Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 5, 2024 14:23:40 GMT 12
Graham Adams: COASTAL COURT ACTION FLIES UNDER THE RADAR.
Before MACA became law, Finlayson reassured critics that only around 2000km of New Zealand’s 20,000km coastline — or roughly 10 per cent — would end up being under the control of iwi and hapu via customary title. That promise looks to be hollow.
The public has been very poorly informed about MACA’s practical ramifications. Anyone who imagines customary rights and marine title might be confined to gathering shellfish or gathering hangi stones is mistaken.
The law confers the right for iwi and hapū to be involved in coastal planning and policy development, including vetoing resource consents in an area from the high tide mark to 12 nautical miles out to sea. This could affect applications to set up fish farms, marinas, offshore wind turbines or to build new wharves in their designated areas.
Financial windfalls will also be available through charging commercial operators a fee. Some fear that could devastate business enterprises such as inshore fisheries as ticket-clipping renders coastal industries uneconomic.
And although the government will continue to own nationalised minerals and resources — gold, silver, uranium and petroleum — other valuable commodities such as rare earth elements will belong to tribal groups.
Not least, the right to public access may be infringed by their imposing rahui (bans), or declaring some or all of their area to be wahi tapu (sacred places), with a fine of up to $5000 for trespass.
How the Court of Appeal arrived at its expansive ruling on MACA seems to be a result of the legislation being poorly drafted and activist judges interpreting the law to accord with their views of the Treaty’s role and the importance of tikanga (Māori customs and practices).
Shane Jones has laid at least some of the responsibility at Finlayson’s door. Last November, NZ First’s deputy leader said that the Foreshore and Seabed Act “agreed between and passed by Helen Clark and Winston Peters was simple. There wasn’t any ambiguity — unlike the one by Chris Finlayson.”
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/graham-adams-coastal-court-action-flies.html
Before MACA became law, Finlayson reassured critics that only around 2000km of New Zealand’s 20,000km coastline — or roughly 10 per cent — would end up being under the control of iwi and hapu via customary title. That promise looks to be hollow.
The public has been very poorly informed about MACA’s practical ramifications. Anyone who imagines customary rights and marine title might be confined to gathering shellfish or gathering hangi stones is mistaken.
The law confers the right for iwi and hapū to be involved in coastal planning and policy development, including vetoing resource consents in an area from the high tide mark to 12 nautical miles out to sea. This could affect applications to set up fish farms, marinas, offshore wind turbines or to build new wharves in their designated areas.
Financial windfalls will also be available through charging commercial operators a fee. Some fear that could devastate business enterprises such as inshore fisheries as ticket-clipping renders coastal industries uneconomic.
And although the government will continue to own nationalised minerals and resources — gold, silver, uranium and petroleum — other valuable commodities such as rare earth elements will belong to tribal groups.
Not least, the right to public access may be infringed by their imposing rahui (bans), or declaring some or all of their area to be wahi tapu (sacred places), with a fine of up to $5000 for trespass.
How the Court of Appeal arrived at its expansive ruling on MACA seems to be a result of the legislation being poorly drafted and activist judges interpreting the law to accord with their views of the Treaty’s role and the importance of tikanga (Māori customs and practices).
Shane Jones has laid at least some of the responsibility at Finlayson’s door. Last November, NZ First’s deputy leader said that the Foreshore and Seabed Act “agreed between and passed by Helen Clark and Winston Peters was simple. There wasn’t any ambiguity — unlike the one by Chris Finlayson.”
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/graham-adams-coastal-court-action-flies.html