REPLAY - FORESHORE ALL COASTLINES ARE NOT EQUAL

This is required reading for all those with an interest in the Foreshore and Seabed issues. We wrote about it some time ago and it generated quite a bit of interest. It is deserving of another airing.

THE NOT SO FRIENDLY FACE OF PRIVATELY OWNED FORESHORE

We did a bit of a tiki tour on Saturday to a place called Flatpoint in the Wairarapa It's a stark barren stretch of coast . Flatpoint is a collection of a hotch potch of both old style bachs and beach mansions. A smallish round house with uninterrupted views to the sea across the little 9 hole golf links is up for grabs - offers over $600k. A vineyard with an average home and 3 ha is up for grabs at a $1 million.
Its an area known for crayfish and paua in abundance.

But what makes Flatpoint interesting is that the foreshore - thats the beach , is privately owned and access is apparently jealously guarded as is a considerable stretch of the Wairarapa coast. In fact the discussion document on the Foreshore and Seabed Act makes special mention that these areas will not be part of any changes to the Foresohore and Seabed legislation.

There is essentially only one road into the area which stretches from Flatpoint to Glenburn. Sections with beach views are for sale and they have " exclusive access " to the beach to launch a boat " as part of the title. So sections do not own the access - they just appear to have " exclusive access" across the landowners land - in essence there is no Queens Chain.

It was not a welcoming place. Simply because the access to the beach is not allowed and everywhere there were " Private Property" Private access only signs. DOC had two access points and again it was made patently clear that part of that access was across private land. In one track it was made clear that the track did not provide access to the beach -essentially the very very long coastline is privately owned - lock stock and sifting sand.

Each Section sale includes the following:

• a right of way secured to title in favour of the purchaser to enable permanent private access to boat launching to the Lot owner and his immediate family and guests, up to ten persons at a passing.
• a 1/39th share in the community controlling body as required by Resource Consent Condition(Flat Point Beach Ltd). This body will be responsible for Environmental monitoring and transfer of solid waste to landfill. This body is also required to draw new owners attention to the Environmental Care Code and to make its records available to Council annually.
• a 1/39th share in Lots 40 & 41(plantation reserve) and Lots 43 & 44(pedestrian walkways).

However we found a track to the beach via a river bed and we toddled down to the ice water just to say that we had dipped our toe in the ocean.
It was an unsettling place simply because it does not feel like the rest of coastal New Zealand. It is not the way we want to see the rest of New Zealand's coast line managed. For some reason we cant quite fathom it actually made us profoundly sad.
We cant remember another place where we have essentially been locked out of a coastline.

We noticed that the access roads which interestingly are public to a point are obviously maintained by the taxpayer and we would be interested in seeing who paid for both the power and telephone lines as well.

We are keen to see the foreshore and seabed issue sorted out to everyones advantage - we dont really care if there is a title that denotes ownership. However that ownership should be required to ensure public access. We do not want to see more examples of Flatpoint anywhere ever.

DEREK FOX IN PRINT

Maori commentator and publisher Derek Fox has a new column in the Cook Islands but it deserves another airing.

We don't agree with everything he says - ( that often makes having a drink with him a stimulating and interesting occasion) but his thoughts need a wider audience.

Here is the Cook Island column in full .

Still looking for justice

Last week I foreshadowed that I might this week talk about the Foreshore and Seabed debate here in Aotearoa. I indicated that while what MPs used their ministerial credit cards for was gaining all the headlines, the big story of the week should really have been the foreshore and seabed – and I still believe that.

It’s important for a number of reasons. Firstly it is/was a pivotal issue and cornerstone of the support agreement between National and the Maori Party; and secondly it’s one of those flax root debates between Maori and Pakeha which we need to get right – and so far we haven’t – if there is to be a peaceful path forward in this country.

It’s also important because we are at the halfway stage in the political game we call this parliamentary term, and the Maori Party doesn’t have too many meaningful points on the board as we head down now to the next general election.

The foreshore and seabed debate is about property and legal rights – something you’d think the National Party would be solid on. It’s not about access to the country’s beaches - that right – within reason – is beyond doubt.

