Chris Whinlayson

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

37 thoughts on “The Trickery Of The Marine And Coastal Area Act

  1. I assume that all this information is correct but I don’t know who wrote it. In any case putting it on here is like preaching to the converted. It needs to be got out to those who don’t already know about this stuff or even sent to all the MPs so that they know that not all the population is asleep Mis-spelling Finlayson,s name is not advisable for general consumption though, I think. Tempting as it is, I actually would like to do far worse than that to him.

  2. And now talk of charging to go out on ninety mile beach. The rot is seriously setting in. This country is screwed – last non-part-Maori out please turn out the lights.

  3. This is what it is like in Vanuatu. People from outside have to pay the local tribe if they want to use the beach.

    We were in Hawaii in June and there is a small movement trying to push for dual government etc. One of the Locals who drove the tourist coach said he was glad that Hawaii was now part of USA. He said if that were not the case Hawaii would be a third world country.

  4. These current activities are as we know only the thin edge. They are setting New Zealand up for an ethnic based civil war at some point of our future that I can tell you.

  5. When I made my submission to the 9 members of the Maori Select Committee chaired by Hon. Tau Henare in Parliament buildings I asked only one question, “Please quote from the Treaty text any exclusive privilege to Maoris”?

    None could give satisfactory answer, the Maori bid for the Marine Title Area failed at this point.

  6. This is utterly disgraceful but why should be surprised? As Graeme said it is like preaching to the converted by posting this information here. We should be getting it out to the people in a language from which they cannot fail to see what is actually happening. I know we have all been trying to do this since the year dot but nothing seems to be working. I really fear for this country if this enormous fraud isn’t brought to a quick halt.

    Also I agree that we shouldn’t be misspelling Finlayson’s name but I also agree that we should be making life very uncomfortable for him. He’s a sleazy little lizard the way he is destroying this country – with the co-operation of the rest of Government I might add. I thought the politicians were supposed to represent us all and not destroy our country. Where are their dissenting voices?

    1. Maori exclusive rights exist because the vast majority of NZers do not know and have made no personal effort to know their own history and, thus, politicians can walk all over their heads.

      The Waitangi Tribunal and the Principles of the Treaty were founded on the English Treaty. Take the English Treaty away and the Tribunal, the Principles and everything they stand for goes with it.

      1. My entry above has been so severely censored it is rendered entirely meaningless.

        It is my opinion 1law4all are conning the public, if they truly intended to reach their goal of “One Law” my blog would have been printed in full.

        If 1law4all accept money from people who give their hard earned cash because of your promise of One Law you could be committing fraud.

        1. You have been warned before, George, that your constant harping on about Queen Victoria’s Charter will no longer be tolerated or published. Yet you persist in trying to bore our readers to tears over it. If you find that sufficient reason to make such accusations as you just have, then you will no longer be welcome here or able to comment here at all. You can either retract your accusations and apologise, prove them correct with hard proof or leave for good. This is the Website and Blog of 1Law4All. It is not a forum for you to push your own agenda.

          1. The hard evidence I asked for was that of 1Law4All conning the public or committing fraud. Not of your misguided beliefs in the RC. I also did not state that I would print your comment, (what you call a blog), if you provided anything such as you have written, as that was not what I was asking you for! The ‘promise’ of one law for all, as you put it is misleading and you know it. One Law for All is our Policy, it is the goal of the party and something we are striving for. It is not something anyone can promise, and certainly not when we are not even in Parliament.
            One of the founders of the party is the owner of the publishing company that published Twisting the Treaty, George. All the facts are on our website. We do not need to publish your information or join your blog in order to be legitimate. You have not provided proof that 1Law4All is conning the public or committing fraud, and you have not apologised or withdrawn your accusations. I have removed your rambling comment and you are now banned.

  7. I agree with you Helen we should not mispell his name, BUT THE MAN inscenses me, his actions could be construed as treason.
    Graham.

    1. I feel exactly the same, Graham. What a pity treason is no longer a crime in this country. If it was we wouldn’t be going down this racist separatist path otherwise quite a number of politicians would be prosecuted.

  8. For those of us who put in many hours, monetary and physical effort into the Foreshore and Seabed coalition, it is indeed a bitter pill, although the precise outcome we had predicted – having failed to raise the number of signatories to force a referendum – has been verified.
    Finlayson and his National “PC Terrorists” categorically assured the general public that ‘ There would be no restriction for Kiwi families to access our beaches”, but he didn’t add that we may be asked to pay!
    I have said it before and I will repeat that these PC Terrorists just laugh at these ranting blogs between ourselves, because they know that it will never go beyond these shores. We desperately need to write these accounts in chronological order and send it to a well respected overseas – preferably British – news agency.
    What effect might it have on our burgeoning immigrants I wonder?

    1. Prof. Margaret Mutu and many others who support her view, which roughly recollected went something like “there are far too many White immigrants coming here”, would love to see these White people blocked.

      Would like to make you aware that when I came here I didn’t need a passport, all that was required was a piece of paper declaring I was British.

  9. To provide some balance to this blog, I understand that Mrs Tangiora is passionate about stopping the fish poaching and removal of sand and rocks etc from the foreshore that goes on in the Mahia area as she is trying to protect the coastal area for future generations. I also understand that she is as active in trying to prevent abuse of these resources by Maori as much as by any other race.

    It is worth noting that about 20 years ago Mrs Tangiora (among others) was instrumental in getting a coastal limit put in place around Mahia to exclude the big commercial fishing boats that were stripping the area bare. Since then boaties and fisherpeople of all races have benefited form the recovery of the coastal fish stocks in the area.

    1. That might well be true but there are better ways of protecting the coast than her racist one. Many of us are passionate about fish poaching and the removal of sand but we don’t use a racist piece of legislation to cause divisiveness in the community and nor do we try to prevent others from exercising their long held rights – which she is trying to do by her customary marine title grab of the whole of the foreshore and seabed (out to 22km) of the peninsula, which thousands of us love and care for just as much as if not more so than Mrs. Tangiora. We all want to protect it for future generations but the best way of doing that is by methods that involve all of the public and not just Mrs. Tangiora and her numerically tiny tribe, so many of whom do not even live on the peninsula.

      Since you have brought her so-called “past” and her character into the equation – then there are some other things which should be noted. Years back, Mrs Tangiora was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for “community services”. Since she has now made a racist attack on the whole community by trying to steal their long held rights off them with her greedy claim, she should hand the medal back. She has now become a pestilence on the entire community, creating division and uncertainty.

      This is just the latest – but by far the worst – of her attacks on the fishing, boating and surfing community of Mahia. Over the years she has tried to undermine community rights by seeking to prevent the laying of a concrete public boat ramp and preventing the Mahia Boat Club from building their clubhouse. She lost the latter case and the court ordered her to pay the boat club’s costs of over $3,000. That was more than three years ago and they have never seen a cent of it. Yet she someone finds money to pay her lawyer to bring yet another mischievous, and fictitious claim against the community. Why does a Queen’s Service Medal holder not pay her bills to members of the community she supposedly serves? Her default reflects badly on other QSM holders. She should be stripped of the award if she does not return it voluntarily.

      Given her pale face, Pauline Tangiora is obviously far more European than Maori yet has had a chin tattoo – presumably to give such a pale face the same sort of O’Regan-like credibility to being a “Maori.” She could show she truly serves the community, rather than her tribal community of interest, by withdrawing her ridiculous, greedy and racist claim to the WHOLE of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula.

      1. While I am generally aware of the events you are describing around the fishing club and the fact that the sides obviously do not agree on the placement of boat ramps and club houses, from what I have been able to figure out the objections raised were to the actual placement and design of the structures as opposed to the actual establishment structures themselves. I was told over the holidays that on both instances alternatives were proposed but the boating club refused to consider them.

        From what I have been told when talking to many people who live in and visit Mahia (outside the boating / fishing club that is) she is a voice for fair minded treatment of all peoples and is often to the fore in setting up projects to benefit the wider community. Presumably this is why she has been awarded a QSO, QSM, and made a JP.

        As for the payment of the court order, if such is the case then she must be in danger of being in contempt of court. I also understand that her work is all voluntary and so it is possible that her lawyer is providing their services for free too.

        It is hard to understand the wider context of the situation with the boating club without reading the actual rulings and seeing the supporting evidence form both sides, but while you obviously disagree with her motivation and / or methods as you see them in these matters, it is hard to see the justification of your allegations that she is a greedy racist.

        1. I thought tribal-community-of-interest (likely financial) demonstrated it well. If you find that hard to see, perhaps you could explain how a customary title that excludes all races except one with vestigial Maori genes is equitable?

          If there is a court order against her for costs, reading the judgement will not change that.

          Also, on the conservation sophistry, do remember that we have no moas nor huias in NZ, now, and there’s only one race to blame for that.

          1. While it may be your opinion that the MACA and Mrs Tangiora are racist I cannot see any objective points to back these assertions up.

            Quite to the contrary, in doing a bit more research and looking at the CORANZ website and the analyses of the application made by the Gisborne Regional Council it is clear that the MACA 2011 specifically states that even where customary rights or Customary Marine Title is recognised, public access is not to be prohibited except in specific areas designated as “wahi tapu” (which appears to be similar in application to areas able to be designated as ‘historically significant’ by the Historic Places Trust and other such situations and organisations).

            The actual analysis done by the GDC is here:
            Customary Marine Title
            Under the MACA, Māori can apply for recognition of “customary marine title” for areas within which whānau, iwi or hapū have a longstanding and exclusive history of use and occupation. Customary marine titles will be subject to the right of public access and they cannot be sold.
            Customary marine title is the “stronger” of the two forms of protections available under the MACA. Once granted, the holders of a customary marine title in specific parts of the common marine and coastal area will have:
            • the right to permit (or withhold permission for) activities requiring a resource consent in the area covered by the title (other than accommodated activities listed in the Act);
            • the right to permit (or withhold permission for) certain conservation processes (e.g. establishing a marine reserve);
            • the right to prepare a planning document setting out the objectives and policies for their customary marine title area which would be recognised and provided for by the relevant regional council in relation to resource management issues. A planning document can also extend outside a customary marine title area and must be taken into account in those areas. A planning document also has relevance for decisions made by local authorities under the Local Government Act 2002, the Historic Places Trust, conservation management strategies and, to a limited extent, fisheries management;
            • the ownership of non-nationalised minerals within the customary marine title area;
            • prima facie ownership of taonga tuturu (historical artefacts) found in the customary marine title area;
            • input into the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and applications for marine mammal watching permits; and
            • the ability to prohibit or restrict access to wāhi tapu within their customary marine title area.
            Activities to which the permission right will not apply include:
            • some existing infrastructure work, maintenance and upgrades
            • emergency activities;
            • scientific research or monitoring;
            • certain new infrastructure activities that are considered to be essential from a national or regional perspective and cannot practicably be constructed outside a customary marine title area; and
            • certain petroleum activities.

            I am not sure how applying for the above constitutes actions to “… cause divisiveness in the community…” or to “…try to prevent others from exercising their long held rights – which she is trying to do by her customary marine title grab of the whole of the foreshore and seabed (out to 22km) of the peninsula”, so if you can provide some clarification that would be good.

            It is also clear from the act that the RMA and other already established legal and Ministerial processes continue to be the “… methods that involve all of the public and not just Mrs. Tangiora and her numerically tiny tribe, so many of whom do not even live on the peninsula.”, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement, but again I am happy for you to put forward any insight you might have on these aspects of the discussion.

            While you clearly feel that ” Since she has now made a racist attack on the whole community by trying to steal their long held rights off them with her greedy claim, she should hand the medal back. She has now become a pestilence on the entire community, creating division and uncertainty.”, you have not really put forward any examples in support of your view outside that of the boat ramp, clubhouse, and the current application (which I have covered above). You state that she lost the clubhouse litigation and was ordered to pay costs which have not been paid, but what was the outcome of the boat ramp application and did she seek costs from the boat club in either of here challenges? Did the Courts find merit in anything she said? Did she seek costs against the fishing cub herself?

            The reference to the judgments etc I made was in order to understand the details of the cases, i.e. why the projects were opposed by Mrs Tangiora, what attempts were made in terms of finding a mutually acceptable outcome, and what the judge concluded from all that. In other words, there are usually two sides to the story and you are presenting one, and that representation is coming across as quite emotive (as opposed to objective).

            In regards of the Court Ordered expenses, as I said, if she has not paid them then there are legal avenues to peruse to retrieve that money. Making assumptions about her ability to pay based on the fact that she has / had a lawyer may be quite misleading. As I said, the lawyer may be doing it pro bono, or may be adding it to her account, or may even be being paid by someone else. It is a long bow to draw to then use this situation to then make a statement implying she is laughing at the order of the Court by intentionally withholding from paying imposed costs.

            I am not sure what you mean by ” tribal-community-of-interest (likely financial) demonstrated it well”. I have looked through the original blog post and our conversation and cannot see what you are referring to.

            In terms of “…customary title that excludes all races except one with vestigial Maori genes is equitable”, you should read the Act. First there are Customary Rights, and secondly there is Customary Marine Title (which I have covered previously) so I am not sure to which one you are referring to. Admittedly I only had a quick skim through it, but I did not see anything in the Act that specifically limits customary rights or title to Maori. Although the criteria do tend suggest that many non-Maori groups would struggle to meet the threshold, (and interestingly Mrs Tangiora may well also struggle if the GDC’s analysis is correct) it is not exclusive to Maori. In fact the clear implication of the Act could be to enable any group to apply for customary rights.

            As for your final comment about huias etc, if I am correct in understanding that because mistakes have been made in the past then there is no opportunity for today’s people to try and prevent them from happening again then there is truly no hope for humanity at all really. Further, if we are to apply your logic to extend to the performance of the Crown and general citizenry of NZ in terms of protecting native flora and fauna, landscapes, and waterways over the last century and some, then we modern Kiwi’s are hardly qualified to judge the capacity of Maori (or their descendants) to protect the environment either.

            In contributing to this post I am not setting out to discuss the MACA as such but to question the claims made about Mrs Tangiora. I would happily agree with you if you could show that Mrs Tangiora was following an exclusive agenda in order to prevent every day Kiwi’s from enjoying the Mahia coastline but so far you have not put forward anything other than emotion and conjecture to demonstrate this intent, except to say that she is using an Act of Parliament to establish the right to recognise her tribe’s presence in the area and for them to exercise customary rights (which cannot exclude others), and also to have a ‘seat at the table’ in order to influence in public and legal proceedings related to managing that coastal resource in a way that in many respects is similar to any other group that chooses to sate a special interest has.

            I would go further and say that in reading your discussion about the issues in Mahia it appears to be that Mrs Tangiora has raised the ire of the boating and fishing club by opposing two of their projects and this seems to be the whole basis for your assertions against her. You have not actually demonstrated any actual greed on her part, or illustrated any displays of seeking total exclusion of the public from accessing what we commonly hold as public resources. Without these things to support your argument it seems the statements being made about her in this forum are more of a case of an ongoing disagreement of perspectives between (some of) the fishing club members and Mrs Tangiora than proof of an actual campaign of racism and greed on her part.

            Making emotive accusations about people and their motives which are not supported by actual actions, facts, or events does nothing to further the cause of having a single law for all, in fact it makes the cause look flaky and sensationalist and undermines the legitimacy of the argument for a single rule of law, which in itself actually does have some merit.

          2. Further to the previous post, I just stumbled on this quote from the Ministerial Review
            of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 as published on http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/24845%20Vol-1%20online%5B6%5D%5B1%5D.pdf

            “The Fishing Club of Mahia, plus others, wanted to build on our foreshore. We opposed it
            through the Environment Court and [were] left with a debt of $14,000, and we lost the case. Why we opposed it was [because] that beachfront was there for all people, Māori and Pākēha, and what we were seeing happening was buildings being put on that foreshore for fishing clubs, and whatever will go [there] in the next future. (5-39-1, Pauline Tangiora on behalf of Mahia Māori Committee of Rongomaiwahine)”

            If she is true to her word then she is actually seeking to preserve the foreshore for all, then the situation behind these various comments made about here seems more to be that she has run afowl of the fishing club by using a plain as day legal process to oppose the fishing clubs desire to take a piece of forshore for their exclusive use in the form of a clubhouse and potentially form further development by other groups or enterprises. Are you able to clarify anything about this?

        2. Candidly, I think your comment is too long for most to get through. I seek not to be the same. Please excuse the brevity.

          PJE: While it may be your opinion that the MACA and Mrs Tangiora are racist, I cannot see any objective points to back these assertions up.

          Really? Can any non-part-Maori group make an application under the MCA? (s3 (2) (a) indicates not) Therefore, the Act is racist.

          PJE: The Gisborne Regional Council asserts that the MACA 2011 specifically states that even where customary rights or Customary Marine Title is recognised, public access is not to be prohibited except in specific areas designated as ‘wahi tapu’

          Does any part of the MCA prevent:
          * a customary marine title holder from charging for public access?
          * an entire customary marine title area being declared off limits (wahi tapu)?

          PJE: Once granted, the holders of a customary marine title in specific parts of the common marine and coastal area will have the right to permit (or withhold permission for) activities requiring a resource consent in the area covered by the title;

          Also a race-based ‘right’ to accept money (charge fees) to assuage their feelings. Think of that as ‘tribal-community-of-interest (likely financial). . .’

          PJE: You state that she lost the clubhouse litigation and was ordered to pay costs which have not been paid, but . . . did the Courts find merit in anything she said? Did she seek costs against the fishing cub herself? [Etc.]

          What has any of that to do with non-compliance with a court order to pay costs?

          PJE: In fact the clear implication of the Act could be to enable any group to apply for customary rights.

          Really?
          s3 (2) (c) ” . . . the [MCA] Act recognises, and promotes the exercise of, the customary interests of iwi, hapū, and whānau in the common marine and coastal area of New Zealand;” s47 (1) seems to confirm that non-part-Maori are excluded.

          My comments about extinctions caused by Maori demonstrate that their part-Maori descendants have no greater valid claim to being more conservation oriented than any other race.

          PJE: Mrs Tangiora . . . is using an Act of Parliament to establish the right [for] her tribe to have a ‘seat at the table’ in order to influence in public and legal proceedings related to managing that coastal resource in a way that in many respects is similar to any other group that chooses to state a special interest has.

          Why should a tribal group have any more say than anyone else in Resource Management issues? Further, is that not racist, by definition?

          I do not question the right of any entity to use any NZ statute. In this case, the statute is racist, so applications such as the one under discussion here are ipso facto racist.

          1. Hi again Beach Lovin Surfie,

            While my response may well be long, you have raised a number of points and issues that are involved enough to warrant a considered reply rather than some broadly generalised response. On the assumption that this forum is read by people who look at things objectively, it is out of respect for their intelligence that I outline the information and deductions behind my points and in an effort to be clear about the points I am trying to make. If people do not choose to consider my points and then fail to grasp the aspects of what I am trying to discuss, then I hope it any ignorance would not be through any omission I might have made.

            So in response to your recent post, my purpose of making my submission to this forum was about whether Mrs Tangiora can be demonstrated to be a greedy racist or not, and while the MACA is part of the discussion it is not the topic of my post in itself. If you wish to discuss the MACA being racist legislation specifically that would be another conversation.

            Now to your mention of Section 3 (2) (a), which is as follows:

            3 Outline of Act
            (1) This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of this Act, but does not affect the interpretation or application of the other provisions of this Act.
            (2) This Part—
            (a) sets out the purpose of the Act and acknowledges the importance of the marine and coastal area to all New Zealanders and the customary interests of iwi, hapū, and whānau in that area; and

            I read this as saying that the marine and coastal area is important to all New Zealanders and acknowledges that customary interests exist. I see nothing overtly racist in that. After all, precedent shows that people in existing communities of all kinds have common law interests in the geographical areas in which they live in.

            I also note that Maori is an official language of NZ and as such the Maori words could also be applied to European nuclear family, extended family, and community. I recall that this was raised during the discussion around the FSSB legislation and the point made that where a European family could demonstrate continuity of occupancy since 1840 they could also seek recognition in the same way as maori whanau, and there were families along places like the Wairarapa coastline, Marlborough and other places that could potentially meet this threshold. I do not know if this has been legally tested for the MACA or anywhere else but that is why we have legal processes. Maybe you might wish to try to clarify this yourself, but until the law has determined that only Maori can apply for recognition under the MACA your are making an unproven assumption. (This goes for your interpretation of Section 47 too.)

            OK so on to the statement about charging and wahi tapu. In skimming through the Act, access is discussed in sections 3,4, 29, and 79 (which enables wahi tapu), is mentioned in 29 and so this is linked to the access.

            4 (2) (e) specifically notes the right of public access. 26 (1) discusses the right to access without charge. I cannot see anything in S. 79 that empowers the right to impose charges.

            As for applying for wahi tapu for an entire marine area, Section 79 indicates that as part of the application for Customary Marine Title sites inside the area can be asked to be designated wahi tapu. So yes it appears that this is technically possible, but I would say that the title application still has to be granted by the Courts during which all other interested parties would get a chance to argue against that (and it would be political dynamite too). If you are opposed to Mrs Tangiora’s application, you will have your opportunity as of right to make your considered opinion to the Court as part of their consideration of whether her tribe meet the stipulated thresholds or not.

            Now I ask you, has Mrs Tangiora applied for the entire area her tribe area seeking customary marine title over to be classed as wahi tapu? If she has not actually claimed the entire area as wahi tapu and public access is continued for the vast majority of the area applied for (as required by the Act ) I cannot see how the submission of an application for customary title (which requires for the provision of free public access) significantly supports the claim that she is a greedy racist who is trying to exclude the public from enjoying the marine foreshore resources of Mahia.

            Now as for “Also a race-based ‘right’ to accept money (charge fees) to assuage their feelings. Think of that as ‘tribal-community-of-interest (likely financial). . .’”

            I still do not know what you are getting at here. If you are implying that customary title holders can demand payment for their support for projects requiring RMA approval, then there is precedent in RMA and EC proceedings which have shown that groups of all races, religions, interests have been willing to support (or chosen to withhold support) from resource applications, and that accepting financial compensation or incentives from the applicant for their support is not limited to Maori (or any other race). Again, having a voice in the management of the resource does not make one racist, and the right to apply influence is provided to all through the RMA.

            I do not know why the issue about paying costs keeps coming up. If you think she should pay sooner rather than later then there are avenues you should follow. I cannot see the relevance of this to proving Mrs Tangiora’s supposed racism and greed. Many people do not pay imposed costs straight away for a variety of reasons, many also don’t pay them for very long periods of time. People who have outstanding court ordered costs come from right across NZ society but non-payment of such hardly makes every one of them a racist, and in Mrs Tangiora’s instance but you have yet to show any facts that would support a claim that she is withholding payment of the imposed costs for racist or greedy reasons.

            I again ask you, what were the details surrounding her applications against the fishing club? It appears from her own words made in the submission to the Ministerial Enquiry that I posted up here, that she was trying to protect full public access (of Maori and Pakeha) to the Mahia foreshore by objecting to a club clubhouse being built upon it, and was concerned about what further developments that would be used to justify which inherently would impede full public enjoyment of the so far mostly undeveloped beach fronts. That is what she says her motivation was in opposing the clubhouse, but if you have some information that proves her motivation was something else you should put it forward in support of your point of view.

            I don’t recall saying anything about Maori’s qualification as ecologists. That was a statement you made. My point was and till is that Mrs Tangiora seems to have a track record of seeking to protect the environment for future generations of all races. It appears that agree with her that efforts should be made to preserve, so I don’t see how this motivation makes her racist or greedy.

            While I actually do believe there is a legitimate conversation to be had about laws which give dispensations and privileges to certain groups within our society that are not extended to others, that is a constitutional discussion that would need to go well beyond the MACA and look at the rights extended to limited liability companies, corporations, trusts, legal person, natural persons, and a whole raft of other things (and the inequity of the South Canterbury Finance bailout springs to mind!?!?).

            However, I do not believe that simply by using the legal rights made available to her through our democratic process Mrs Tangiora is made a racist. If we extended your logic about the MACA being racist and thus any associated with it are ipso facto racists, then the National-led Government must also be racist as they passed this bill into law as must all MP’s who voted for the bill to give it a majority in a overwhelmingly non-Maori but democratic house of representatives, and by extension the various party members who made it possible for the National party to govern, and finally all who voted for a National-led Government, and anyone who supports those voters in any way.

            In closing, while you are clearly irritated with her objections various projects and dislike her to some degree or other (both of which are your right), I reiterate that I cannot see anywhere in what you have put forward anything objective to support the claim that Mrs Tangiora is a greedy racist and I am happy to continue to support the content of my original post.

        3. Too much detail is wearying. Take a step back, look at the ‘big picture,’ and avoid us all being mired in minor matters.

          Was the MCA really needed? If so, what for? Who was pushing for it? Why were they pushing for it?

          Generally, the foreshore and seabed were in crown / public ‘ownership.’ The MCA ended that. Why? So a certain race / people could establish a type of title that could not obtain, under public ownership ensured by the Foreshore & Seabed Act.

          MCA s 3 (2) (c) states that, in order to take account of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Act recognises, and promotes the exercise of, the customary interests of iwi, hapū, and whānau in the common marine and coastal area of New Zealand. There is NO MENTION of “the customary interests of iwi, hapū, and whānau in the common marine and coastal area of New Zealand” in the Treaty signed at Waitangi in 1840.

          In taking account of the Treaty, as interpolated by the Waitangi Tribunal (a kangaroo court if ever there was one) the MCA likely needs to refer back there for clarity in case of interpretation dilemmas.

          s6 (1) Jurisdiction of Tribunal to consider claims
          Where any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member . . .

          If the MCA is indeed subordinate to the ToW Act, or at least devolves from it, then interpretations are likely to favour the ToW Act, its sections and any precedents it sets. Note the: “any Maori.” Not any New Zealander.

          Maybe Andy Oakley could comment on how his application to the Waitangi Trinubal has fared?

          1. It is clear that you now wish to peruse a discussion about the MACA, as opposed to addressing the theme of my original and subsequent posts so there is no point in continuing this dialogue. I have already said that in general terms I agree that the MACA has constitutional issues that need to be looked at.

            However, despite being invited to on a number of occasions to back your opinion of Mrs Tnagiora up with more information, (and even being offered suggestions on how you could do this), I cannot anything objective to have been provided to readers to corroborate the opinion that Mrs Tangiora is ‘greedy or a ‘racist, or the general theme of the blog post that is along these lines. Therefore I continue to stand by my view that the statements made in the blog piece about her are not balanced.

            Finally, as for too much detail being wearying, if by detail you mean giving consideration to the facts of the arguments people raise, then I am sorry that you believe that trying to have a reasoned discussion is wearying. It should be a tragedy if we as a community decide to start to deal with important issues by treating them simply as a convenient clash of opinion or personality rather than applying some modicum of effort to have a balanced consideration of the facts of the issues at hand.

      1. Yeah – I reckon. Lots of opinion there, but what of the unpaid court order? I heard tell she admitted she hadn’t paid it at a meeting at Mahia, over the holidays. How hard would all that be to check on?

    2. Looking back at the original post, I see that the expression used is: “greedy and racist claim.”

      No demur about considering the facts in a reasoned way. But opinion, hearsay and speculation, as in the following examples?

      2 Jan
      “I understand that”

      13 Jan
      “from what I have been able to figure out”

      “I was told over the holidays”

      “From what I have been told when talking to many people”

      “I also understand that”

      “it is possible that her lawyer”

      15 Jan
      “a European family . . . could . . . potentially meet this threshold.”

      “but I would say that the title application still has to be granted by the Courts during which all other interested parties would get a chance”

      (Note that applicants can by-pass the courts and go direct to the Minister – s95 – in which case I suspect that [other] interested parties would be excluded, as that section does not impose any obligation on the Minister to consult any potentially interested parties)

      I do not think anyone can reasonably expect an erudite and comprehensive discourse in a blog situation like this. My comments were not intended to disparage you, but to say that this type of forum is not the right context for deep discussions on intertwined legal complexities and nuances, especially when one Act refers to another. When one adds your posit that some tenets are yet to be tested in court, the situation becomes even more arcane.

      That does not excuse falsehoods being presented as facts, but one must expect a fairly torrid range of opinions in a blog, given the wider context within which this particular discussion falls.

      And yes, logic or not, I agree that the National government is racist and has done (and is doing) huge harm to race relations in NZ.

      1. The quotes you have pointed out, presumably in an attempt to discredit my point that you have not put forward anything objective to support the assertions made about Mrs Tangiora’s character in the blog post, actually show that I qualify my assumptions so that is clear to readers that which is opinion and which is fact.

        I have no problem with torrid discussions, provided they can be backed up with something more than simple hearsay or subjective opinion. It is irrelevant if this is a blog not, it is a public discussion forum. Where else can factual discourse occur if not in a pubic forum?

        I also believe that what is stated about peoples character needs to be able to be substantiated by a little more than a selective presentation of their past actions.

        Again I say that nothing has been presented to substantially the various assertions made thus far about Mrs Tangora’s character. The seeking to demonize this woman does nothing to further the purpose of dealing with the real issues listed.

  10. Any precise reason for not using ‘Whinlayson’? Isn’t it an ideal way to note his unseemly association with the part-Maori elite?

  11. In comment Tod Young re the spelling of Findlayson, if it is mispelt in a derogatory way it does not do our cause and origination any good.

  12. Beach Lovin Surfie – thanks for your contributions on this important matter. It’s obvious that we hear the beat of the same drum – or maybe, I should say, we hear the thunder of the same waves! It seems as plain as day to me that the proponent for racism and separatism on the peninsula, who calls himself Paul, is actually Pauline Tangiora’s lawyer, Leo Watson, who seems to make his money out of feeding off the Treaty industry. The tone and content of his comments are those of a lawyer and I can not think of any other lawyer in Hawke’s Bay who would be so supportive of stealing rights from the public for the benefit of tribal elitists like Mrs. Tangiora. Her grab of these racist rights is fast making her Public Enemy Number One in Hawke’s Bay.

    She was ordered to pay costs to the Boating Club and she acknowledges that, after all these years, she has not done so. What sort of community stalwart does that? Alleging that she is a voice for fair-minded treatment of all people is pure nonsense that could only come off the pen of a lawyer. If she believes in fair-minded treatment of all, then all she has to do to prove it is to withdraw her greedy and racist claim to the foreshore and seabed of ALL the Mahia Peninsula. Simple as that.

    Paul claims that there will be public access but then waffles on about wahi tapu areas. Yes, Paul, it is the wahi tapu areas that we are talking about as the overwhelming temptation for this liitle tribe will be to declare the best fishing grounds and surf breaks to be “wahi tapu” so that they exclusively can use them. They will always be able to concoct some story of how some ancestor was drowned there a million years ago and so the area must be out of bounds to all others except those of their own “tribe.”

    Paul says that he can not understand how getting all these rights for the benefit of a tribe at the expense of the public is “divisive”. Perhaps you should more deeply read this crooked and racist Act that is the handiwork of Christopher Finlayson, so rightly described in Twisting the Treaty as “deceitful, biased, secretive and deeply compromised”. Finlayson is so racist (pro-Maori) and morally perverted that he even granted an extra $10 million of taxpayers’ money to the Ngati Toa tribe “for the loss of their maritime empire over Cook Strait” – code for Ngati Toa’s Te Rauparaha, New Zealand’s most bloodthirsty cannibal, losing his right to lead his war canoes across Cook Strait to kill, cook and eat the natives of Marlborough. This grant of $10 million was settled by Finlayson in secret negotiations with the tribe and was AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL. Yes, even that notoriously pro-Maori Tribunal could not stomach rewarding cannibalism. But no problem for Finlayson.

    Finlayson then granted a piece of land and $250,000 to the tribe of Te Kooti because of “Te Kooti’s bad name”. Well, Te Kooti did carry out the Matawhero massacre in the 1860s near Gisborne when he and his gang murdered over 70 people in their beds – including women and children. Half of them were settlers and half were innocent Maoris. That is why he got a deservedly bad name. Something that an amoral Treaty Twister like mendacious Minister Finlayson can not work out for the simple reason that he, probably the most duplicitous person ever to sit in the House of Representatives, does not seem capable of ever putting ethics ahead of self-interest. And now his racist rort, the Marine and Coastal Area Act, is penetrating Hawke’s Bay – thanks to Mrs Pauline Tangiora and her busybody lawyer, Mr. Leo Watson.

    So, Mrs. Tangiora, if you really believe in fair-mindedness to all people, all you have to do is withdraw your racist claim. Up to you, Pauline. The choice is between being a respectable member of the community or Public Enemy Number One, potentially guilty of the unforgivable crime of introducing racism and loss of public rights to a peninsula where such evils do NOT belong.

    1. Beach Lover, I replied to your post earlier but it is not showing up as awaiting moderation and it is possible that my connection was interrupted, so this is a follow up.

      I can assure you that I am a real person and I am NOT Leo Watson. Your allegations are false.

      I also wonder why you are quite happy to name people but are happy to hide behind a nom-de-plume.

      1. Unless there is a missing comment in which his stance is greatly altered, Paul is very good at introducing red herrings into what is really a very simple and basic issue. Viz. should the long held rights over the foreshore and seabed remain in the hands of the public, with equal access and rights for ALL New Zealanders? Or should they be vested in the increasingly grasping hands of the tribal elite – in this case those of the persistent, if not vexatious claimant, Pauline Tangiora? A person who doesn’t even pay the costs imposed by the court when she loses one of her ridiculous claims?

