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The Marine and Coastal Area Act repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and legislatively took the foreshore and seabed out of Crown (public) ownership for the first time since 1840, so that it was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.

10 thoughts on “Revelations About The Disastrous Marine & Coastal Area Act

  1. The whole Act is an utter disgrace. It’s racially divisive and promotes separatism and it is everything this country should not be. Basically it is treason but sadly that is no longer an offence in this country. I really fear for the future of this country.

  2. Is 1law4all registered as a political party, if so can we select a candidate for the proposed by election in northland. we need to take every opportunity to get our message out.

  3. Coastal Area Act Uses Wrong Treaty of Waitangi (abridged)

    This error all started when Governor Thomas Gore-Brown read out an unauthorised Treaty of Waitangi version at the at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference, which mentions “forests and fisheries”. Click and read page 4 of the Kohimarama Conference Minutes.

    http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1860-I.2.1.6.19&e=——-10–1——0–

    An unauthorised Treaty of Waitangi version was again read out at the First Maori Parliament in 1879. Click and read page 10 of the First Maori Parliament Minutes.

    http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1879-II.2.1.8.11

    An unauthorised Treaty of Waitangi version was also attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which set up the Waitangi Tribunal. The “official” Maori version, “Tiriti o Waitangi” was not attached to the Act until the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985. The Waitangi Tribunal, including the “Five Principles for Crown Action of the Treaty of Waitangi” had all been set up using the wrong Treaty of Waitangi for 10 years!

    There was absolutely no dispute by the chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference or the First Maori Parliament that Britain claimed sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, but by the Governors using an unauthorised Treaty of Waitangi version, great confusion over the Forests and Fisheries words has arisen. Those words are not in the Treaty signed at Waitangi!

    There is only one valid version of the Treaty of Waitangi, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” in the Maori language and that was “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840.”

    Some say the Treaty of Waitangi is a “Living Document.” It’s not and even if it was, it’s been on life $$$uport for far too long!

    “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and authority to make laws. If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. From The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, written by Sir Apirana Ngata. M.A, LI.B, Lit.D, Minister of Native Affairs in 1923. One of NZ’s most educated Maori scholars.

    One People, One Flag, One Law, One New Zealand
    Full details here: http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

  4. This is amazing stuff and shows us exactly where we have been going wrong for so many years. It needs to be righted and quickly because it is causing a huge injustice to every person in this country who doesn’t have an ounce of Maori blood. Ross Baker needs to be applauded for his meticulous research and this information needs to be ‘put out there’ widely and not just on websites like this which only seem to be read by the same people by and large.

    1. This is a moderated blog and the comment mentioned above was marked as “abridged.” Ross was harping on at great length about the same items which resulted in George Graham being banned. I.e. the QV Charter and allegations that1Law4All is misleading the public because it will not promote his QVC hobby horse. Plus Ross was stridently touting for membership of his organisation. Despite that inappropriate behaviour, a link to ONZF was allowed.

  5. Thank you Admin. I can understand Ross Baker’s touting for membership of his organisation being deleted from your blog, but I’m at a loss to understand why Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is also persona non grata, so to speak. I firmly believe it is a very important (much more important than the Treaty which was only to bring Maori under the same laws as the rest of us) document for ALL of us in that we ceased to be run from NSW and were finally responsible for ourselves. With respect, it’s more than a hobby horse surely – it’s very important. We desperately need a National Day seeing Waitangi Day is so horrible and disgusting and what better date than 3 May when the Royal Charter was enacted?

    1. Totally agree, Helen. It’s all so one-sided. How many years have we heard Maori bleating on about the Treaty and how badly they have been treated.? The original signing Maori chiefs were happy to do so, in fact probably honoured, considering their respect for the considerable and obvious power of this new people and their Queen. I would like to read a copy of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, if you could tell me how to get it?? Regarding the accessibility of our beaches – Hell will freeze over before I am denied access and the right of enjoyment to an area of beach and sea that is my Birthright! I don’t care who got here first and I am sick and tired of apologising for being white! Maori need to get over thenselves. A

  6. The QVC has been well discussed already. Tying it with the allegation that by not promoting it, 1Law4All is misleading people is unacceptable. Please visit the ONZF web site to discuss the QVC.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: