Chris Whinlayson

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

News from one of NZ’s foremost racists



Each iwi-hapu-whanau claimant is being offered thousands of taxpayer dollars to prepare and file their claim.

Any non-part-Maori citizen who objects must pay a court filing fee of $110.

That’s fair and even-handed, right?

 

We Will Screw You For Everything!

In a previous blog post, this was said:

We Will Take From Them The Water

Perhaps not? Maybe it’s going to be more a matter of, Whinlayson’s enabled us to. . .

Screw You For Everything!

Read the letter below. A harbinger of coastal and marine area ka-ching things to come?

Letter to the Editor
Taupo Times

Over the past year I have been communicating with Government Minister Christopher Finlayson in order to establish ownership of the waters of Lake Taupo. This came about as a consequence of being made aware that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (TMTB) had raised a levy on the commercial boat operators for the use of the waters of Lake Taupo for such activities as boat tours, fishing and other vessel activities on the lake. Most of these activities do not involve contact with the lakebed.

A Deed was signed between the Crown and Tuwharetoa Maori in 1992 and amended in 2007. In a nutshell, this deed establishes ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo by TMTB but not the water of the lake. The Crown owns the water of the lake by statute.

Further, TMBT is entitled to charge for commercial activities and commercial structures which involve the use of the lakebed.

Minister Finlayson has stated that TMTB owns the lakebed as well as the “water column” and the “airspace” above the lakebed despite these entities not being stated in the Deed. I disagree with his statement.

I put to the Minister the following questions for clarification:

(1) “The definition of “water column” with regard to lakes and rivers is defined as the column of water from the surface of the water down to the bottom sediments. It seems incongruous for the Trust Board to have rights to control the water column when it is clearly understood in the Deed that the Crown owns the water of the rivers and the lake.”

(2) “The definition of “air space” is the space above the earth or above a certain area of land or water. With this in mind it is logical that the airspace above the rivers and waters of Lake Taupo would be owned by the Crown for which it would have rights to control this airspace. This clearly would indicate that it is inappropriate for the Trust Board to have rights to control the airspace above the aforementioned waters.”

(3) “Bearing in mind the definitions of “water column” and “airspace” it would be that the Crown has ownership and rights to manage these and not the Trust Board. Thus the Trust Board would have no right to charge commercial users for the use of the waters of Lake Taupo.”

The Minister has not given me an answer to these questions but has reiterated that a general principle of property law gives the landowner (i.e. of the lakebed) rights to the lakebed, as well as the water column and the airspace above.
He has effectively gagged further discussion by suggesting that I seek legal advice.

I believe the Minister has misinterpreted the Deed and that interpretation of the Deed needs to be revisited. Hopefully, the way things are going with regard to the forthcoming general election, I may well have the opportunity to revisit the Deed later this year.

Tony Ludbrook
1 May 2017

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

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day

 

kiwis_today

There seems to be no end to the brain- or brown-washing of NZ. It just keeps coming, like a seismic wave of thoroughly well informed self-interest, ignorance and sophistry. Read the PM’s speech excerpt below.

Ground control to PM Key: the Treaty of Waitangi contains:

NO mention of any “principles”

NO mention of a “partnership”

NO mention of “forests”

NO mention of “fisheries”

cartoon

Wake up and smell the parchment, Key, Finlayson, et al. The Treaty of Waitangi is no more a living document than any other Treaty. Just read the damned two-paragraph preamble, so expeditiously overlooked most everywhere, including Te Papa, our national storehouse of treaty fabrications.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Reality Check Essential

Once signed, a contract or treaty binds the signatories. End of story. Litigation on interpretation is possible. Renunciation is possible. But changing the words is not. Nor is arguing that a word scribed in a contract or treaty hundreds of years ago should be interpreted in today’s meaning. Lexical drift is a well known phenomena. It would be fatuous to pretend today that Fred Flinstone’s fifty-plus-year-old cartoon strip jingle “gay old time” meant a consorting group of homosexuals.

Critical Thinking Needed

The Treaty of Waitangi has – in and of itself – no validity in law, whether NZ law or international law. It can be part of New Zealand law ONLY by virtue of some Act of Parliament that says that any part of the Treaty applies.

The Prime Minister has pushed his agenda in his Waitangi speech at the upper marae on the Treaty grounds.

Mr Key said while the Treaty is a formal agreement, it must be interpreted over time and adapted accordingly.

He acknowledged the challenges Maori faced in the century after the Treaty was signed, as the Crown ignored many of its agreements.

“The spirit of generosity with which Maori entered into this partnership was forgotten or ignored by many over the following decades,” he said. “But the Treaty partnership we commemorate today acknowledges the bonds that have underpinned the creation of a special country.”

“The Treaty settlement process may not be to everyone’s satisfactions, but I’m a firm believer in the current process, which is addressing the wrongs done in the past to help Maori build their futures.”

“I am confident the next 25 years will deliver more promises, passion and achievements as we work together to tackle the challenges that will be thrown at us.”

What a load of codswallop!

Wake up New Zealand and smell the dozers:

cartoon

 

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.

It May Already Be Too Late

It May Already Be Too Late.

Cartoon Beaches Iwi Kiwi

As has been suggested already, most claims will be back door ones: secret deals with Whinlayson, announced more-or-less after the fact. Click here to go to the Justice Dept web site with all-but-settled claims details. As the spectre of the Mahia grab looms, other chunks of the Hawke’s Bay coastline are being given away. Was / is the Mahia grab a diversion, to keep attention from being directed elsewhere?
Claim map   Claim map

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.

$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

Hawke’s Bay Today

22 December, 2014

Treaty settlements totalling about $370 million will bring “a formidable addition to the capital pool” available for investment in Hawke’s Bay, says the head of one of the largest settlement groups. David Tipene-Leach, the chairman of He Toa Takitini, says his group’s vision is to become a “major investor in our regional economy” using the $100 million-plus Crown settlement it is due to begin receiving from next year.


“Crown settlement” means you – the NZ taxpayer – pays and – from bitter experience – we know that no “Crown settlement” is ever full and final, no matter that it is called as such!

1 2
%d bloggers like this: