Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 12, 2019 7:47:59 GMT 12
PRIVATISING NEW ZEALAND’S COASTLINE – BEACH BY BEACH
The third claim to be determined – that of the East Coast iwi Ngati Porou – is more complex.
The tribe claimed 200 km of coastline north of Gisborne – stretching out 12 nautical miles to the edge of the Territorial Sea – under the old 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. That required their evidence of exclusive use and occupation since 1840 to be verified in the High Court, and a deal to be negotiated with then Treaty Minister Michael Cullen. While an agreement was reached before the 2008 election, the iwi delayed having their evidence tested in court.
Following the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Area Act, National’s Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson resumed negotiations with Ngati Porou to bring their claim under the new law.
Special legislation was drafted, and a report was commissioned to assess their evidence. But the iwi delayed, and the assessment was never completed.
When the Government changed, Labour’s new Treaty Minister Andrew Little passed the Ngati Porou Bill in Parliament without the legitimacy of their evidence ever being officially verified.
The new law gave Ngati Porou a $15.3 million pay-out and control of a vast area of coastline that had also been used as a public road until the 1940s. They were also given a two year extension of time to lodge a new claim under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, should they wish to do so.
Clearly if the non-literal definition of exclusive use accepted by Ministers – that others may use a claimed area as long as the usage is not ‘intense’ – is applied to all Crown
Engagement cases and is adopted by the Courts, then control of substantial tracts of New Zealand’s coastline will pass to private Maori interests – beach by beach.
With that prospect ahead, the question arises of who is acting in the public interest to oppose opportunistic claims?
As the senior Law Officer of the Crown, it is the role of the Attorney General “to act in the public interest.” Crown Law is there to support the Attorney General in this crucial constitutional role.
However, alarmingly, Crown Law has recently advised, that with regards to coastal claims, “the Attorney-General does not consider it is his role to oppose applications in the public interest”. Instead, he intends to act as an interested party in each claim to ensure the statutory tests are met.
This means there is no guarantee that even fabricated claims will be officially opposed..........
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full disturbing NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/privatising-new-zealands-coastline-beach-by-beach/#more-29648
The third claim to be determined – that of the East Coast iwi Ngati Porou – is more complex.
The tribe claimed 200 km of coastline north of Gisborne – stretching out 12 nautical miles to the edge of the Territorial Sea – under the old 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. That required their evidence of exclusive use and occupation since 1840 to be verified in the High Court, and a deal to be negotiated with then Treaty Minister Michael Cullen. While an agreement was reached before the 2008 election, the iwi delayed having their evidence tested in court.
Following the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Area Act, National’s Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson resumed negotiations with Ngati Porou to bring their claim under the new law.
Special legislation was drafted, and a report was commissioned to assess their evidence. But the iwi delayed, and the assessment was never completed.
When the Government changed, Labour’s new Treaty Minister Andrew Little passed the Ngati Porou Bill in Parliament without the legitimacy of their evidence ever being officially verified.
The new law gave Ngati Porou a $15.3 million pay-out and control of a vast area of coastline that had also been used as a public road until the 1940s. They were also given a two year extension of time to lodge a new claim under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, should they wish to do so.
Clearly if the non-literal definition of exclusive use accepted by Ministers – that others may use a claimed area as long as the usage is not ‘intense’ – is applied to all Crown
Engagement cases and is adopted by the Courts, then control of substantial tracts of New Zealand’s coastline will pass to private Maori interests – beach by beach.
With that prospect ahead, the question arises of who is acting in the public interest to oppose opportunistic claims?
As the senior Law Officer of the Crown, it is the role of the Attorney General “to act in the public interest.” Crown Law is there to support the Attorney General in this crucial constitutional role.
However, alarmingly, Crown Law has recently advised, that with regards to coastal claims, “the Attorney-General does not consider it is his role to oppose applications in the public interest”. Instead, he intends to act as an interested party in each claim to ensure the statutory tests are met.
This means there is no guarantee that even fabricated claims will be officially opposed..........
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full disturbing NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/privatising-new-zealands-coastline-beach-by-beach/#more-29648