|
|
|
Coastal
Coalition News |
|
Labour’s
withdrawal of support for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill
is a clear sign it has recognised the huge wave of public opposition to
this Bill, says Coastal Coalition spokeswoman Muriel Newman. The
Labour Party today announced it will pull its backing for the Bill because
it does not offer a lasting solution and will lead to backroom deals
between the Minister and iwi. “Labour
is dead right, that is exactly what this Bill will do,” said Dr Newman,
“and while our Prime Minister is trying to dismiss Labour’s stand as a
‘setback’, he couldn’t be more wrong.” “Labour
at least has seen and heard the groundswell of opposition to this Bill and
knows from the past couple of weeks of select committee hearings that
almost no-one is in favour of it. “We
believe it’s time for the Government to stop trying to foist this
unpopular and divisive piece of legislation on New Zealanders.”
For
more information see our website www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz
The Coastal Coalition has contacted the Prime Minister and the
Attorney General this morning to urgently request a one-week extension for
the timeframe for submissions to the Marine and Coastal Area Bill due to
the difficulties that the public are having with the Parliamentary website
on-line submission form. “The Select Committee staff have been aware of the problem for
weeks now. “It is intolerable that in this day and age, when people rely on
technology to participate in the democratic process, that Parliament
cannot have in place a user-friendly system that allows interested people
to make their submissions easily. “In addition, the Select Committee email system is also
malfunctioning, which means that people who had emailed their submission
and thought it had been received might be unaware that it has been
rejected. “This is a totally unacceptable state of affairs all around. Media
contact: |
|
Tribal
leaders have their eye on the entire Exclusive Economic Zone out to the
200 nautical mile limit. Anyone, except the most naïve amongst us, will
realise that once the Prime Minister sets the country onto this particular
path, Maori leaders will not stop until they control the whole of And if anyone thinks that this may be an exaggeration, then just look at the progress Maori leaders have made since 2003, when this whole fiasco began. Up
until June 2003, everyone understood that the foreshore and seabed was
vested in the Crown as a result of However,
on June 19th 2003, in a controversial decision in the Ngati Apa case, the
Court of Appeal ruled that Maori were entitled to seek "customary
title" over areas of the foreshore and seabed through the The proper course of action for
the Labour government would have been to have the controversial decision
challenged by the independent Justices of the Privy Council, but since
they had just cut off access to the Privy Council that course of action
was no longer available. To add to Labour’s woes, Maori
activists were busy fuelling discontent within Maoridom by spreading the
word that the Court of Appeal had ruled that Maori “owned” the
foreshore and seabed. Although there was no truth in the rumour, with
foreshore and seabed claims flooding in to the biased Maori Land Court -
including claims for the whole of the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone -
which might well have found in favour of private title, Labour rushed to
legislate. So how has National changed the qualifying criteria in their new bill? What they have done is to significantly lower the bar by making the new criteria more flexible, less onerous and more generous. In addition, they have scrapped the need for claimants to have to prove their entitlement in the High Court, instead allowing them to negotiate their deal in secret with a friendly Minister. Further, the bill removes the need for the deal to be finalised through an Act of Parliament (as is required under the present law), allowing it instead to be rubber stamped through an Order in Council. This enables the whole settlement process - which involves the giving away of vast tracts of public land containing public assets worth many millions of dollars - to be orchestrated totally in private without any public involvement or scrutiny at all. Essentially the new bill replaces the public’s right to the foreshore and seabed with three levels of Maori rights that will open the floodgates to claims. The first is “Mana tuku iho”, which is a co-management right that will be allocated around the entire coastline giving every tribal group that applies considerable powers over local coastal decision-making, involving, amongst other things, marine reserves, conservation areas, dolphin sanctuaries, and whale watching concessions. The second level of rights, “Protected Customary Rights”, enables tribal groups to run commercial ventures without the need for resource consents or any other form of official approval. In addition they will be given the power to approve or decline resource consent applications relating to their area from other groups. Essentially this gives them the power to veto competing interests. No appeal process is provided for in the bill. National has described the third level of rights, “Customary Marine Title”, as being an ownership title with full development rights that can be undertaken without the need for resource or coastal consents. While the title can’t be sold, it can be transferred to others on a commercial basis. The powers and privileges are considerable. For instance customary title holders will gain ownership and mining rights to all non-nationalised minerals – including the iron sands reserves, which Crown Minerals has valued as being worth up to $1 trillion. Astonishingly the bill enables applicants to start collecting royalties from existing mining operations from the time an application for title is made rather than from the time it is granted!. This means that public royalties that should be going into the public purse to fund hospitals and schools will be diverted into private tribal coffers months, if not years ahead of a decision being made on their claim. The powers include the right of veto over any activity within the area which may require a coastal permit, including RMA applications, conservation permissions, and whale watching permits. There are no rights of appeal. Further, title holders will have the right to exclude the public from areas designated as wahi tapu, with wardens appointed to police the area and fines of up to $5,000 imposed. National has also given these un-elected, unaccountable tribal title holders the right to impose their coastal plans onto local government, the Historic Places Trust, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Fisheries and other government agencies. In addition, their views must be taken into account in the development of national coastal policy statements. What is so concerning is that these profound changes, which involve a massive confiscation of public property rights and as such represent major constitutional change, are being carried out under the radar of public opinion. The National Party has done everything it can to keep the public in the dark, by rushing the consultation process and endlessly reassuring the public that the only thing that matters is that free access to the beaches will be guaranteed! However, even these assurances that the new law guarantees free public access and little change, just don’t stand up to scrutiny. The present law prohibits iwi from charging for access to the public foreshore and seabed, yet that provision has been dropped by National in their new law. While the right for tribal groups to impose wahi tapu under the present law has not been an issue - since no groups have qualified - under National’s proposed law with the floodgates being opened, the public may well find themselves excluded from many of their favourite picnic and fishing spots - with no rights of appeal. And while royalties and commercial returns from foreshore and seabed activities flow into the government’s accounts at the present time to help fund public services, once National’s bill is passed, those funds will be progressively channelled into the private coffers of corporate iwi, adding further to the already sorry state of New Zealand’s public finances. What's worse is that many of these issues will have been raised in the responses to the government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act Review back in March, but unbelievably, those submissions cannot be examined because - almost five months later - the Attorney General continues to suppress them. One wonders what it is that he is trying to hide. It
is in response to all of these concerns, the Coastal Coalition was formed
as an umbrella group for people who believe the
foreshore & seabed is the common heritage of all New Zealanders and
should remain in Crown ownership. We have been spending our time over
the last few months raising awareness about National’s plans and we are
currently fundraising for a major public information campaign so we can
properly inform New Zealanders about National’s plan to rob them of
their heritage. If you feel you can help us in any way at all, please
visit our website at www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz.
The reality is that the only way to stop this bill being passed into law is through the weight of public opinion. To that end we would like to suggest that anyone who is opposed to National’s plan to give the foreshore and seabed to corporate iwi contact the Prime Minister and other National Party MPs to share their views - their postal address is c/o Parliament Buildings, Wellington … no stamp required! In addition, submissions on the new bill have now been called and we are encouraging everyone who would like to ‘do something’ to send in a submission that opposes National’s bill. Full details and a guide are available on the Coastal Coalition website. If
you feel strongly that FOOTNOTES: Coalition
spokesman Dr Hugh Barr said “The messages contained in the billboard
were sourced from the government’s own materials and announcements. The
billboard, which depicts John Key as the ‘cheerleader’ of corporate
Maori, points out that under the proposed law ‘Iwi’ who gain customary
title will receive very strong property rights including
‘ownership rights’, ‘development rights’, ‘mining
rights’, and ‘veto rights’. In comparison, ‘Kiwi’ have no
cheerleader and only get ‘visiting rights?’. There is a question mark,
because under the proposed law Maori will have the right to exclude
non-Maori from parts of the foreshore and seabed that they consider to be
of special cultural or spiritual significance.
“The
billboards also graphically remind the public of the astounding U-turn
that John Key and the National Government have done since 2005, when a
previous National Party argued vehemently against privatising the
foreshore and seabed to iwi. Now John Key’s
proposed policy will allow it to be privatised only to iwi. And
Crown ownership will be removed everywhere” Dr Barr said.
“This is not “copying”. It is a stunning reminder to the
public of National’s duplicity.” “John
Key intends to allow iwi to claim customary title to the foreshore and
seabed anywhere that is now Crown owned. If granted, their associated
ownership rights would include development rights, mining rights,
aquaculture rights, leasing rights, veto rights etc. These would stretch
out to sea up to 22 km (12 nautical miles), far further than Maori control
would have extended in 1840. Iwi get the right of veto over all activities
being planned by anyone else in their customary area”, Dr Barr said. “National’s
Attorney General Chris Finlayson thinks 10% of New Zealand’s coastal
area will transfer. National has significantly lowered the bar to iwi
gaining customary title,. These include allowing iwi to negotiate in
secret with friendly ministers such as Finlayson, formerly one of Ngai
Tahu’s Treaty Claim negotiating team.” “The
Crown owned foreshore and seabed is vast” Dr Barr said. “It includes
major natural resources of iron-sands, aggregate, aquaculture and
recreational and commercial infrastructure. Iron-sands alone over the
currently Crown-owned area are said by Crown Minerals to be worth
trillions ($1,000,000,000,000) of dollars. This is potentially an enormous
transfer of wealth from the nation to claimant iwi” Dr Barr said. “The
public should be aware that John Key is putting the demands of tribal
leaders ahead of the democratic rights of citizens.” “There
are also major constitutional questions
about what the Key government is proposing. Replacing Crown ownership by
“land owned by no-one”, as he proposes, can significantly weaken New
Zealand’s sovereignty over it. This Bill is not something that should be
rushed through by Christmas. These constitutional changes are irreversible
National is hiding these facts from the public.” Dr Barr said. Contact:
Dr Hugh Barr, Wellington, hugh@infosmart.co.nz
027 686 0063, 04 934 2244 for the Coastal Coalition. A
high resolution image of the billboard is available at: http://www.nzcpr.com/CoastalCoalitionBillboardIwiKiwiVisitingRightsFINAL.pdf
The
first billboards will be appearing in "The
original Iwi-Kiwi billboards wrongly accused the previous Labour
Government of selling out the beaches to iwi. “This time it is John Key
and the National Party that really are giving away our beaches” Dr Barr
said. “And the public needs to know this clearly.” The
Coastal Coalition is a broad and growing alliance of citizens who support
the foreshore and seabed being the common heritage and responsibility of
all New Zealanders. We believe it should remain in Crown ownership, not privatised to
iwi, as John Key is proposing. “Our
coasts and beaches are New Zealanders’ greatest playgrounds for public
use. As well they are enormously important for development, aquaculture,
and commerce. John Key wants to give all these development and leasing
rights to iwi over large areas of our foreshore and seabed, and give them
veto rights on anyone else developing or using the area.” Dr Barr said. “The
Prime Minister can’t even guarantee that iwi won’t be charging the
public for use when they get all these veto rights he intends to give them
under customary title” Dr Barr said. “The
Prime Minister seems to have decided that Kiwis
don’t count and only iwi are important. Consultation with ordinary Kiwis
has been a sham, and review panels have been stacked with iwi activists.
Key is proposing that iwi don’t even need to go to court to prove a case
for title. They will be able to do backroom deals in secret with friendly
ministers. There are even proposals the Government should work with iwi
prove their case for ownership” Dr Barr said. The
Coalition will be rolling out more billboards in the coming weeks. For more information see www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz
Te Atiawa will seek customary rights to the foreshore and seabed from New Plymouth to Motunui, which could give the iwi control over coastal developments. Spokesman Grant Knuckey told the Taranaki Daily News the iwi intended to seek underlying customary title of the foreshore and seabed in its rohe (area) if the new Foreshore and Seabed Act became law later this year. Customary title would give the iwi the right to decide which developments can and can't go ahead, and would allow them to put their own developments on the area. Mr Knuckey said if such a claim were accepted as part of their settlement package there would be no more restrictions on access to the foreshore and seabed than were currently in place but the underlying ownership would be with Maori. "I compare it to the mountain. We are not going to move the mountain, it's not going anywhere and the foreshore and seabed, they are constants too. We want it to be there now and forever but there might be economic opportunities we can develop," Mr Knuckey said. These might include such activities as aquaculture which could give Te Atiawa the ability to build an independent economic capacity he said. The possibility of such a claim has already angered at least one notable Taranaki identity, with New Plymouth mayoral candidate John Rae saying the next thing Maori will want is "the air we breathe". "Some of these iwi find nothing better to do than rock the boat and create waves when they should be growing their business like some other iwi," Mr Rae said. "Surely it can't be the majority wanting this, it's just a radical few who want to be able to charge for things like access to the port. "They say they won't do that but then why bother going after the title? "Soon they're going to want the air we breathe – it's just getting ridiculous." However, Mr Rae said the foreshore and seabed issue was one for central Government to deal with, a view shared by the two other mayoral candidates. New Plymouth District councillor Maurice Betts said he had kept a close eye on proposed changes to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. "It is something which is likely to have an impact on a place like Taranaki," he said. "If Te Atiawa see fit to apply for that, they will make that application to the Government." His council colleague, Phil Quinney, agreed. "The ramifications could be applicable to local government but we would deal with that if and when it became an issue," he said. Te Atiawa is the first of seven iwi with a coastal boundary in Taranaki to show an interest in seeking customary title after Maori struck a deal with the Government last month. A successful claim would guarantee the iwi the deed to the coastal area, giving it greater control including the right to veto or initiate development. They iwi would also have the right to some minerals, such as ironsands, beneath it. However, under the proposed legislation Maori who are granted customary rights would not be able to sell or restrict public access to the land. To establish customary title, iwi will need to prove they have had exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840. The bill is being drafted and is expected to be introduced in August.
New Zealand's potential trillion-dollar ironsands industry is awaiting clarity from the Government about changes to the foreshore and seabed legislation. The imminent repeal and replacement of the contentious Foreshore and Seabed Act had created uncertainty around minerals, such as ironsands, Chapman Tripp commercial dispute expert Daniel Kalderimis said. Ironsands are classified as Crown-owned minerals under the Crown Minerals Act. Mr Kalderimis said the current Foreshore and Seabed Act did not change ownership of minerals, such as ironsands, to Maori, but it was not "precisely clear" whether that status would change under the new legislation, which was expected to come before Parliament next month. Ownership of these minerals should stay with the Crown, even if foreshore and seabed ownership was proved by iwi through customary title, he said, but iwi might look to acquire rights to minerals through settlements with the Government. Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has said he is willing to negotiate directly with iwi. Any such deals reached between iwi and government would probably require an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act, Mr Kalderimis said. "It's a big step to amend the act. I don't think you can assume it would happen, but it could." There was a large amount of corporate and iwi interest in the issue, he said. Crown Minerals estimates New Zealand's future ironsands industry could be worth anywhere between $600 billion and $1 trillion. Ironsands are used in the production of iron ore and steel. Because most of the ironsand being mined was privately owned, permit revenue figures were not released, Crown Minerals spokeswoman Tracy Dillimore said. Only a few industry figures are publicly available. In 2009, 585,978 tonnes was produced from the Waikato North Head mine, with the Glenbrook Steel Mill producing about 650,000 tonnes of steel annually from ironsands produced at North Head. This deposit is estimated to contain 150 million tonnes of ironsands. In 2008 the Taharoa Iron Sands Business' mine had revenue of about $53m, with all ironsands produced exported. Now, 10 permits are held that specifically target ironsands, with a further seven being assessed by Crown Minerals. Of the 10 current permits, three relate to prospecting. Big international miners such as Fortescue Metals through its offshoot FMG Pacific, Rio Tinto and Sinosteel hold permits, along with less well-known players such as Trans Tasman Resources (TTR), Serdicho Developments, and Ironsands Offshore Mining. Ironsands explorer TTR wants to capitalise on New Zealand's mineral-rich black sands. It holds prospecting permits which cover 6319sq km of seabed in two areas off the North Island's west coast. TTR said its permit areas could be expected to produce 5 million to 10 million tonnes of ironsand a year. It has tentative plans for an on and offshore mining operation and onshore steel mill dependent on the results of the prospecting activity. Managing director Bill Bisset said the industry would work "within whatever rules are promulgated", but it was wary of any retrospective or "reactive" legislation.
“While National ministers are spending endless hours
consulting with iwi on their foreshore and seabed proposal, they seem
determined to ignore the concerns of the wider public about their plan to
effectively privatise over 10 million ha of New Zealand’s coast to iwi.
The present legislation, which vests ownership of the
foreshore and seabed in the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders, is
stable and is working. “If the government wants to change it, it should be
consulting equally with those who stand to lose a great deal - business,
aquaculture, coastal communities, recreation groups, and local
government.”
“But this is not happening. The debate is very
one-sidedly between National and Maori”. Yet industry and the community
have billions of dollars invested, and at risk. As well they are major
users.”
“The most likely reason that the submissions have not
been disclosed is that they will clearly show that National’s presumption
that non-Maori are happy with National’s cavalier strategy of repealing
the present stable legislation, and imposing instead the nonsense of
‘public domain’ is false.”
“How can ‘public domain’ be owned by no-one, when
National is offering very strong ownership rights with customary title,
which clearly shows it will be owned by iwi. This is very high risk
strategy both for National and for the community and business, as gaining
exclusive control (ownership) of much of this area is certainly what iwi
want and expect.”
“None of this was part of National’s 2008 Election
promises, so it all needs to be openly debated before any legislation is
introduced to Parliament. National has done its best to keep the concerns
of non-Maori out of the spotlight, but that is not acceptable.
“While Maori stand to win major privileges from the
proposals that National has put forward, non-Maori will be the big losers
as power and control over the country’s richest natural resource -
covering an area that’s equal to over a third of New Zealand’s dry land
area - are stripped away”, Hugh Barr said.
Further Information:
“National’s
desire to remove Crown ownership from the foreshore and seabed is flirting
with disaster” Dr Hugh Barr, spokesman for the Coastal Coalition says. “Repeal of the
2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, or its replacement by ‘public domain’, or
as iwi propose, joint Crown-iwi ownership, will inevitably lead rapidly to
a race-based privatisation of the foreshore and seabed to coastal iwi.
That is what iwi are planning on. But the National Government seems blind
to the extreme risks to the rest of the community” Dr Barr said. “National is
proposing a very strong bundle of property rights for Maori customary
title to the foreshore and seabed, including exclusive mining, aquaculture
and facility development rights. These rights can even include areas where
public access and use are prohibited” Dr Barr said. “Removal of
Crown ownership, or merely defining “customary title” will inevitably
compromise the Crown’s sovereign rights on behalf of all New Zealanders,
and its ability to manage the foreshore and seabed fairly for the whole
community and business. “It would also
grossly interfere with business and community investments of many billions
of dollars in or near the foreshore and seabed, such as aquaculture,
ports, and recreational facilities including wharves, marinas etc” Private
property rights in New Zealand are very strong. “Any customary title would
rapidly adopt these rights. This would give coastal iwi major control of
present and future developments, at great cost to developers such as
aquaculture, port developers, marinas, whitebaiters wharves
etc that are already on the foreshore or seabed” Dr Barr said.
New
Zealand’s foreshore and seabed, the area from mean high tide to 22 km
offshore from the nearest land, is vast. It covers
over 10 million hectares, or nearly 40% of our dry land area. It
includes all harbours and tidal inlets , the most productive areas for
aquaculture and fisheries, as well as coastal waters including the Hauraki
Gulf, Marlborough Sounds, fiords and Patterson Inlet – see maps at
www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz
Crown
ownership of the foreshore and seabed has existed since 1840. It has not
stopped Maori fisheries or aquaculture deals. And the 2004 Act allows
recognition of coastal areas important to iwi. Whatever
National is negotiating with iwi and the race-based Maori party about this
public resource is being done in secret” Dr Barr said. “This is no way to
dispose of one of the most valuable public resources New Zealand has.” Further
Information:
“There is too
much secrecy over the government’s plan to privatise the foreshore and
seabed”, Dr Hugh Barr of the
Coastal Coalition says. The Coalition is a newly formed network of
concerned citizens who believe the foreshore and seabed should remain in
Crown ownership for the benefit of all New Zealanders. “In comparison
to the proposal to mine 7,000 hectares of Department of Conservation land,
which everyone knows about, we are finding that the public is largely
unaware that the Government intends to repeal Crown ownership of over 10
million ha of the foreshore and seabed. This includes all of the seabed
out to 22 km from shore. It is over 1000 times larger than the Schedule 4
areas proposed for mining, and is larger than one third of New Zealand’s
‘dry’ land area. “Instead, the
Government intends to place most crucial coastal activities – including
mining, aquaculture and development - in Maori control. This was not part
of National’s 2008 election manifesto. It is new policy that has come
about through lobbying by the Maori Party. So it needs detailed discussion
with the public”, Dr Barr said.
The Coastal
Coalition has set up a website at
www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz
where people can go to register their interest and find out more. Compared
to mining in the Coromandel or the Paparoa National Park, National’s
foreshore and seabed proposal will have a major adverse impact on coastal
users in all regions of New Zealand – as can be seen from the maps* found
on the website
here>>>. “It is clear
that National is hoping that their plan to effectively privatise the
foreshore and seabed can be rushed through Parliament without the public
really understanding what’s going on”, Dr Barr said. “When we talk
to individuals and organisations around the country about the government’s
proposals almost no-one is aware that they planning to effectively
privatise foreshore and seabed rights and resources in favour of Maori
interests. The government clearly wants the public to remain in the dark
until after the law is passed. But in a democracy, secrecy over an issue
of such constitutional significance is completely unacceptable.
“It should
be the responsibility of this government to properly inform the public. We
know that the National Party is keen on privatising state assets, but
repealing Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed so they can
privatise it in favour of Maori interests is a massive step too far”, Dr
Barr said. Further
Information: |
|
|