But National is no keener than Labour to see Maori retain any of their traditional and customary rights developed over the centuries we occupied these islands prior to the arrival of the Pakeha. And that tells me this is a Maori Pakeha issue not one about law and justice and people’s inherent rights. Labour even took away the right of Maori to go to court to see if we had a right – National will restore that but will so tightly prescribe how that right may be determined that it will all but be negated.

So the foreshore and seabed that my tipuna held sway over as a result of hundreds of years of co-existence with our iwi neighbours, will be taken away by the government. On the other hand 12 and a half thousand separate parcels of foreshore and seabed – overwhelmingly held by Pakeha - which have somehow passed into ‘freehold’ title -will be sacrosanct. You won’t be able to go to those beaches and have a swim or a barbie, certainly not without permission and maybe a fee?

So once again it is Maori who have their rights legislated away.

Labour and now National both claim that one of their reasons for moving in this way is to ‘protect’ the foreshore and seabed from sale – nothing would give it greater protection that customary title - after all it’s endured for a thousand years until now.

Another looming punch-up in this process is the hoops that Maori will have to jump through to establish their limited customary right. They will be required to show ‘exclusive and continuous use and occupation’ of their foreshore and seabed rohe. If the land has been subdivided that test will fall down. But what if the only reason that hasn’t occurred is because a previous pakeha government stole the land or it was acquired by some other Treaty breach?

John Key last week joined Helen Clark in showing that he too is not able to treat fairly and justly and in good faith with Maori, the pull of his blood and the baying of his supporters is too strong.

While Fox has some harsh words for the government we think that after listening to Chris Finlayson this morning on Q and A , we are more confident that the agreement provides a good framework to allow Maori to exercise their customary rights.

We, in particular, are expecting Ngai Tahu to lodge a claim get title for the former crown muttonbird (titi) islands which are now under the guardinaship of a Trust. And the beneficial owners of the other titi ( privately owned ) islands will also be able to make a claim for theirs.

There is also a fair bet that the Waitutu and Rakiura Maori Lands Trusts will also be taking a close look at the new rules as there will be some expectation they will have a good claim as well.

Interesting times ahead.

A GREAT DAY....

Finally we have a Prime Minister who can lead a government made up of different parties to find solutions to the most vexing of issues.

The Foreshore and Seabed Act had the potential to divide our nation. It laid waste to decades of Maori support for Labour. It gave birth to the Maori Party.

Key and Finlayson, by working with Maori have devised a plan that meets the aims of all parties and will bring our nation together. It will also cement Maori support for the National Government for some time to come.

Its restores the path for Maori to seek a customary right to land for which they believe they have a legitimate claim , it restores Mana and it protects public access.

We all gasped when we heard the silly demands of Ngai Tahu's Mark Solomon - a few days later we breathed again when it heard the quiet and calm voice of unification and reason of Api Mahuika- a true Ariki.

So now we have an historic deal that unites - born out of a blend of vision and pragmatism that Key , Finlayson and a core of Maori leaders should be proud of.

SOLOMON AND THE TRUTH ARE STRANGERS

Mark Solomon's bizarre performance on TVNZ's Q and A programme on Sunday sent ripples through Maoridom. He was at a meeting of the leaders on Friday in Auckland but for some reason he seemed to have a totally different view of what was decided. It cold be contended that Solomon lacks the intellectual firepower to articulate some of the complex and elegant resolutions the meeting decided upon.

The following resolutions were passed at the Hui a Iwi convened on the 4th June 2010 to discuss the foreshore and seabed replacement framework.

The attendees at the Hui a Iwi/hapu:

1. Recognise that mana whenua, which includes ownership as understood under tikanga [custom], rests with iwi/hapu who are the kaitiaki [guardians] of their respective rohe moana [coastal area];

2. Strongly support that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 must be repealed and vesting of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown be revoked;

3. Recognise that the foreshore and seabed is, and must remain, inalienable as that is consistent with tikanga [custom];

4. Accept and affirm that the regime must, in respect of all foreshore and seabed, include the following as principles: a. Explicit recognition of the mana of iwi/hapu as enduring and inalienable; b. Explicit recognition of the partnership of the parties under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi [Treaty of Waitangi].

5. Accept and affirm the following as components of the replacement framework; a. Direct negotiations between the Crown and iwi/hapu, provided that settlements and breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi cannot be relied upon to extinguish rights; b. Access to the courts as a constitutional right.