        Despite his comments about the MCA, the vehemence with which Paul is trying to twist the argument into something that it isn’t suggests that he, (if not Tangiora’s lawyer, then a part-Maori, perhaps?), has a vested interest in this particular theft of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula from public ownership.

        The basic fact is that this greedy and racist claim has no other purpose than to enrich the resources and rights of one small tribe at the expense of every other beach-frequenting New Zealander. Is this what our servicemen fought and died for in two world wars? In continuously advancing pathetic and irrelevant arguments, Paul fails to deal with this basic point – probably because there is nothing one can say to defend the separatism and racism which is at the heart of this evil product of Christopher Finlayson’s twisted mind.

        Pauline Tangiora, her lawyer Leo Watson, and now her chief apologist Paul, are creating division and racism where they should not exist. If they don’t withdraw this abusive and greedy claim, they should not complain when they are exposed for what they are – enemies of the community.

        Democracy and equal rights for all, I say. And to hell with this reversion to tribalism, racism and separatism, which is at the root of the Marine and Coastal Area Act and which are also at the root of the warped and spiteful thinking of tribal elitists like Tangiora and her sympathisers.

        We, the descendants of the pioneers who built this country by their sweat and toil, will not be made into second class citizens in the land of our birth and origins by greedy elitists and racists. Paul, if you have any respect for the principles of equality and democracy, you will stop trying to pervert the argument with all your red herrings. If you persist with your support for racism, don’t be surprised to be held up as an egregious example of an enemy of the local community and of all New Zealanders who believe in democracy and equality. Up to you.

        1. To your charge of introducing red herrings, I clearly stated in my first comment what my contribution was about and I have repeatedly returned to the same theme, that being that there is no substantiated proof to support the claims made in this blog about Mrs Tangiora’s character.

          As the discussion has gone along a variety of other points have been put forward to support the opinions on Mrs Tangiora to which I have responded, always trying to come back to my basic message. I would also point out that on at least one occasion I clearly stated that I agreed there was a need serious discussion to be had about the deeper issues relating to the MACA and our constitutional arrangements, but you seem to have missed that entirely in your need to broaden the campaign of casting all kinds of assumptions and aspersions on people’s character to now include me.

          The tragedy is that rabid and malicious attacks against individuals distract the discussion from the serious issues that should be being discussed. If anyone should be being held accountable for introducing red herrings it should be people like you. Instead of a considered presentation of the potential negative outcomes of the “affirmative action” policy approaches taken by successive Governments and the probable harm this is doing to our society as a whole, you chose to follow a campaign consisting mostly of sensationalised scaremongering and invective.

          Petty name calling and baseless allegations turn people off, and abuse even more so. As the year has wound back up and people have returned home from holidays I have run into more than a few people who were holidaying in Mahia and attended the meeting. I make no claim that this is a scientific poll, but a significant majority of the people who I have spoken to who went to the meeting very concerned about the MACA issues and the claims being made by the organisations mobilising against the Mahia application> Of these people most came away from that meeting with a high degree of respect for Mrs Tangiora and what she has achieved and is trying to achieve for ALL the people who enjoy Mahia. Even a number of the ones I spoke to who still strongly disagree with her claim and / or didn’t particularly like her felt that she was a woman of conviction who at least deserved respect for the fact that she fronted a meeting that was not likely to be her biggest cheer leaders, spoke candidly, and according to her has been prepared to put her own money into getting the a two mile recreational fishing zone established around Mahia in the early 1990’s which all the public have enjoyed the benefit from. My point here is that in demonising an elderly woman you have made the issue to be as much about her as the MACA application or the underlying policy programme it represents, and in doing so you are actually alienating a large portion of the very people who should be taking a keen interest in the discussion around fair and just constitutional rights for all New Zealanders.

          One lady I know from an established, non-Maori, Hawkes Bay rural family said the campaign targeting Mrs Tangiora seemed like “bullying”. Maybe there is something in that, as I am confident in saying that most Kiwis don’t like seeing people get picked on.

          While you and your ilk might think you are doing the cause a favour by attacking and sledging everyone who dares to question any point you chose to make on pro-Maori issues, the reality is that you are doing more harm to the movement working for equality in our society than any good. If you really want to make a positive change for a fair and just democracy in our country maybe you should stop “playing the man” and get your eyes back on the ball!

          Frankly, I am always happy to have an amicable and reasoned discussion with people, even if it means we simply reach the point where we agree to disagree, because I was raised to respect other people’s opinions even I if don’t necessarily agree and because I find that through dialogue one often gains another perspective and thus better insight into an issue.

          However, I am not going to lower myself into a sledging competition and enable you or anyone else to use it as a platform to spout off even more vitriol. I appreciate the blog host for the opportunity to partake in this forum but I cannot see how me continuing to add to the discussion will benefit anything, and so I leave you that remain to carry on with your discussions without me.

          Now roll the final word….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *