Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Withdraw your Bill Prime Minister

Withdraw your Bill Prime Minister

Revelations the Maori Party will demand that claims for customary title to the coast are made much easier before they agree to back the Marine and Coastal Area Bill should be the final nail in the coffin for this deeply unpopular Bill, says Coastal Coalition spokeswoman Dr Muriel Newman.

“The process has become a farce, and while media concentrate on Maori opposition to the Bill, they ignore the huge groundswell of opposition from ordinary New Zealanders which was evident in the thousands of submissions made to the select committee,” Dr Newman said.

“No-one wants this Bill.”

The Maori Party, who, along with Attorney General Chris Finlayson were the architects of the Bill, continue to claim the bar for customary title claims will still be too high and is now saying openly it will demand changes when Parliament resumes in the New Year.

“The reality is that this whole process has been hijacked by the Maori sovereignty movement which wants the resources of the coast – which belong to all New Zealanders equally - to be carved up and given to them. It is the biggest attempted resource grab in New Zealand history – and, unbelievably, the National Party is orchestrating it,” Dr Newman said.

“John Key gave his word that repeal of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed would not go ahead if the public were not behind it. With the vast majority of the more than 4,000 submissions on the Bill strongly opposing it, the Prime Minister must honour his promise and withdraw the Bill.”

The test for customary title in the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act was based on the Court of Appeal’s Ngati Apa decision which indicated Maori might have customary title to the foreshore and seabed.

The 2004 Act required that in order for iwi to gain customary title, they had to prove in the High Court they had used and occupied the area continuously and exclusively since 1840, and that they owned the land contiguous (in the immediate vicinity) to the area under claim.

Clause 32 (2) of the 2004 Act states:

“…a group may be regarded as having had exclusive use and occupation of an area of the public foreshore and seabed only if—

(a) that area was used and occupied, to the exclusion of all persons who did not belong to the group, by members of the group without substantial interruption in the period that commenced in 1840 and ended with the commencement of this Part; and

(b) the group had continuous title to contiguous land.”

The new Bill:

• Drops the requirement for iwi to own the land contiguous to their claim,

• Drops the need for iwi to have used the area continuously since 1840 by allowing it to have been transferred from people not associated with the iwi - [clause 62 (3)(a)(ii) of the Bill states: the transfer was… from a group or members of a group who were not part of the applicant group to the applicant group or some of its members]

• Drops the need for iwi to have used it exclusively since 1840 by allowing others to have used it continuously for fishing and navigation (see SOP 167).

For more information see our website www.CoastalCoalition.co.nz

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

PARLIAMENT TODAY:

Arming Police: Frontline Police To Routinely Carry Tasers

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On D-Day For Dairy At The TPP

While New Zealand may feel flattered at being called “the Saudi Arabia of milk” it would be more accurate to regard us as the suicide bombers of free trade. More>>

ALSO:

Leaked Letter: Severe Restrictions on State Owned Enterprises

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

ALSO:

"Gutted" Safety Bill: Time To Listen To Workplace Victims’ Families

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

ALSO:

Regulators: Govt To ‘Crowd-Source’ Regulatory Advice

A wide-ranging set of reforms is to be implemented to shake up the way New Zealand government agencies develop, write and implement regulations. More>>

ALSO:

Board Appointments: Some Minister Appoint Less The 3 In 10 Women

“It’s 2015 not 1915: Ministers who appoint less than 3 in 10 women to their boards must do better, they have no excuse but to do better,” said Dr Blue. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The 1990s Retro Proposals For Our Health System

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news