Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 3, 2017 18:03:28 GMT 12
Elocal magazine February 2017 edition (HAURAKI GULF HIJACK)
Dear Mr Wynckel, (Editor)
I read the article by Don Brash in the November 2016 edition of elocal. Thank you for airing opinions such as those expressed by Mr Brash. In this regard your magazine is a beacon of light in a rather cloudy atmosphere, especially if you consider the poor quality of debate on such issues in the NZ Herald.
In the Brash article he mentioned a move to change the makeup of the Hauraki Gulf Forum so that half the members are iwi appointees. I guess he was talking about the Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review, a copy of which I have attached. The next meeting of the Hauraki Gulf Forum is due to be held on 20th February, at which presumably it will be decided whether to adopt the recommendations of the review.
The push for the co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf and its catchment areas doesn’t stop there. The ‘Sea Change Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan’, (HGMSP), which was finally released to the public on December 6, is also being used as a vehicle to promote iwi authority over the Gulf. It appears mana whenua representatives on the spatial plan Project Steering Group (a 50/50 construct) used their influence, not to do what is necessarily best for the environment, but to secure power over the environment, and over the fishing activities of other citizens. Among other things, the Plan seeks not only to change the makeup of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, but also proposes 50/50 co-management of localised areas covering every inch of the coastline of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands, which would extend from mean high water mark out 1km. The link to the Plan is here: www.seachange.org.nz/Read-the-Plan/
It is rather long, but is well worth the effort to read for anyone who cares about the Hauraki Gulf, and the rights of the citizens of the region.
While the Plan is not a statutory document, according to Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith, talks are planned for early 2017 to discuss next steps for the Sea Change proposal. He is reported as saying that the Government will establish a process to formally consider the plan prior to developing and consulting on recommendations on how to implement it.
Another concerning aspect of the Plan is highlighted on a map showing an extensive number of cultural landscapes, sites, areas and activities of significance to mana whenua. (This can be found on page 31 of the Plan). This begs the question – is there an intention that these areas be scheduled as ‘sites of significance to mana whenua’, with affected landowners being obligated to consult with iwi/s for any development?
Treaty claims settlements is another path by which the co-governance model is being pursued. The HGMSP reveals that “discussions about harbours co-management and Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act customary rights are taking place in Treaty negotiations at this time for many local iwi, and this provides a unique opportunity to design and implement this innovative comanagement (sic) approach with communities.”
Just before the Christmas break, on 22nd December, a settlement document was initialled by the Crown and Hauraki iwi. You can access it here: www.govt.nz/treaty-settlement-documents/hauraki/ This document shows an intention to set up a number of co-governance entities, based on 50:50 arrangements, but with provisions that appear to be designed to tip the balance towards iwi.
Last September I sent a question to Minister Finlayson, asking him directly whether there were any co-governance arrangements being considered for the Hauraki Gulf or any part of it, as part of Treaty settlements. The answer looks to be yes. His reply, dated 13 December, is attached.
So currently we are under a 3-pronged attack aimed at wresting the democratic control of the Hauraki Gulf from its citizens, i.e. via the Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review, the Sea Change Plan, and Treaty settlements. Unfortunately the public is largely unaware of these take-over bids. If they succeed, by the time the citizens become aware, I fear it will be too late.
SUSAN SHORT
Auckland
Devonport Flagstaff 27/1/17
WIDER RISKS IN CHANGING CONTROL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC ASSETS
To ban cars on the summits of all Auckland’s Volcanic Reserves “is a positive and a bold decision”. Really?
There will always be differences of opinion on the merit of allowing cars on to some of the most scenic spots in Auckland, but to place a blanket ban on all of them is unwise and unfair. Surely wise counsel would assess each cone individually, and if, and only if, there is a genuine danger to the public, an appropriate traffic management plan devised. A blanket ban is too simplistic and will unnecessarily deprive thousands of visitors of the pleasure of visiting the summits.
But car access to these iconic places is not the real issue here.
Under the guise of ‘Treaty Settlements’, this is another edict from a new body claiming control over us all. The Tupuna Maunga Authority consists of six Council or Local Board members and six Iwi appointed representatives. (plus a non-voting government person)
This may look like a democratic example of “co-governance”, but in fact it gives effective control over the volcanic cones to Iwi, including the still publicly-owned One Tree Hill Park.
Ratepayers though, retain the privilege of paying for both the substantial running costs of the Authority and the Parks. How long before even those with limited mobility access are prevented from driving up to the summits?
The Hauraki Gulf is next in line to come under the same type of ‘power sharing structure’ as the Tupuna Maunga Authority. I refer to the ‘SEA CHANGE HAURAKI Gulf MARINE SPATIAL PLAN’ which would also give effective control to Iwi over all other users of the Hauraki Gulf: Commercial and Recreational fishers, transport operators, sailors, kayakers, swimmers, marine farmers, event organisers, to name a few.
Clearly, both the city and the Gulf need to be protected from exploitation, pollution and over-development; but the public also needs protection from an undemocratic power structure ripe for commercial self-interest, where opportunities for exploitation and the potential for corruption are immense.
Imagine the commercial value of controlling the whole Hauraki Gulf, its islands and foreshore.
D R STUBBS
Bayswater
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
Dear Mr Wynckel, (Editor)
I read the article by Don Brash in the November 2016 edition of elocal. Thank you for airing opinions such as those expressed by Mr Brash. In this regard your magazine is a beacon of light in a rather cloudy atmosphere, especially if you consider the poor quality of debate on such issues in the NZ Herald.
In the Brash article he mentioned a move to change the makeup of the Hauraki Gulf Forum so that half the members are iwi appointees. I guess he was talking about the Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review, a copy of which I have attached. The next meeting of the Hauraki Gulf Forum is due to be held on 20th February, at which presumably it will be decided whether to adopt the recommendations of the review.
The push for the co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf and its catchment areas doesn’t stop there. The ‘Sea Change Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan’, (HGMSP), which was finally released to the public on December 6, is also being used as a vehicle to promote iwi authority over the Gulf. It appears mana whenua representatives on the spatial plan Project Steering Group (a 50/50 construct) used their influence, not to do what is necessarily best for the environment, but to secure power over the environment, and over the fishing activities of other citizens. Among other things, the Plan seeks not only to change the makeup of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, but also proposes 50/50 co-management of localised areas covering every inch of the coastline of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands, which would extend from mean high water mark out 1km. The link to the Plan is here: www.seachange.org.nz/Read-the-Plan/
It is rather long, but is well worth the effort to read for anyone who cares about the Hauraki Gulf, and the rights of the citizens of the region.
While the Plan is not a statutory document, according to Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith, talks are planned for early 2017 to discuss next steps for the Sea Change proposal. He is reported as saying that the Government will establish a process to formally consider the plan prior to developing and consulting on recommendations on how to implement it.
Another concerning aspect of the Plan is highlighted on a map showing an extensive number of cultural landscapes, sites, areas and activities of significance to mana whenua. (This can be found on page 31 of the Plan). This begs the question – is there an intention that these areas be scheduled as ‘sites of significance to mana whenua’, with affected landowners being obligated to consult with iwi/s for any development?
Treaty claims settlements is another path by which the co-governance model is being pursued. The HGMSP reveals that “discussions about harbours co-management and Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act customary rights are taking place in Treaty negotiations at this time for many local iwi, and this provides a unique opportunity to design and implement this innovative comanagement (sic) approach with communities.”
Just before the Christmas break, on 22nd December, a settlement document was initialled by the Crown and Hauraki iwi. You can access it here: www.govt.nz/treaty-settlement-documents/hauraki/ This document shows an intention to set up a number of co-governance entities, based on 50:50 arrangements, but with provisions that appear to be designed to tip the balance towards iwi.
Last September I sent a question to Minister Finlayson, asking him directly whether there were any co-governance arrangements being considered for the Hauraki Gulf or any part of it, as part of Treaty settlements. The answer looks to be yes. His reply, dated 13 December, is attached.
So currently we are under a 3-pronged attack aimed at wresting the democratic control of the Hauraki Gulf from its citizens, i.e. via the Hauraki Gulf Forum Governance Review, the Sea Change Plan, and Treaty settlements. Unfortunately the public is largely unaware of these take-over bids. If they succeed, by the time the citizens become aware, I fear it will be too late.
SUSAN SHORT
Auckland
Devonport Flagstaff 27/1/17
WIDER RISKS IN CHANGING CONTROL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC ASSETS
To ban cars on the summits of all Auckland’s Volcanic Reserves “is a positive and a bold decision”. Really?
There will always be differences of opinion on the merit of allowing cars on to some of the most scenic spots in Auckland, but to place a blanket ban on all of them is unwise and unfair. Surely wise counsel would assess each cone individually, and if, and only if, there is a genuine danger to the public, an appropriate traffic management plan devised. A blanket ban is too simplistic and will unnecessarily deprive thousands of visitors of the pleasure of visiting the summits.
But car access to these iconic places is not the real issue here.
Under the guise of ‘Treaty Settlements’, this is another edict from a new body claiming control over us all. The Tupuna Maunga Authority consists of six Council or Local Board members and six Iwi appointed representatives. (plus a non-voting government person)
This may look like a democratic example of “co-governance”, but in fact it gives effective control over the volcanic cones to Iwi, including the still publicly-owned One Tree Hill Park.
Ratepayers though, retain the privilege of paying for both the substantial running costs of the Authority and the Parks. How long before even those with limited mobility access are prevented from driving up to the summits?
The Hauraki Gulf is next in line to come under the same type of ‘power sharing structure’ as the Tupuna Maunga Authority. I refer to the ‘SEA CHANGE HAURAKI Gulf MARINE SPATIAL PLAN’ which would also give effective control to Iwi over all other users of the Hauraki Gulf: Commercial and Recreational fishers, transport operators, sailors, kayakers, swimmers, marine farmers, event organisers, to name a few.
Clearly, both the city and the Gulf need to be protected from exploitation, pollution and over-development; but the public also needs protection from an undemocratic power structure ripe for commercial self-interest, where opportunities for exploitation and the potential for corruption are immense.
Imagine the commercial value of controlling the whole Hauraki Gulf, its islands and foreshore.
D R STUBBS
Bayswater
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers