 |
[ login or create an account ]
|
|
[ login or create an account ]
|
"The release of official documents under the Official Information Act that show the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the repeal of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, show that John Key has no mandate to push ahead with his controversial Marine and Coastal Area Bill", Dr Hugh Barr Spokesman for the Coastal Coalition said today.
"According to a summary of submissions on the government's review, 77 percent of submitters were opposed to the repeal of Crown ownership, and an astonishing 91 percent opposed the government's whole approach!"
"The Coastal Coalition is so concerned about John Key bulldozing through this controversial bill to repeal Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed by the end of summer - replacing it with a law that will allow the effective privatisation of the coast to Maori tribal groups - that we have placed a half-page advertisement in the New Zealand Herald today. This is part of our continuing public information campaign to improve public awareness of the issue.
"This public information campaign has been funded by our volunteers who want New Zealanders to better understand the huge changes that the government is proposing to introduce. We are encouraging all concerned citizens to speak up about the Bill and send in a submission to the Select Committee by 19 November", Dr Barr said.
"The ads are designed to counter the propaganda and put-downs the government is using to hide the fact that John Key is about to carve up the coast - currently held by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders - for something he values more: Maori Party votes.
"If he hadn't done a deal with the Maori Party after the election, there is no way on earth that this Bill to privatise the coast to corporate iwi would be in front of Parliament", Dr Barr said.
"The misinformation that is going on over the Bill is astounding! The Bill as drafted doesn't prohibit tribes charging for access. That is what the Maori Party wanted and that is why National has dropped the prohibition on charging that is found in the present law. "And if iwi slap on a 'wahi tapu' then the public can be totally banned from these areas and hit with a fine up to $5,000. In stark contrast, there is a much more open and balanced process in Labour's 2004 Act for investigating wahi tapu, and public access is not necessarily banned. "Iwi owners will be able to exploit the coastal marine environment by establishing marine farms, mining operations, and other major developments without the normal safeguards that protect the public interest at present. That means that communities that have fought such proposals in the past could well have them imposed in the future by iwi. In addition, the Bill allows iwi to force implementation of their coastal plans on local and central government. "Furthermore, it is just wrong that the allocation of the coastline to iwi tribal authorities will be through a political process, called "recognition by agreement" involving secret negotiation with Ministers, rather than through a legal process in an open court of law. As the Bill stands, billions of dollars of public assets will be allocated to private interests, with no public safeguards at all. "Claims by John Key, that 'nothing much will change' as a result of his Bill do not stack up. The Attorney General himself has estimated that at least 2,000 km of the coast will be privatised in the first instance.
"But that is not where it will end as the Maori Party has already indicated that they will not stop until the whole of New Zealand's coast is in Maori Title. That will relegate non-iwi Kiwis to the status of second class citizens in their own land.
"The Coastal Coalition is a broad-based grassroots movement of thousands of people who believe the foreshore and seabed is the birthright and common heritage of all New Zealanders and should stay in Crown ownership. That's what we are fighting for", Dr Barr said.
Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff. Links will open on Gimme.
Health Tips, Recommended Movies, Recommended Books, Recommended Places.
Links will open on recommended.co.nz.
All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.
Comments
Hugh Barr, is correct, the
Hugh Barr, is correct, the new Bill is scandalous !
I have followed from afar
I have followed from afar and with interest the comments of the Coastal Coalition and their spokesman Hugh Barr and noting that they always mention the "non iwi kiwis" in their vocal outbursts. But, what they and the politicians fail to discuss is the 30% of land owned by private interests, such as "non iwi kiwis" and "non kiwis". Why don't they wish to include these groups in the discussion? Because, behind all lobby groups are financiers, politicians, developers etc who require front men to push their agendas. This is not about privatising of coastline by iwi, this is about continuing to provide land for development by "non iwi kiwis" and "non kiwis" and continuing to make a dollar out of others past sufferings.
The land owned by these non
The land owned by these non iwi is subject to all common law and they do not have all the extra rights, ticket-clipping privileges and exemptions that will be given to these iwi corporations along with what is the property of all NZers.
I'm sick of being continually ripped off by these people because of something someones great-grandaddy did to someone elses. I've done nothing wrong and I don't owe anyone for others past sufferings real or made up. All we are getting here is another layer of rent-seekers grabbing money off NZers. The National govt. is, with this bill, increasing the cost of living and reducing the standard of living of the majority of NZers. Same as they did with the ETS (and guess who major beneficiaries of that are)
Why don't you come back to NZ and pay for the past sufferings yourself, iwikiwi, if it concerns you so much.
If the Bill is not wanted by
If the Bill is not wanted by Maori, then let live with the old one...................but that will not happen as it will be the same old story "I will take that now but come back for more later", just like everything else to do with Maori.
The sad thing here is.. it
The sad thing here is.. it was the European new Zealanders who built this country and now we have the son of a Refugee wanting to give it to the halfbred and bit bred Stone-agers for their political support SAD VERY SAD..
"I have followed from afar
"I have followed from afar and with interest the comments of the Coastal Coalition and their spokesman Hugh Barr and noting that they always mention the "non iwi kiwis" in their vocal outbursts. But, what they and the politicians fail to discuss is the 30% of land owned by private interests, such as "non iwi kiwis" and "non kiwis". Why don't they wish to include these groups in the discussion? Because, behind all lobby groups are financiers, politicians, developers etc who require front men to push their agendas."
"The 30% of land owned by private interests" an idea being used to (mischievously) imply that this law is discriminatory and racist by not giving customary title holders the same rights as private interests. The 30% of land owned by private interests refers to ports, marinas and eroded land and that held by Maori (already). Of those Chris Findlayson said "two wrongs don't make a right".
The Moari Party claim to "just want their day in court' and liberals tell us it is "just about mana". When you look into it however you find that the whole foreshore and seabed is claimed under the treaty and under aboriginal title.*
Summary of the parcels that adjoin the foreshore
owned by the Crown 7,455km 37.64%
owned by territorial authorities 6,239km 31.42%
General land 3,979km 20.05%
Maori land 2,053km 10.35%
Unresolved 107km 0.54%
---
From The Green Party:
CUSTOMARY INTERESTS / RIGHTS
What are common law customary rights?
These are rights, interests, practices and activities exercised by Maori prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown (although there is a strong argument that that sovereignty was never ceded only kawanatanga). The basis of common law aboriginal title is the legal recognition of the continuity of aboriginal property rights upon the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Native title is neither an institution of the common law but is recognised by the common law. Therefore they exist prior to the Treaty (but are guaranteed by it).
Will this Bill mean that Mäori customary rights are being extinguished?
Maori argue that their common law rights to the foreshore and seabed (and confirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi) are being extinguished. Further, the right to go the court and have your rights declared with the ability to claim the full extent of those rights is not provided for in this Bill. Maori customary rights are being extinguished under common law and will be replaced with a new system. The government states that that it is not their intention to extinguish customary rights but replace them with a legal recognition of customary interests and participation opportunities under the Resource Management Act 1991.
http://www.greens.org.nz/factsheets/foreshore-and-seabed-faqs
From the Maori Law Commision
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm
http://www.kahungunu.iwi.nz/…/FIGHTINGTALKONFORESHOREHingstonTalk.doc
FIGHTING TALK ON FORESHORE
By Kui Paki – Tu Mai February 04 – An interview with Judge Ken Heta Hingston
The coast must stay in Crown
The coast must stay in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders. The National Party must withdraw the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.
John Key do not trade away New Zealand's foreshore and seabed for Maori Party votes.