 |
|
Dr Muriel Newman
Contact Muriel:
Email: muriel@nzcpr.com
Phone 09 4343 836
or 021 800 111
PO Box 984, Whangarei
|
|
|
|
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
1
August 2010 John
Key - Selling Out to Maori Activists
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View
>>>
|
Almost
without a ripple, John Key’s administration is about to
table a bill in Parliament that will have far reaching
consequences that few can imagine. I am of course referring to
the Government’s proposed changes to the foreshore and
seabed.
The foreshore and seabed is the common heritage of all New
Zealanders. It has always been held by the Crown on behalf of
us all. Now Maori are claiming it for themselves. But if
Maori had really believed they owned the foreshore and seabed,
almost every Treaty of Waitangi claim since 1985 would have
included such claims. None did.
By Christmas, John Key intends to have passed a law that will
result in the race-based
privatisation of New Zealand’s beaches and sea. This priceless public
asset will be given to Maori, not because the present law is
not working, but because John Key wants to build a long-term
political relationship with the Maori Party. Politically
it’s a good move – he takes the Maori seats away from a
potential Labour coalition, and he has an alternative to ACT.
But political wheeling and dealing has a price and this is a
price too high. What’s more John Key has no mandate for
trading away the foreshore and seabed to Maori radicals. If
National had campaigned on giving the foreshore and seabed to
Maori at the 2008 election, they would not have won. And with
only 2.3 percent of the Party vote, the Maori Party does not
have the mandate of wider Maori either.
John Key is banking on the fact that the public will remain
largely unaware of the great trade-off that his government is
about to perpetrate until after the law is passed. If all goes
according to National’s plan, Crown ownership of the
foreshore and seabed will be repealed by Christmas, leaving
the way open for Maori up and down the country to begin
lodging their claims for our priceless public asset. Not only
that, but the Prime Minister’s assurance that once Maori
tribes own the foreshore and seabed, public access will be
guaranteed, does not hold water. Once Maori take ownership,
they will also be given the exclusive right to ban public
access to areas that they deem to be of special significance
to Maori. There is no transparency about this process and no
rights of appeal, so if Maori owners decide that popular
fishing spots and holiday sites are sacred, then tough luck -
public access will be denied. And with three different levels
of Maori claims able to be imposed on the foreshore and seabed
through the new bill – customary title, customary right, and
mana tuku iho – involving hundreds of different tribes each
with their own wahi tapu, the public should expect that their
access rights could be severely compromised.
When the Prime Minister has been asked in Parliament to
guarantee that under his proposed law, access to the beaches
and the sea will be free,
he has been unable to give such an assurance. That means that
if Maori tribal owners decide to charge for access to their
newly privatised beaches and
Territorial
Sea
– there is nothing that can be done to stop them. After all,
many tribal activists already believe they own the country and
openly flout the laws of the land, driving away people with
legitimate rights of access. No politician will be able to
guarantee that Maori will not charge for public access to the
foreshore and seabed once the area is in their private hands.
Another massive deception being perpetrated by John Key
involves claims that the new law will enable Maori to have
“their day in court”. The genesis of this deceit goes back
to 2003, when the Court of Appeal ruled that Maori had the
right to take claims for “customary title” over the
foreshore and seabed to the
Maori Land Court
. However, in making that ruling, the Judges noted that there
was likely to be little - if any - Maori customary land left
in New Zealand, since over the years it had been the job of
the Maori Land Court to investigate the ownership of all
unallocated customary title in order to allocate it to Maori
owners as Maori freehold land. The test for customary title is
high – Maori had to own ‘contiguous’ land adjacent to
that being claimed and in addition, they had to prove to the
satisfaction of a Court of law that they had had continuous
and uninterrupted usage of the area since 1840. The Appeal
Court Judges thought few, if any, such claims would succeed.
Labour’s 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, which reaffirmed
Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed, was designed so
that Maori could have “their day in court”. If Maori
wanted to claim a territorial customary right, they had to
prove their case in the High Court using the “contiguous”
land and “exclusive and uninterrupted usage since 1840”
tests, as well as being able to show that they had retained
the right to restrict public access to the foreshore and
seabed in question. Since the law was passed six years ago, no
such claims have been completed, although Ngati Porou’s is
in the pipeline.
This means is that the claims by politicians and the Maori
elite that Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed law denied Maori
their day in court, is false. Similarly, the claim that John
Key’s new law will give them their day in court is also
false. The proposed new law does NOT require Maori to have a
day in court at all. Instead they can sidestep the legal
process (which is a principal public interest safeguard
whereby claimants have to prove their claims in an open court
of law) in favour of a purely political process, whereby
claimants can negotiate favourable settlements through
backroom deals with friendly Ministers. While the “day in
court” option will exist it will clearly only be used when
political hose-trading has failed.
This week’s Guest Commentator, Michael Coote, an Auckland
based freelance writer and financial journalist, has carefully
analysed John Key’s proposed new law and warns that it will
be “open slather for claims ranging from the average high
tide mark, including coastal riverbeds, out to the 12 nautical
mile limit and including all airspace above and seabed below.
No wonder potential Maori claimants are smacking their
lips at the prospects lying before them.
They are being gifted the biggest land (and sea) grab
in
New Zealand
’s modern history. Short of donating
New Zealand
’s entire landmass as well, there will never be a better
deal for Maori than what the government has determined upon
doing, even if the price to the rest of society includes
violation of the government’s duties of good stewardship of
Crown assets and trampling on the rights of all other New
Zealanders in the process.”
In his conclusion Michael asks, “Can the general public have
any faith in the National-led government to defend its
legitimate existing interests in the foreshore and seabed?”
He answers with a resounding “No”!
“The way the government has structured the deal around
relinquishing Crown title to create ‘public space’
guarantees destruction of the legally defendable public
interest in the foreshore and seabed, and the legal definition
of that area ensures that Maori claims will be vast and
sweeping, further augmented by the Trojan horse concept of
‘universal recognition’.
“The government itself – principally in the persons of
Prime Minister John Key and Attorney General/Minister of
Treaty Negotiations Chris Finlayson - has made repeated
statements that have the appearance of being calculatedly
false, misleading and deceptive about how minimal the changes
that will flow through will be.
The public should not be reassured by the
government’s soothing words, and instead should be up in
arms to defend its legitimate and abiding interests from the
Maori foreshore and seabed grab.” To read Michael’s full
article, “The Great Foreshore and Seabed Sellout”, click
here >>>
At a time when Scotland is fighting to wrest control of their
foreshore and seabed from the UK government, so that the
citizens of Scotland can gain the full benefit of their
natural coastal resources, it is inconceivable that John Key
is planning to deny New Zealand citizens those benefits
through his race-based privatisation plan. And it’s not as
if the country is so rich that we don’t need the economic
boost - any visit to a hospital emergency department out of
regular hours will demonstrate only too clearly that New
Zealand now has third world living standards instead of the
first world facilities that we aspire to.
At the present time the foreshore and seabed is preserved as
an unalienable and common heritage of all New Zealanders
through Crown ownership and management. It is an important
part of what makes us New Zealanders. Over time the benefits
of that resource - including the substantial mineral wealth
and energy reserves - will flow back in improved living
standards. And the value of those resources is considerable:
Crown Minerals has estimated the value of the 30 billion
tonnes of iron sand reserves alone at up to $1 trillion over
time, and then there is titanium, vanadium, rock phosphate,
coal, gas hydrates, rare earths, as well as aggregate, to name
but a few of the priceless resources that belong to all New
Zealanders through Crown ownership of the foreshore and
seabed.
John Key should not be allowed to get away with trading our
heritage for Maori Party votes. He thinks that as long as he
can pass his legislation before Christmas that Kiwis will
forget and still vote for him at the next election. But he
should realise that New Zealand’s love affair with the
coastline runs deep, and it’s something they will not want
to give up to radical Maori in yet another Treaty of
Waitangi-style handout.
John Key needs to think twice about trading away that
connection for his political convenience. If the Bill is
tabled and passed in the form currently proposed the
public’s outrage will gain a momentum - and that will be at
National’s expense.
This
week’s poll asks: Do you
support John Key’s plan to drop the requirements that Maori
claimants must own ‘contiguous’ land and that they must
prove their claim in a court of law? To
vote click here >>>
Skip to top Skip
to this weeks poll
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>
Skip to top Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|