6. Emphasise that although the Crown proposal does not meet all iwi/hapu concerns about the foreshore and seabed it appears to improve on the position in the 2004 Act.

7. Recognise and acknowledge the iwi leaders working group (ILG) for the work and instructs them to further engage with the Crown, to develop and expand understandings, and further improve the outcomes for iwi/hapu.

8. Encourage the Government to recognise that the positions adopted by this hui of iwi/hapu may require a `longer conversation' between the Crown and iwi/hapu, as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal and Ministerial Review Panel, and that if a `longer conversation' is pursued that the repeal of the 2004 Act and revocation of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed be progressed in the immediate [future].

Instead Solomon went off on a terrible divisive tangent that showed he has not grasped the importance of customary title by bringing the existing foreshore and seabed titles into the debate - we in fact they have little to do with the constitutional argument that has seen Maori denied the rights to prove customary title in court.

It is clear with the " leaking " of the resolutions to the NZ Herald today and Api Mahuika's elegant conversation with Sean Plunket this morning on RNZ that Solomon is very very confused.

Api gave him what is the Maori equivalent of a pat on the head and told to sit down while he quietly told the nation via the media what the Maori leaders were wanting and showing that what they want and what the government is offering are akin.

Ngai Tahu should be ashamed of Solomons divisive and confused play - it is clear he sees himself as the leader of leaders. That shows he has a scant regard for the role of Whakapapa and the Tuakana ( seniority ) role that both Ngati Porou and and Api Mahuika have.

By annointing himself as the leader of leaders Solomon has shamed his people. Her clearly lacks the intellectual grunt, the wisdom and a fundemental understanding of tikanga.

In short the tall blue eyed tama is an embarrassment.

SHAKING THE TREE

We have only been back from the Titi Islands for a week. And we have had quite a bit of traffic.  The Mistressology saga  has proved very popular.


However it is this post that has caused the most angst in a couple of circles. It was on the button. People got very, very angry about it. Some were gobsmacked that we had the good oil on the fact that a couple of tribes had managed to derail a deal which would have seen the end of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

We will keep you posted. 

TAU STUBS OUT CHANCE OF EARLY DEAL ON FORESHORE AND SEABEDBED

The Kumara vine has been pulsing this  afternoon. Our Maori sources say that a very recent meeting between Iwi and the Prime Minister John Key came perilously close to reaching a conclusion on the Foreshore and Seabed issue.

Apparently it was all good to go until Sonny Tau backed by Mark Solomon presented a set of demands that derailed the deal.  Now, while most Maori see the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act as paving  they way for them to make claims for customary title, there is concern that some tribes ( put Ngai Tahu at the top of the list ) are more interested in using the negotiations to leverage mineral rights.

So the primary issue about Tikanga ( traditional ways)  -  is playing second fiddle to greed.  Principles are the first casualty.

Meanwhile, our Ngai Tahu sources say that Dr Gail Tipa's appointment to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu board  on behalf of Moeraki means that Solomons support is further eroded. While she does not play personality politics she wont stand for any silliness either. Solomon - is still valiantly trying to hold off the day when his runaka get the chance to vote on his fate.

The rest of the iwi throughout the country  and a fair stack of  Ngai Tahu reckon that the sooner Solomon's reign is brought to an end the better for the tribe and indeed all Maori.

KEY NOT COY WITH TUHOE

Thank goodness. We were a bit nonplussed when watching Tv3 one night about a month ago, when  Patrick Gower speculated on the government giving Tuhoe  the Urewera National Park  lock stock and punga trees but allowing public access.


Today John Key took the unusual step of making sure that Tuhoe was clear on the matter and that the rest of New Zealand was clear on the matter.


We are glad about that. It was shaping up to be a bloody big mess.

We also think that there is a real need for some  more clarity around some of the Foreshore and Seabed issues as well. 

Now if only we could get some more sanity around the ETS....... 

THE NOT SO FRIENDLY FACE OF PRIVATELY OWNED FORESHORE

We did a bit of a tiki tour on Saturday to a place called Flatpoint in the Wairarapa It's a stark barren stretch of coast . Flatpoint is a collection of  a hotch potch of both old style bachs and beach mansions. A smallish round house with uninterrupted views to the sea across the little 9 hole golf links is up for grabs - offers over $600k.  A vineyard with an average home and 3 ha is up for grabs at a $1 million.
Its an area known for crayfish and paua in abundance.

But what makes Flatpoint interesting is that the foreshore  - thats the beach , is privately owned and access is apparently jealously guarded as is a considerable stretch of the Wairarapa coast. In fact the discussion document on the Foreshore and Seabed Act makes special mention that these areas will not be part of any changes to the Foresohore and Seabed legislation.

There is essentially only one road into the area which stretches from Flatpoint to Glenburn. Sections with beach views are for sale and they have " exclusive access " to the beach to launch a boat " as part of the title. So sections do not own the access - they just appear to have " exclusive access" across the landowners land - in essence there is no Queens Chain.

It was not a welcoming place. Simply because the access to the beach is not allowed  and everywhere there were " Private Property" Private access only signs.  DOC had two access points and again it was made patently clear that part of that access was across private land. In one track it was made clear that the track did not provide access to the beach -essentially the very very long coastline is privately owned  - lock stock and sifting sand.

Each Section sale includes the following:

• a right of way secured to title in favour of the purchaser to enable permanent private access to boat launching to the Lot owner and his immediate family and guests, up to ten persons at a passing.
• a 1/39th share in the community controlling body as required by Resource Consent Condition(Flat Point Beach Ltd). This body will be responsible for Environmental monitoring and transfer of solid waste to landfill. This body is also required to draw new owners attention to the Environmental Care Code and to make its records available to Council annually.
• a 1/39th share in Lots 40 & 41(plantation reserve) and Lots 43 & 44(pedestrian walkways).

However we found a track to the beach via a river bed and we toddled down to the ice water just to say that we had dipped our toe in the ocean.  
It was an unsettling place simply because it does not feel like the rest of coastal New Zealand. It is not the way we want to see the rest of New Zealand's coast line managed. For some reason we cant quite fathom it actually made us profoundly sad.
We cant remember another place where we have essentially been locked out of a coastline.

We noticed that the access roads  which interestingly are public to a point are obviously maintained by the taxpayer and we would be interested in seeing who paid for both the power and telephone lines as well.

We are keen to see the foreshore and seabed issue sorted out to everyones advantage - we dont really care if there is a title that denotes ownership. However that ownership should be required to ensure public access. We do not want to see more examples of Flatpoint anywhere ever.

WHY ARE WE WAITING??

We were about to do a round up on the Ngai Tahu elections but Marty Mars has beaten us to it and done all the hard work.

Nothing has happened. Nada - zilch, zero.


The last runanga to get its shit together is that of Mark Solomon.


Its not hard really - you just need to let the people decide...

HONE THE HERO?

No - but at least he gets something half right. He is no fan of the iwi leadership forum. Who is we ask? Seems the Government, and Maori are all running a mile from claiming these guys are the Brown Brothers oracle...

In fact they are the Nigel No - mates of Maoridom.

Hone Harawira has got half the story right - the Iwi Forum aren't the guys who hold the mana. They are mana munchers who have hoodwinked the government. However, now the government has begun distancing itself from the group as they realise that their mandate is very, very shaky indeed.

That's all that Hone gets right.

Maori do not have an unequivocal property right to the Foreshore and Seabed as he claims . They have an unequivocal right to claim a property right to the Foreshore and seabed via the courts. If they can prove that claim then its theirs. Simple.

But we see this debate shifting from one of due process to prove a iwi, hapu, whanau right to some of the foreshore and seabed to one of a pan Maori claim of title for all of the Foreshore and seabed. That's just bloody daft.

So Hone is right -the Iwi Forum are a bunch of grandstanding wankers who seem to have a penchant for side deals and the silly buggers dont get property rights.

But he is wrong if people are going to suck up his assertion that Maori have an unequivocal right to own all of the coast of all of Aotearoa.

Remember this issue is about good process and establishing a property right. Not about granting a property right because someone thinks they own something.

So Hone needs to take a step back. He needs to support a policy of allowing due process to be followed and where that process shows that a right can be established - then it is granted - no matter if they are Maori or otherwise.

TARIANA TURIA SOUND ON PROPERTY RIGHTS.

We see with interest that Tariana Turia understands that the Foreshore and Seabed issue can only be settled with an acknowledgement of property rights and due process through the courts.

Pita Sharples, it seems prefers the so called " communist solution."

Dr Sharples said Maori did not have a concept of ownership prior to Pakeha arriving in New Zealand. Maori saw themselves as guardians and caretakers of the foreshore and this was eliminated by the Act.

"I don't really know whether ownership is the right solution for New Zealand," he said. "I think the way it's heading at the moment is a form of co-management."

Dr Sharples said he didn't think the idea of keeping the foreshore in Crown ownership was acceptable.

"I think what iwi do prefer is that we have a kind of tikanga title, that we actually keep the mana that our ancestors had before."

However Tariana appears to favour the right for Maori to establish their property right through the courts.

Mrs Turia says the Maori Party does not support the concept of no ownership.

"I think that what people have talked about with the foreshore and seabed is this is an issue of justice. I still believe it's an issue of justice and should be treated as such."

She says her preference would be for Maori to be able to go to court or enter into direct negotiations with the Crown.

This is shaping up to be a philisophical split in the Maori Party. It will add another layer of difficulty for the government in brokering an acceptable solution.

Interesting that Turia seems to be echoing the thinking of commentator Matthew Hooton.

OUT OF FAVOUR ??

We remember fondly one of Gerry Brownlee's great lines about National Party operative Bryan Sinclair , whom at the time was supposed to be in charge of every major PR play by the National Party under the leadership of Don Brash.

Gerry, effectively ended all speculation by the media that Sinclair was still a "key man" involved in party strategy when he declared he was " someone who puts out chairs at press conferences"

It was clear by that cutting comment that Sinclair was no longer a party influencer.

We think that we are witnessing the same falling from favour of Ngai Tahu functionary( actually she is General Manager of Strategy and Influence) Sacha McMeeking who was recently appointed by National to the infrastructure Technical Advisory Group by Nick Smith on the 28th of January this year.

Its terms of Reference are:

Infrastructure Technical Advisory Group

The RM Phase II Infrastructure Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is appointed to provide independent advice to the Minister for the Environment on proposals for the reform of the Infrastructure provisions in the RMA and related legislation.

The Scope of the TAG's investigation of infrastructure work will include:

• A review of the role of designations in facilitating infrastructure development and an examination of options for reviewing and streamlining the designation mechanism.
• An investigation of alternatives to designations for planning for and managing the effects of activities on network infrastructure.
• Streamlining and integrating processes including for acquisition and compensation, under the Public Works Act 1981 and other legislation.

Ms McMeekings biography for that job reads:

Sacha McMeeking is of Ngāi Tahu descent and in 2009 was appointed General Manager Strategy and Influence with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

Sacha McMeeking was a law lecturer at University of Canterbury from 2005 to 2007 and her career to date has included legal academia, social work, kaupapa Māori programme design and strategic and political advice. Sacha McMeeking will bring a strong Māori perspective to the group.

All that is very interesting as apparently Ms McMeeking was the author of the Iwi Forum
" alternative model "for for the Foreshore and Seabed Act. as well.


The government was apparently angered at the leaking of the " Alternative model" which pays lips service to property rights. Interestingly, that last week that led her to being described as a "relatively junior operative" .

However Fran O' Sullivan certainly didn't think Ms McMeeking was a relatively junior operative. She wrote :

"This document, written by Maori strategist and Ngai Tahu staff member Sacha McMeeking, was quickly played down once the Government started asking questions.

But McMeeking is no "relatively junior operative", as the Government has suggested. Her suggestion that the new act should be silent on the issue of ownership and that decision-making and autonomy of iwi and hapu be increased has not been disavowed by the leadership group. Neither has her suggestion that the concept of mana is enduring and inalienable, that coastal iwi/hapu have the right to continue to express that mana and that may encompass development and other rights."

She also suggests iwi/hapu should have veto rights over economic development including coastal occupation and resource extraction - "the Crown will panic at the thought of a nationwide veto but if it was applied to identifiable sites they might cope".

Whoever leaked the document has done all Kiwis a favour by bringing these shadowy dealings into the open."

All this against a backdrop of a Fantastic speech at Waitangi, by John Key where the Property Rights issue was given prominence

"In our homes and communities New Zealanders of all ethnicities live and work side-by-side in pursuit of a shared set of aspirations. No matter our cultural heritage, by and large New Zealanders value hard work and education, we seek better living standards and increased opportunities for our children, and we want this to be an inclusive nation where we respect each other and where each of us has the opportunity to get ahead.

Implicit in that set of values is an acknowledgment of the legal and cultural traditions we have in common. We share a respect for the rule of law, for property rights and for a basic sense of fairness in which Jack is as good as his neighbour.

The descriptor, relatively junior operative, applied to McMeeking , like that applied to the hapless Bryan Sinclair, is an indicator that her star maybe waning.

We watch developments on this front with interest.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FORESHORE AND SEABED ISSUE

This is a very considered analysis on what is happening with the Foreshore and Seabed issue. It should be required reading for all policy makers, tribal leaders lawmakers and politicians - indeed anyone who is seeking clarity on this issue which has the potential to define race relations in NZ.

If you have difficulty reading the document you will find it here

EQ Summer 2010

NGAI TAHU NIGEL NO MATES?

We have been listening to the whispering sands as the tribes and the government gather at Waitangi this weekend. There was a move by the government to consider the notion contained in the fluffy foreshore seabed paper proposal we detailed here. However, we understand that apart from Ngai Tahu, the spurious paper has found little favour among other tribes and there is concern about how the paper came to be leaked. It has lead to a new level of mistrust among many of the parties.

So its probably off the agenda for any meetings between the government and tribal leaders.

We think that there is a fair chance that Ngai Tahu is about to learn that it has fallen out of favour with many powerful tribes. It's to do with a perception that the Southern tribes leaders have become arrogant. And there is growing suspicion that they would rather cut private deals with the Government than look to developing solid, bound- in - law principled solutions that will benefit all Maori.

They have apparently spent close to one million dollars on what the tribal beauracrats call "Strategy and Influence."

Commonly called lobbying.

Money that could have been spent giving our old people a Christmas top up or indeed bolstering the tribal superannuation scheme.

Instead the tribe has spent a million bucks a- hui - ing and a- hongi-ing with politicians and power brokers. Schmoozing. What they have achieved is not clearly obvious to the tribal rank and file. But in Wellington they have succeeded in producing one change. Some tribal leaders and many of the paid lickspittles are now viewed with contempt and suspicion.

While there will be posturing and posing for the cameras at Waitangi, it will be the backrooms where there could be some interesting proposals put forward. Our money is not on Ngai Tahu leading any solution. Sadly - it has become the problem.

LOOKS LIKE A KURI BARKS LIKE A KURI

We were alerted to two documents that have been leaked to the Tangata Whenua.com website that show that the Foreshore and Seabed issue is in trouble.

The first we understand, is an early draft of an "alternative proposal" to the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Its custodians are apparently the Iwi Leaders Forum.

The second is rebuttal, and although the language is a bit intemperate the premise and analysis is sound.

The " Alternative proposal" is a ( kuri ) dog .. for these reasons.

Its shows a scant understanding of property rights or commerce.

And it shows an even scanter understanding of tikanga.

It proffers a solution that is all about status – that will piss Pakeha off – but offer no real legal or commercial benefit for Maori.

The cock up with the Foreshore and Seabed act was that it did not recognise property rights or due process.

As a nation we need not fear ownership of small bits of the Foreshore and Seabed by Maori - indeed we should embrace it. With rights come responsibilities.

Instead this document is a wishy washy salve to political objectives ( note it even refers to " feel good" factors) and not a rights based approach.

What New Zealanders want is something that is fair and legally robust.

While the Iwi Leaders Forum denotes a group with mana and intellect this paper is a simplistic attempt to take more than can be morally justified but less than that which might be legally justified

It trades off the tiny bit of the foreshore Ngati Apa may have been able to get, in exchange for a nebulous bit of feel-good nonsense around the whole South Island coast line .

The fact of the matter is that there is no simplistic feel good national solution to this problem – it has to be based on the law and due process iwi by iwi

The paper was apparently written by controversial Maori strategist and influencer Sacha McMeeking.

If so we wonder how much she was paid for it?

simplistic solution to complex issue

takedown

LEFT RIGHT

We could hardly believe our eyes.. the caustic communists over at the Standard have for once got it right ... Its probably one of the best reasoned and well written issues on the Foreshore and Seabed issue apart from Hootons NBR column. Well done them.

