We Gained Another Week
But Government Hard of Hearing
By returning the complex Marine & Coastal Area Bill to the House an unprecedented 2 weeks early, without the select committee properly considering submissions, reading the officials’ reports, or even obtaining crucial legal advice, there is little doubt what the Government had in mind. So thanks for your help in flooding National MPs & and Peter Dunne with emails and stopping the government passing the Bill under urgency this past week. While this slowed them down, they could still pass the bill next week or after the Botany by-election in early March.
National’s Response Not Satisfactory
National MPs replied to many of your emails with a standard, PR statement which grossly misrepresented the facts. A few of which are:
They still insist there’s “guaranteed free access” to the coast, yet after six months of delays, there’s still no corresponding wording in the Bill. It simply isn’t there. Also, the extensive wahi tapu rights (for mythical or religious reasons amongst others, up to 22km out) remain completely unrestricted.
They have finally agreed to more openness on deals between Ministers and iwi by now saying these agreements will go before Parliament. Unfortunately, it’ll still be politicians, not the High Court, who’ll make the decisions. The Government has only just demonstrated how, if it has the numbers, it will subvert the select Committee process, ignoring submissions and objections.
Even if coastal claims go to Court, this Bill overthrows our current legal process and creates a whole new legal process just for iwi – whereby the claimant is automatically considered to have a rightful claim (and receives all Crown coastal revenues from the day the claim is lodged) and so it is up to the Crown to prove otherwise (if it wants to). The taxpayer pays all the bills - for both sides.
They say the claim requires demonstration of exclusive use and occupation since 1840. This simply isn’t so. The Bill substantial relaxes this test. It is vague, open-ended and uses many, undefined Maori terms. This means that the Bill can and will be used to justify whatever claimants want, i.e.
“tikanga Maori” could allow a group now occupying the area to claim despite the fact they may be completely separate from those occupying it in 1840.
“exclusive” use of the area is defined as being inclusive of others using the area for fishing and navigation.
“without interruption since 1840” is qualified by the word “substantial”.
Owning abutting land to the coast is no longer strictly necessary to claim.
What this means is that the floodgates will open. Instead of claims being ‘rare’ and ‘remote’ as envisaged by the 2003 Court of Appeal, the whole coast will progressively be put in customary title as the bar is lowered further over time.
· They say the customary title/rights to the seabed 22kms out may not be “sold”. However the Bill lets them be “transferred/delegated’ to anyone – e.g. from China, Dubai or America – who can then enjoy exclusivity, or pursue tourism, mining or aquaculture businesses free of rules and regulations, while imposing acquired “customary” privileges and charges on local government, competing businesses and the New Zealand public.
· Another red herring – they justify the Bill by referring to existing private titles to the foreshore. LINZ explains that most of these parcels with riparian rights now touch the mean high tide mark due to erosion. None of them touch the seabed or have any race-based privileges. They are much easier to fix than this Bill will be if it goes through.
· And note, there is still no provision for arbitration or appeal should claimants start imposing unreasonable costs or vetoes on coastal businesses or the public.
Not So Honourable Peter Dunne
Peter Dunne’s standard response ignores the above issues and the glaring fact that the foreshore and seabed will be transferred from the public domain and converted into a race-based private property right – the very thing he says he was opposed to in 2003! As more claimants gain private title to the coast, public domain will mean nothing. If Peter Dunne stuck to his principles, he would have to oppose the Bill.
Where to From Here
Everyone who has read the Bill is aghast. It is only those relying on the unsubstantiated assurances of the Prime Minister who think it’s all OK. So please inform as many people as possible. Encourage them to hold John Key to his promise to drop the Bill if there was not widespread public support.
It’s election year - let’s show him that people power is stronger than political expediency. Send on this email or this link
http://www.nzcpr.com/StopTheBill.pdf
Dirty lying bartards. We all need to do this.
