applications, and to continue their traditional activities.

The application for recognition of customary rights to the foreshore and seabed was filed on behalf of the whanau and hapu of Rongomaiwahine in 2004. It has been moved into the High Court under the Takutai Moana Act and was advertised publicly again in late 2013. The local councils and the Crown are parties to the application. We could do without people such as Mr Barr trying to cause trouble on our peninsula.

Some years ago when amateur fishing people were complaining about commercial fishermen from around the world destroying the m-shore fishing, our people successfully had the Ministry of Fisheries enforce regulations that, except for crayfish, no commercial take would be allowed within a 2km zone around the peninsula. This is still in place today.

Also, if the person who wrote to your paper on January 7 (Already causing unrest) had signed his/her name, maybe we could have a more honest dialogue.

In peace

Pauline Tangiora


Admin comment

the only restriction on access is in specific wahi tapu sites such as burial grounds

Any claim under the Marine & Coastal Area Act relates only to any area from the mean high water mark, out to sea, according to this definition from the Act..

marine and coastal area— (a) means the area that is bounded,— (i) on the landward side, by the line of mean high-water springs

Does anyone know if there are burial grounds at sea, around the Mahia Peninsula? Or is the assertion by Pauline Tangiora about the only restriction being specific to burial grounds, a bare-faced lie, or smelly red herring, at best?


Letter to the Editor

The Gisborne Herald • Thursday, January 29, 2015

Quoting Law Inflammatory?

The outrageous and deceptive letter from Pauline Tangiora cannot go unanswered (20 January, No battle lines drawn for over a century).

She wrote that, “Hugh Barr’s credibility must be suspect when he uses inflammatory statements such as: ‘. . . if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission’.”

In making this statement at the well-attended meeting of bach owners at Mahia on January 2, at which I was present, Dr Barr was merely quoting section 81 (2) of the Marine and Coastal Area Act. How can it be inflammatory to read out the section of an Act passed by Parliament?

Mrs Tangiora maintains that the Act guarantees free public access to the area of the customary marine title. It does not. Under section 79 (1) (b) the lucky tribe that scores customary marine title can forbid access to any areas that it declares to be wahi tapu. Since the grounds for declaring wahi tapu can be based on a conveniently concocted myth, we can expect to see the best fishing grounds and surf breaks closed off to the public on the grounds of wahi tapu.

In criticising the writer of a letter for using a nom de plume, Mrs Tangiora is being hypocritical — as in her own letter she concealed the fact that she herself is the claimant in this greedy and racist grab for the foreshore and seabed of the whole of the Mahia peninsula.

John McLean

Poll Should Rebuff Race Based Policies

Poll Should Rebuff
Race-Based Policies

This Christmas holiday season should not be a time of idleness for those who have reason to plan for the next set of local government elections in October, 2016.

Less than two years remain to organise for concerned citizens and ratepayers who want to purge politicians and bureaucrats determined to implement and accelerate anti-democratic racialisation of local government.

Despite its claims to stand for “equal citizenship and equal opportunity” and “limited government”, the ruling National Party has striven instead, through its Parliamentary fast-tracked Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation, to bankrupt and discredit both values at local government level.

Steered through by Treaty of Waitangi negotiations and associate Maori development minister Christopher Finlayson, National’s bicultural co-governance legislation has created numerous regulatory entities made up of democratically-elected public authorities and Maori tribal private interests.

It is these intrinsically corrupted institutional monstrosities that should be attacked in the next local government elections in a drive to restore political control to democratic majorities.

The Maori component of such political hybrids has lost no time in bossing everyone else around, entrenching non-accountability for itself in the process of pursuing its favoured objectives of rent seeking and veto wielding.

The latest example concerns 90 Mile Beach, nowadays styled as Te Oneroa-a-Tohe to suit Ngati Kuri in their Treaty settlement signed off by Mr Finlayson.

In the February 2014 media release to mark the event, Mr Finlayson stated that, “In general, all existing public access rights in relation to areas affected by this settlement will be preserved.”

By December of this year, Mr Finlayson’s assurances have been proven false.

Maori tribes, now ensconced permanently in co-governance of 90 Mile Beach with local government, are reportedly advancing with plans, since denied, for restricting access and charging for public use.

This is just one example of why the vast majority of New Zealanders, who are not Maori tribal interests expecting to profit in perpetuity from Mr Finlayson’s money-spinning Treaty settlements, should not trust his word.

He no doubt assumes that he’s on autopilot to become Sir Christopher under the honours system re-established by Prime Minister John Key.

If this must be so, then let’s at least have some truth in the matter by awarding Mr Finlayson his tarnished gong for exceptional services to increasing racial inequality and corroding democratic values in New Zealand.

The ACT Party, while licking its latest self-inflicted general election wounds and wondering what to do next about its vote plummeting to zero, could well consider how it might reinvigorate itself by running credible candidates at the next local government elections on a platform of fiscal prudence, zero tolerance for political correctness, and one law for all.

The ground should be fertile for a party like ACT to attract support and win representation in local government as it becomes apparent to ever more New Zealand ratepayers how they have become relegated to legal inferiority under the all-engulfing Treaty settlement process.

From that basis, the party could have some hope of rebuilding its Parliamentary presence across a wider electoral franchise than merely being the plaything of Mr Key’s arbitrary caprice in the Epsom electorate.

Auckland is ripe for a ratepayer revolt in 2016, given the way in which treaty settlement legislation has led to a racially biased Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

Mayor Len Brown and his deputy, Penny Hulse, have promoted racial policies that favour of the part-Maori minority of its inhabitants, including encouraging the proliferation of sites of value and significance to Maori under the PAUP.

These sites are the basis of the Maori tribal cultural impact assessment industry in Auckland.

Neither elected official has ever had the courage or integrity to step up and explain truthfully what they’re doing to Auckland’s non-Maori majority.

Instead, it has been left to chief planner Roger Blakeley to advocate for race-based local government in Auckland.

Dr Blakeley evidently belongs to the Finlayson camp of fanciful ideas to suit the pro-Maori agenda when he can come out unilaterally in an official Auckland Council media release entitled “Cultural impact assessments: balance needed” with tendentious claims that do not appear to be supported by any evidence. Dr Blakeley stated:

It’s good to remember just how important protecting our Maori heritage is to Aucklanders – including recent arrivals who really embrace this aspect of their new home.

It is our point of difference in the world.

ACT and similar political movements, if they got cracking now, could mount effective campaigns to help remove the likes of Mr Brown and Ms Hulse come 2016 and take the city back for Aucklanders who don’t want race-based politics blighting their society.

Published with the kind permission of Michael Coote – first published in NBR.

Maori Land

By Reuben Chapple

Reblogged from Breaking Views

Property rights come about in one of two ways:

1. What in a pre-legal society might be referred to as “Customary Title.” This is not ownership at all, merely a temporary right of use or occupation, lasting only until extinguished by superior force.

2. Legal ownership. This means the ability to exclude others by the force of law. The underlying requirement is a universally recognised, settled form of civil government that protects property owners against violent dispossession, and provides for ongoing security of tenure, i.e. “time without end in the land.”

Former Auckland University Professor of Maori Studies, Dr Ranginui Walker, has stated: “On the eve of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, there was not one inch of land in New Zealand without its Maori owners.”

Such an assertion, while politically useful, is factually vacuous.

Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840, there was no such thing as a collective “Maori.” Nor was there any settled form of civil government. The functional social unit of pre-European Maori society was the hapu, or sub-tribe. Each hapu was in a Hobbesian state of nature (“War of every man against every man”) with every other hapu, rendering life “nasty, brutish and short.”

In his book Maori Land Tenure: Studies of a Changing Institution (1977), Sir Hugh Kawharu sets out to fabricate a universally recognised body of Maori property rights pre-dating the Treaty of Waitangi. By implication, these were rudely subsumed by white-settler governments, who substituted their own Eurocentric notions of property ownership. This now widely accepted thesis is arrant nonsense designed to fudge or remove the fact that “Customary Title” is in practical terms no title at all.

Within the hapu-controlled estate, whanau groups sometimes enjoyed the exclusive rights of occupancy or usufruct that Kawharu has identified, but the only universally accepted concept of land ownership BETWEEN hapu was “Te rau o te patu” or “The Law of the Club.”

This means that before 1840, though various Maori tribes were effectively the sole occupants of New Zealand, they were never owners. In the absence of a settled form of civil government, hapu merely used or occupied land only until someone else came along and took it off them.

Article I of the Treaty of Waitangi (the assumption of national sovereignty by the Crown) modified this position; also Article II, which purported to convert this ephemeral “Customary Title” into permanent legal ownership.

However, the Treaty was never meant to convey to Maori ownership of the entire land area of New Zealand. It was intended to secure the various hapu in a legal (as opposed to “Customary Title”) ownership of land that they actually used or occupied as at February 1840.

In practice, this meant ownership of land identifiably occupied and cultivated. It is ludicrous to propose that someone would expend more energy foraging for food than it would provide once found. So at a most generous assessment, such ownership might stretch to include perhaps one day’s hunting and gathering range around a Maori settlement.

At the time the Treaty was signed, even in the vastly more populous North Island, such settlements were typically few and far between.

The North Island in 1840 was home to an estimated 100, 000 Maori. Ernest Dieffenbach, a German-born naturalist who travelled throughout the North Island in 1844, reported that “even in the areas of greatest Maori habitation, there are huge tracts of land, even up to hundreds of miles, between the various tribes [hapu].”

The South Island lay practically deserted. Edward Shortland’s 1846 census found some 2, 500 Ngai Tahu, resident at several coastal locations. To suggest that 2, 500 people [a] lived on; cultivated; or [c] hunted and gathered over more than 13 million hectares of land is arrant nonsense.