SHAKIN THE TREE

Matthew Hooton has done one of his finest columns ever for the NBR today. Its explores the fears we hold about access to the foreshore and seabed and why we should be relaxed about it..


We are going to fisk it....

When I am in Tauranga, I stay at the very pleasant Sebel hotel, built on three piers out over the harbour. Its construction in 2006 meant New Zealanders lost access to that part of the foreshore. Up the road is the port, with fences preventing access to the sea.

When I was young, holidays were at Turkey Island, near Coromandel, owned by three family friends. No one ever stopped others landing on the island for a picnic but it would have been odd had they not introduced themselves and asked if it was OK.

Later, my family bought a bach at Northland’s Te Ngaere Bay. We called the next bay Tattersfield’s, after the family that owned it, and it was customary to say hi when strolling across their beach.

Just south was a farm owned by Doug Myers, including a holiday home on a small, secluded bay. With no public road access, it didn’t feel quite right to land a boat on his beach but there was no sign saying you couldn’t.

A short walk up the valley, on Maori-owned land, was a waterfall with a decent fresh-water swimming hole. When we Auckland kids wanted to use it, it was courteous to check with the whanau living there, in pretty much third-world conditions. It was never a problem.

Yip our life has been pretty much the same - Never been denied access to any part of NZ.

Nowadays, my wife and I take our kids to a Pacific Island resort each year. The kids go to the Kids’ Club and we take it easy at the beach. The locals don’t have access to that small bit of coastline but they do have the rest of the island to choose from. They also have jobs.

The enjoyment of my life has never been compromised by limited restrictions on my access to the sea. Nor has any of my privileged access compromised anyone else’s enjoyment of theirs. But the idea there is an inherent right by every New Zealander to access every square centimetre of foreshore and seabed is plainly wrong. No such right exists.

The so-called Queen’s Chain has always been a myth. To simply declare it belongs to the state is to propose a nationalisation and collectivisation of land of which Stalin would have been proud.

Unbelievably, this was exactly the position asserted by everyone in Parliament in 2004, except Act and the Greens. It was a national disgrace.

Abso - bloody lutely.

15,134 km coastline

With just four million people, New Zealand has 15,134 kilometres of coastline, the 10^th longest in the world. The exclusive economic zone is more than 4 million square kilometres, the 7th largest in the world.

Listening to politicians in 2004, it was possible to believe the 3.4 million New Zealanders who do not identify as Maori were at some risk of losing access to these resources, whether for commercial development or just building a sandcastle with their kids. Avoiding this risk, we were told, justified sabotaging due process, removing the right of access to the courts and undermining the rule of law.

The risk was never real. The area of foreshore and seabed where it was ever likely a hapu could prove customary title was always infinitesimal compared with the thousands of kilometres of coastline. The Foreshore and Seabed Act, announced unprompted by the Labour regime within hours of the Court of Appeal’s Ngati Apa decision, was a despicable piece of legislation.

It was worse than that - it was venal and evil.

National’s abandonment of its commitment to property rights, the rule of law and civilised race relations was even more vile.

Yip we were gobsmacked that they would not make a principled stand for what was essentially an issue of property rights.

Resolution

John Key, Chris Finlayson, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples will repeal that legislation and put the shame behind New Zealand, but the myth of a right of access to every square centimetre of the foreshore and seabed endures. There will be pressure on them to enshrine that myth in new legislation, as well as greater or lesser rights for Maori than the courts might otherwise find.

They should resist. No new statutory framework is needed. The courts are the proper place to resolve disputes over land ownership, not parliament.

Further, should a handful of hapu be able to prove customary title to the satisfaction of the courts, why shouldn’t they be able to have that right recognised as freehold title? Why shouldn’t they then be able to decide that collecting tuatua is not the extent of their aspirations, but instead form a JV with the Sebel hotel chain to build a holiday resort? (Good luck to them, of course, getting consents from local councils.)

What possible harm would this involve? It would create an economic base and jobs for a bunch of New Zealanders.

As long as it had a Kids’ Club, my wife and I might even decide to spend our holiday dollars not at the Raratongan but at the Muriwhenua Beach Resort and Spa.

It’s difficult to see why so many in Parliament still seem to think that would be so terrible. Are we really that afraid of Maori economic self-determination? Is socialism really so embedded in our national soul?

Matthew is so right, we need to stop being worried about Maori self determination and embrace it.