Even in the North Island, aside from the immediate areas around a Maori settlement, the “waste lands” were uninhabited, unimproved, uncultivated, and untrod by human feet, other than those of an occasional war party or traveller. Since the forcible exclusion of other groups was in practical terms impossible, the “waste lands” had no “Customary Title” owners to become legal owners under Article II of the Treaty.

The mischievous notion that Maori “owned” land and associated resources they neither used nor occupied was a fiction propounded in the 1840s and 1850s by the missionaries. They were well aware that the Crown had little money for land purchasing. The missionary agenda was to keep secular, worldly Pakeha confined to areas already settled, thus ensuring missionaries remained the only European influence in the all-Maori hinterlands they sought to Christianise.

The Crown was obliged to accept this misinformation because it had a mere handful of troops available to enforce its edicts against 100, 000 well-armed and potentially warlike Maori. Once Maori learned that the Treaty supposedly gave them title to the entire land area of New Zealand, each hapu became an instant “owner” of huge tracts of “waste land” adjoining its settlement(s). Naturally, this created multiple competing “ownership” claims.

To convey a clear title to subsequent purchasers and ensure incoming settlers went unmolested, the Crown was obliged to extinguish this Maori “ownership” by paying all purported claimants. In many early land purchases the Crown paid out anyone asserting a right to be paid.

The Native [now Maori] Land Court was originally set up to deal with these competing claims to the “waste lands.” “Ownership” was typically awarded to whoever could spin the most convincing whakapapa about how his remote ancestor had travelled over the land 500 years before naming natural features after parts of his body.

Had the missionaries not queered the pitch for the Crown, the “waste lands” and appurtenant rights would have simply been assumed by all to be vested in the Crown, to be held, managed, onsold, or otherwise used for the benefit of ALL New Zealanders, irrespective of race.

“Appurtenant rights” of course include those associated with the foreshore and seabed, which in any event fall outside the scope of any rights purportedly reserved to “Maori” under the Treaty.

The English Treaty version at Article II refers to “fisheries.” This is simply the right for Maori to go fishing and gather shellfish. Since Article III conveys to individual Maori “all the rights and privileges of British Subjects,” the Crown holding the seabed and foreshore in public ownership clearly fulfils these requirements.

Correctly interpreted, the Treaty establishes no exclusive rights for today’s mixed-blooded New Zealanders whose Maori ancestors signed the Treaty to control any of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed, let alone clip the ticket for activities not in contemplation at the time that the Treaty was signed.

Corporate Iwi claims to seabed and foreshore are already being mounted on the basis of maps such as those accessed via the links below below:

http://www.takoa.co.nz/iwi_maps_north.htm

http://www.takoa.co.nz/iwi_maps_south.htm

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, this “Map of Europe” approach with its arbitrarily drawn “frontiers” is yet another trougher-fabricated nonsense.

Since Maori owned nothing in 1840, the foreshore and seabed are resources that should rightly remain vested in public ownership for the benefit of ALL New Zealanders, not passed to self-identified, self-interested, minority groups.

Chris Whinlayson

The Trickery Of The Marine And Coastal Area Act

The Trickery Of The Marine & Coastal Area Act

Not So Blind Justice
The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 is the work of Christopher Whinlayson, the arch-enemy of all New Zealanders who are not members of the tribal elite. The Act itself reflects the bias and deceit of its creator. For example, a tribe wanting a piece of our once publicly owned foreshore and seabed needs to insert only one small advertisement in the public notices section of one local newspaper, giving notice of its intended claim. Yes, ONCE ONLY. And not many people read the public notices every day.

Dr. Hugh Barr, the secretary of the Council of Outdoor and Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ) and co-founder of the Coastal Coalition, was the foremost opponent of the Marine and Coastal Area Act and, after it was passed into law, he became determined to oppose any applications by tribes for customary marine title since it would threaten public access to these priceless resources.

The first application to the High Court for a customary marine title was from the Tipene clan for the coast and seabed of  two of the Muttonbird Islands off Stewart Island. Being a resident of Wellington, Dr. Barr did not see the small advertisement that was inserted ONCE in the local paper and so was not able to register in time as a party to oppose the claim. Thus it looks like this claim will not be opposed – certainly not by the Crown. The whole purpose of the Marine and Coastal Act was to take the foreshore and seabed, representing in size the equivalent of 35% of New Zealand’s land area, out of Crown (i.e. public) ownership so that now this once Crown owned resource is owned by nobody.

And, since the Crown no longer owns it, why should it oppose any tribal claim to it? This was all part of Whinlayson’s trickery. Traditionally it has been the Attorney-General who has been expected to uphold the public interest but, since Whinlayson is both Attorney-General and Minister of Treaty Settlements and, as such, is so deeply compromised, the Key government clearly given up this traditional role of the Attorney-General. Whinlayson is further compromised by the fact that he was the lawyer for Ngai Tahu in their greedy and unjustified Treaty claim and there is growing evidence that he is using (or, if you like, abusing) his present position to continue to advance the interests of that tribe.

Another claim for customary marine title to the High Court was lodged by a Wellington woman of part-Maori descent for from 6 to 8 kilometres of foreshore at Cape Turnagain  as well as the adjoining seabed, out to 2-3 kms. Again Dr. Barr did not see the small notice in the local paper and so CORANZ, which represents tens of thousands of outdoor sportspeople, could not resist the claim.

If the process for advertising these important and far reaching claims was in any way transparent, the Office of Treaty Settlements (Whinlayson’s department) would put them on its website so that potential objectors could see them instead of having to rely on one small notice in one of the nation’s sixty or so newspapers.  But, of course, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is all about secretly advancing the interests of the tribal elite at the expense of the rest of the country, contemptuous of public rights and democracy.

The next claim to go to the High Court for customary marine title was the Rongomaiwahine application for all of the foreshore and seabed (out to 12 nautical miles [22.2 kms] ) around the beautiful Mahia peninsula, stretching from Whareongaonga in the north-east, down to and around the Mahia peninsula (including Portland Island) and further down to the mouth of the Nuhaka River in the direction of Napier.

Thanks to a contact in Gisborne, Dr. Barr was tipped off about this claim and, as a result, CORANZ has become a party to the court case so as to represent the public interest – something that the Crown should do but won’t. After all, that was the whole point of Whinlayson’s dirty little exercise – stealing from the many (the public) to enrich the few (the tribal elite).

The Mahia claim is being spearheaded by a certain part-Maori radical, Pauline Tangiora, who, like the notorious Mrs. Harawira, seems to be a professional mischief maker who goes round the country trying to grab whatever she can by whatever means. She has already gained a certain reputation around Mahia by trying to prevent the pouring of concrete for a public boat ramp and for using the courts to try to prevent the Mahia Boating and Fishing Club from erecting a new clubhouse.

She lost that one and was ordered by the court to pay the club’s costs of $3,400. That was three years ago and the club has never seen a cent despite the fact that it is believed that she has been given more than $4 million of taxpayers’ money in recent years in the form of “legal aid” to fund all the many race based – or, if you like, racist – court actions that she embarks upon.

To defeat the claim that the tribe has had “continuous and exclusive occupation of the foreshore and seabed without substantial interruption” since 1840 it is necessary for Dr. Barr and CORANZ to present affidavits/statements showing that this is not true and these have been forthcoming in large numbers from fishermen and boaties in the area.

There will be a public meeting in the hall at Mahia Beach at 4 p.m. on Fri, 2 January, when all the bach owners will be there, to acquaint them with this claim which, if it should be successful, will almost certainly result in a reduction in the value of the properties there.

So far Dr. Barr and CORANZ have been funding the legal fees themselves and it is hoped that some more funding will be generated at this meeting. One can only wonder who is paying Pauline Tangiora’s legal fees but it is unlikely to be the woman herself. More likely the hapless taxpayer by some sleight of hand of the government.

Of course, the real advantage of getting a customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area Act (and the greatest danger to the public) is that the lucky tribe is allowed to declare areas within their claim “wahi tapu” (forbidden places) with fines of up to $5,000 on any member of the public who should “trespass” on any such part of these formerly publicly owned beaches. With a type like Pauline Tangiora calling the shots one can only imagine how thoroughly and viciously the fishing, boating and surfing public of Mahia will be stripped of their rights under the notorious “wahi tapu” provisions of the Act.

One reason why the people of Mahia/Gisborne are so keen to resist this claim is that quite a few of them have been frequenters of Lake Waikaremoana for several years and are now starting to feel the effects of the greed of the new “co-governors”, the Tuhoe tribe – e.g. fishing licences were always issued annually and promptly whereas, under the delightful regime of “co-governance,” they have been held up for many months and are now given for six months only.

It is bizarre, disgraceful, racist and undemocratic that in the twenty-first century private people/associations like Dr. Barr and CORANZ have to waste their time and dip into their pockets to fight for continuing public access to recreational areas. Those freedoms are now being taken away from the public, excluding them form places they have been free to go to ever since 1840. All done under the aegis of the thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act. And for no other reason than the National government’s perceived need to buy the Parliamentary votes of the racist Maori Party.

Donations towards the legal costs of defending the rights of the public against the racist claim of the Rongomaiwahine tribe to the beaches and waters of the Mahia peninsula can be made to: CORANZ Rongomaiwahine Trust Fund account – no. 030566-0207094-26

Mahia Area Map

Bureaucrats Wallowing In Cultural Correctness

– Sir Robert Jones in the NZ Herald, 9 September 2014

The Pope’s Losing Battle with the Mob, headlined Warsaw’s Polityka newspaper. Poland’s a Catholic country.

Nevertheless, the newspaper didn’t pull its punches with its cynicism towards the papal threats, publicised here, to defrock Italian priests displaying obsequious sycophancy towards the Mafia.

They’ve always done so, lured by the largesse these imbued-in-religiosity mobsters render to the clerics from their extortion practices. Like all foreign horror news items, we read of them, grateful for the pervading integrity of New Zealand life. Well don’t be too sure. Consider this. Recently, a shop tenancy changed in a modern 17-storey Auckland CBD office building owned by my company. The previous tenant had blocked off some of its window which we now intended putting back to a conventional shop front.

At this stage, sit down with a stiff drink and accept my assurance I’m not making this up. For we were then informed by a planner my Auckland office uses for council dealings (which can be laborious) that under the new council rules, changes to a building’s appearance require resource consent and we would be subject to penalty if we simply put back the window.

If that’s not outrageously absurd enough, things then became truly Kafkaesque and illustrate why the Government, against ill-considered opposition parties’ objections, wishes to tone down the Resource Management Act.

For we were then told that under the new Draft Unitary Plan, not yet enacted, our building being within 50 metres of a designated Maori heritage site, we needed RMA approval (for a new shop window, for God’s sake), this instantly forthcoming at a cost of $4500 plus the approval of 13 iwi.

The council refused to advise the addresses of these iwi outfits, yet added that without their consent, we can’t put back the window.

So the planner located, then wrote to the 13 iwi, ranging from Taranaki to Whangarei.

Five replied stating they had no concerns while others said they were considering the matter, presumably calling huis to weigh up this window crisis.

One respondent bearing that fine old Maori name of Jeff Lee, representing something called Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, contacted the planner. (See the tribe’s financial report, below)

Look up their web site if you have tolerance for Maori sacred footstep in the earth guff, although it’s 100 per cent on the mark with its proclamation: our vision is only limited by our imagination.

I’m sceptical about Mr Lee’s vision but have no doubt about his imagination, for, after advising the planners verbally that no Cultural Impact Assessment Report was required for the window, he nevertheless asked them to consider it – brace yourselves – given his ancestors, centuries ago, gathered in the vicinity.

Lee then wrote, outlining his terms for assessing the window’s cultural impact which, he said, would take him a total of six to eight hours.

For this he sought $90 per hour plus GST and travel expenses of 0.77c / km.

At this stage we became involved and told the planners to tell Mr Lee to get stuffed. In the words of my company’s manager, a historian knowledgeable in Maori history and who speaks the language: It’s a classic case of bureaucrats worried about cultural correctness without thinking through the consequences.

I more succinctly call it a racket, just as with the Bay of Islands hole in the rock (our ancestors gathered feathers nearby and Captain Cook looked at it, so give us money.)

So too with the gangsterish extortion attempt with the Mighty River float. Evidently, all of these sacred sites hypocritically become desanctified by the payment of money.

The council has designated 61 sites across Auckland and nominated 3600 others of interest. Undertake earthworks (swimming pool, building foundations, a shed etc) within 50m of a scheduled site and one must engage (pay) iwi.

None are of Stonehenge moment but instead claptrap such as our ancestors beached canoes nearby and the feather-gathering ilk.

I sent this material to Alan Duff in France. It makes me sick, he replied, adding that an acquaintance had been confronted with a $90 an hour rort after buying a section and wishing to build a house.

Not even the New York Mafia would come at this nonsense. Six months after I bought a Wall St office tower, I received a panicky letter from the building managers, enclosing a letter from the Mafia’s lawyer, saying he would like a meeting with the owners to discuss his client’s offer to provide the building’s services. Treat them seriously, my manager urged.

Some hope! Instead I replied to the shyster lawyer, proposing a meeting in my Wellington office and heard no more.

But at least they would have provided the services, presumably clipping the various contractors’ tickets.

What’s happening here is far worse, being more aligned with the Italian Mafia’s offering of unneeded protection services. In their wrong-headed sycophancy to Maori nonsense, the council fools who naively allowed this to develop are no different in principle from the fawning Italian priests.

 

Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Income Stmt

GOVERNMENT REWARDS GENOCIDE AND CANNIBALISM WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS

cat1_eWhen Ngati Toa made a claim for the loss of their maritime empire over Cook Strait, the Waitangi Tribunal, which is usually indulgent to any claim, turned it down. This was a rare act of common sense on the part of the Tribunal as, in so far as Ngati Toa, under the leadership of its cannibal chief, Te Rauparaha, exercised any “domain” over the waters of Cook Strait, it was for the purpose of leading his war canoes across the water from Kapiti Island to kill, cook and eat the tribes of the South Island. Ngati Toa had captured Kapiti at the end of their murderous march from their place of origin at the Kawhia Harbour in the Waikato.

However, when Treaty Minister Christopher Finlayson conducted his secret negotiations with Ngati Toa without any input from the public, he overrode the Waitangi Tribunal’s refusal to grant compensation “for the loss Ngati Toa’s maritime empire over Cook Strait” and decided to throw in an extra $10 million of taxpayers’ money as undeserved compensation for this right of Ngati Toa’s warriors to use Cook Strait as a waterway on their missions of cannibalism and genocide.

This is the same minister who granted a cash and land bonanza to the descendants/tribe of Te Kooti as compensation for the “stigmatisation of Te Kooti’s name” after the old scoundrel descended on the peaceful settlement of Matawhero, near Gisborne, in 1868 and slaughtered 70 peaceful civilians – both European and Maori. In the words of the recently published book, Twisting the Treaty, “It is not surprising that questions are being asked whether Finlayson understands right from wrong” (Page 120) On his watch the taxpayer is being forced to take their side of savagery over that of civilised values.

So let us look at the history behind this unjustified and outrageous transfer of $10 million of funds from the taxpayer to the descendants of Ngati Toa’s cannibals.

In late 1827 Te Rauparaha led his invasion fleet of Ngati Toa warriors across Cook Strait, landing at Cape Jackson at the entrance to Queen Charlotte Sound. In the words of Ron Crosby in his authoritative book, “The Musket Wars”, the war party “is believed to have assaulted the large Okukari pa on the northern shore of the channel, just inside the entrance. Both this pa and another situated on the southern entry point to the channel fell with great slaughter. Other groups were intercepted and slaughtered as the taua (war party) made its way up into Opua Bay…..From there the taua travelled overland to attack a pa near Rarangi and one other….Both these pa fell readily to the heavily armed taua” with “massed musket fire providing the usual awful result ” (P. 183) – code for a cannibal feast of the fallen.

The war party then arrived at Kowhai, at the mouth of the Wairau River, where “the inevitable chilling sequence of assault by musket fire, then slaughter, was repeated” (Ibid) Those South Island who were not cooked and eaten were taken back by Ngati Toa to Kapiti as slaves. Many of these were later killed. (Ibid, P. 183-4)

In the summer of 1829-30 Ngati Toa, Ngati Raroa and Te Atiawa, under Te Rauparaha’s leadership, used the waters of Cook Strait to launch another musket invasion of the South Island.  In the Sounds hundreds of the local tribe, Rangitane, were killed or taken prisoner. “The Ngati Kuri hapu of Rangitane were slaughtered in East Bay and their bodies committed to the umu (ovens)”, wrote Crosby on Page 201.  “With his large fleet of waka (war canoes), now decorated with the hair, hands and heads of his early victims, Te Rauparaha then swept into Pelorus Sound itself.” (P. 203)

On the Hopai peninsula he attacked two pa. “The survivors were taken by their conquerors on their further conquests as a source of food.(P. 203) ….after these raids Pelorus Sound was effectively depopulated.” (Ibid).

“The raids on the Marlborough Sounds led to well-nigh total annihilation of those districts and the almost complete depopulation of the Sounds apart from members of the invading northern tribes. By the end of 1829 there were only remnants of Ngati Kuia in the upper reaches of the Pelorus.” (P. 200)

At two locations of this genocide the whaler, Worser Heberley, “found the remains of some sixty or seventy bodies, together with a number of heads and arms. Joints had frequently been cut from the bodies, and many partly cooked body parts also lay indiscriminately in the bush.” (P. 203-4)….”Replete with the flesh of his enemies, Te Rauparaha turned back from the Pelorus and headed south to attack Rerewaka’s pa, near Kaikoura.” (P. 204)

He arrived off Omihi, south of Kaikoura, where there was “heavy slaughter. Over a thousand Ngai Tahu were said to have been killed or captured. Few escaped. Rerewaka himself was captured and, on the return of the taua to Kapiti, had to undergo the ripping open of his belly with a barracouta’s tooth, suffering an agonising death.” (P. 204-5)

Ngati Toa took some of the surviving slaves from Omihi to their next scene of slaughter, which was Kaiapoi, north of Christchurch. There they were all killed, cooked and eaten by Te Rauparaha and his Ngati Toa warriors.

On their way back to Kapiti Te Rauparaha’s flotilla of sixty or seventy war canoes stopped for a week and a half at Te Awaiti in Tory Channel. Here an eye-witness, the whaler Worser Heberley, noted, “The slaves would be forced to prepare the fire and heat the stones in it and, when that task was completed, they would be ruthlessly smashed in the side of the head with a tomahawk. Other slaves would then be required to cook the bodies of their friends, carve up the joints, and then place them in baskets to be eaten.” (P. 206) In the words of Ron Crosby, the leading authority on the Musket Wars, “This pattern of behaviour was recounted frequently by surviving slaves throughout both islands during the Musket War era, and described by a few Europeans.” (P. 206)

Early the following summer (October, 1830) Te Rauparaha and seventy of his musket armed Ngati Toa warriors hitched a ride to Akaroa on the “Elizabeth”, a European vessel under the command of Captain Stewart. At Akaroa Ngati Toa either killed or took as prisoners some 200 men and between 300 and 400 women and children. The bodies of the dead were cooked on the beach. There was so much cooked human flesh that it couldn’t all be eaten on the site and so it was packed into about a hundred large flax baskets and taken back to Kapiti Island where a big feast was held, with Te Rauparaha and his Ngati Toa doing a haka (unfortunately the same haka that the All Blacks do before a match).

Again the following summer (October, 1831) Te Rauparaha packed about a thousand of his musket armed warriors into about thirty big canoes and set off to slaughter or enslave hundreds of Ngati Kuia at Whakapuaka, opposite Durville Island. The tribe was almost totally exterminated.

The war party then divided into two, Te Rauparaha leading his Ngati Toa down the east coast to attack the few survivors who were left at Omihi pa. They were all wiped out in yet another extermination.

Then on to Kaiapoi where Ngati Toa set the local pa on fire and “a terrible slaughter ensued…..Hundreds of Ngai Tahu were taken prisoner and killed the next day…..The usual cannibal feasting lasted for days.” (P. 240) In the words of Ron Crosby, “Once again the waters of Akaroa harbour were to witness cannibal feasting by Ngati Toa on the slain of Ngai Tahu…(who) had suffered grievous losses in numbers of people, many thousands having been killed or enslaved.” (P. 242)

It has been necessary to go into these details to expose Finlayson’s – and the National Government’s – rewarding of genocide and cannibalism with $10 million of unsubstantiated and undeserved “compensation” for the loss of Ngati Toa’s right to commit these terrible mass crimes against the ancestors of South Island Maoris nearly 200 years ago.

And anyway, even if Te Rauparaha did exercise a maritime empire over Cook Strait, which the Waitangi Tribunal said he didn’t, that is no reason for the descendants of these brutal warriors to be rewarded with a cash handout in the form of a “Treaty settlement” since Te Rauparaha signed the Treaty (twice!) and the very purpose of the treaty was to bring to an end the domination of such areas and seaways by cannibal chiefs like Te Rauparaha who used them for such violent and evil purposes.

As pointed out in Dr. John Robinson’s attached submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee of Parliament, this secret agreement between Finlayson and the Ngati Toa elders is not only not a valid “Treaty settlement” but is, in fact, a violation of the Treaty, which sought to bring to an end such things as tribal controlled “maritime empires” obtained by brute force, cannibalism and genocide.

Since any “domain” that Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa exercised over Cook Strait related to the years 1827-31, the loss of such control could not possibly be in breach of a treaty that was signed in 1840 and which ceded sovereignty over such things as seaways to the Crown. In fact, after 1831 Te Rauparaha took his war canoes across Cook Strait to the South Island on only one occasion and that was in December, 1837, with 100 Ngati Toa warriors. Unlike earlier times nothing came of this raid as Te rauparaha had a short fight with some Te Atiawa, who were meant to be part of his war party, and then returned to his Kapiti Island fiefdom.

Therefore, since Finlayson’s proposed gift of $10 million to this greedy and undeserving tribe can not be for the breach of anything in the Treaty, it must be for some other purpose and, in discovering that purpose, we must rely on speculation since the whole deal was stitched up in secret between Finlayson and those who purport to be the current leaders of Ngati Toa. Even though the public must pay for this bonanza out of their taxes they are not allowed to have any input or even to know how Finlayson reached this agreement to swindle the taxpayer.

There must be a reason for him to hand $10 million to a tribe for a purpose other than a breach of the Treaty. What is that reason? Has he been promised in return a well paid position on one of Ngati Toa’s boards after he leaves politics? Only time will tell but the extreme secrecy of the process and the false basis on which this $10 million is being swiped from the taxpayer give rise to widespread unease and lurid speculation about a person who by character and his numerous conflicts of interest seems quite unfit to hold any public office, let alone be a Cabinet Minister.

The Ngati Toa Settlement Bill is currently going through Parliament (August, 2013). 1 Law 4 All is utterly opposed to the passing of this Bill until this $10 million reward for genocide and cannibalism is removed from it. Any M.P. who votes for this theft of taxpayer dollars for rewarding some of the worst genocide ever carried out in the Southern Hemisphere will be targeted at the next election and will be asked to explain to their constituents their peculiar tendencies in favour of cannibalism and genocide.

Rumour has it that Ngati Toa, already licking their lips at the prospect of this unbelievable windfall, is planning to use the cash to shout their elders on a luxury cruise around the Pacific as a “thank you” for their help in obtaining this undeserved settlement

Dr. John Robinson of Wellington has taken a keen interest in this settlement, which affects the area where he lives, and he made a public submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee, which goes through the process of hearing submissions of Treaty Bills by the public and then studiously and arrogantly ignore all  that they hear. This Committee comprises a majority of Maoris (8 out of 11) whose modus operandi seems to be to act solely for their own kind and without any consideration for the majority of their fellow countrymen – the very negation of democracy. Types like Simon Bridges, the M.P. for Tauranga, who supported the thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act, which gave special rights to his fellow Maoris while shafting the rights of the majority of his constituents. Just another example of how he uses the people of Tauranga for his own purposes.

Since Dr. Robinson’s well-researched submission is being ignored by this race based (and racist) Committee, we publish excerpts from it here, and the full submission can also be downloaded at the end of this article.

SUBMISSION OF DOCTOR JOHN ROBINSON ON THE NGATI TOA SETTLEMENT BILL.

“I oppose this Bill in its entirety. The proposed settlement is in direct contradiction with both the Treaty of Waitangi and the well established constitutional principle of equal citizenship basic to our society. I oppose apologies, payments, properties and special rights in government that are based on a period of bloody conquest that was brought to an end with the Treaty of Waitangi and the creation of our nation…..

The words of the Treaty are clear ; Queen Victoria did not have the power or the authority to give Maori any special rights in the Treaty of Waitangi not already enjoyed by the people of England under English law. Nor can any present government provide any specila rights under the terms of that treaty. The proposal to provide many separate rights to Ngati Toa over local government is in direct breach of the Treaty….

The existence of (Ngati Toa’s) ‘maritime domain’ is in direct contradiction with the Treaty of Waitangi, as is any recompense for its loss. Once sovereignty under British law was established by the Treaty there could be no place for a separate domain or empire. Nor was control of any such empire part of Maori culture. This was made clear by the Waitangi Tribunal – ‘We consider the idea of a sustained overlordship to have little basis in Maori customary thinking….the idea of an overlordship is now seen as the legacy of an imperial rhetoric’

It is simply unbelievable that now, 173 years after the Treaty was signed, $10 million may be given with an apology for asserting the law and preventing further bloody raids, eventually bringing peace to the region around Cook Strait

A major problem prior to 1840 was the lack of any central authority to assert a rule of law, with Maori society divided into warring tribes under the rule of chiefs, with many slaves and an assumed right to attack others when some past wrong called for action. The power of those chiefs had to be broken in order to provide basic human rights to others. Only then could the lives of a great number of Maori be safe from sudden attack and slaughter, and slaves be free. ….

Before 1840 there was no peace. The Treaty brought British law and what the northern chiefs had sought in their letters of 1831 and 1835 – an end to intertribal war, cannibalism and slavery. That was only possible with the ending of chiefly rule and the assertion of a greater, national power. The supremacy of government asserted by the Treaty meant that there could be no claim under the Treaty for any disagreement with subsequent government actions…….

Any breaking of the law and rebellion is against the Treaty. Government then has the right, indeed the duty, to act. There can be no complaint of the application of British law, including declaration of martial law during an insurgency. Chiefs have no special authority and the removal of any such position cannot be claimed as a grievance….

There can be no ground for compensation under the Treaty for loss of chiefly power, loss of maritime domain or suchlike, and no ground for any inherited special powers such as statutory advisors, advisory committees and plans directing council actions. To do that is to contradict the Treaty and the equality promised to all New Zealanders as British subjects….

Settlements of claims supposedly based on Treaty of Waitangi grievances concern the funds, property and rights of every New Zealander, yet those agreements are made between iwi and the government away from any public gaze. There is no pretence of fairness, no recognition of the rights of all affected parties. Government calls itself the Crown as if it were separate from and apart from the people. This is a fiction. The process has nothing to do with the Crown through its New Zealand representative, the Governor-General. Negotiations then take place in secret as if this were purely a financial transaction between two private independent parties, which it is not. The result is a division of citizenship and political power, and the handing over of public goods, both property and money. All discussions on the process involve Maori only…..

The negotiations must be based on a defined grievance and a historic account setting that out clearly. This was not done (with this settlement). The historic account did not not exist back in 2009. In the words of Minister, Finlayson, it was “still to be agreed between the Crown and Ngati Toa”….I continued to press for this information and I wrote to the Minister, “The situation as I understand it is in contradiction to common sense and logic. Surely there would be no consideration of a settlement in the absence of a clearly specified wrong.” The reply made it clear that any such account would be written by the aggrieved party, about to profit from a settlement based on a biased interpretation, behind closed doors and AFTER the settlement is agreed……

Finlayson has stated clearly that the presentation of submissions at this hearing (of the Select Committee) is a mere formality as Bills such as this ‘stem from legal agreements which are already entered into’. As well as failing to follow correct procedure it is evident that this Minister has failed to set down the Crown case, in a true negotiation between two parties, each protecting its own interests. The part of the people has been vacant.

Onl;y you have the authority to tell this Minister that he must do his job properly – by turning down this Bill. Then he can either start again from the beginning, doing it properly that time, or drop the whole sorry mess. ….

Any position (overlordship of Cook Strait) was gained by attacking, killing, enslaving and driving out the inhabitants of these places A full and honest historical account would include reference to those casualties. …Ngati Toa wish to inherit grievance but refuse to acknowledge the inheritance of responsibility for that widespread mayhem. The scale of killing should be noted, with 1,600 killed in battle and twice that number (3,500) of women and children slain in these battles alone. These were acts of terrorism, of genocide and of ethnic cleansing. Back in those times this warfare might be considered as just part of Maori tikanga but it is monstrous that any position based on such war crimes should be accepted now – in 2013 – as justification for compensation.

You can download Dr Robinsons complete submission here: Download

1 2
%d bloggers like this: