Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 10, 2017 5:50:49 GMT 12
DEFEND YOUR BEACH
As you and your family head off to the coast this summer, you might want to consider how long it will be before Maori tribal groups are dictating access rights to your favourite beach.
Few holidaymakers will realise that ownership of the beach they are visiting is under claim. It doesn’t matter where it is in the country, or how many generations of family and friends have been holidaying there, multiple claimants are trying to convince the High Court and the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, that they have exclusively used the area since 1840.
But before you dismiss the possibility of such claims succeeding – because the area has always been so popular with the public – consider this. The former Minister, Chris Finlayson has offered a Customary Marine Title to a tribal group that claimed exclusive use of an area of coastline that was used as a public road for almost 100 years!
Under Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area Act, claimants must furnish evidence that not only have they used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without any substantial interruption, but that their use has been exclusive.
Unbelievably, Ngati Pahauwera in the northern Hawke’s Bay claimed these conditions were fulfilled, for an area of coast from the Waikare River to the Waihua River, even though in 1840 they were living 100 km away in Mahia. Not only that, but the area they claimed to have used exclusively, was the main route for travel and trade between the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne right up until the inland road was built in the 1930’s.......
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s very concerning message in the latest NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/defend-your-beach/#more-24980
A VIOLATION OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ACT
The facts clearly deny that Ngati Pahauwera have had the required exclusive and continuing use and occupation of this part of the coast as required by Section 58 of the Act – the Mohaka River mouth being in the middle of their claim.
There is no reason to believe that they have had “exclusive occupation and use” since then, as by law, the coast has been publicly owned since 1840,
In view of these UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS it is both surprising and disturbing that the former National Party minister of Treaty Settlements, instead of throwing out the claim on the grounds that it clearly does not qualify for Customary Marine Title (as he did for numerous other claims), offered this tribe a Customary Marine Title.
This recommendation for a Customary Marine Title over the coast from the Waikare River mouth to the Waihua River mouth to Ngati Pahauwera is, in the light of the facts mentioned above, a violation of the Act as they cannot show continued and exclusive use and occupation without substantial interruption of any part of this coast from 1840 as required by the Act. It will now be over to the new Minister of Treaty Settlements, Labour’s Andrew Little, to deal with this shambles, and turn it down, as it clearly does not qualify.......
Read the LISTED FACTS in Dr Hugh Barr’s well researched article here > www.nzcpr.com/a-violation-of-the-marine-and-coastal-area-act/#more-24962
As you and your family head off to the coast this summer, you might want to consider how long it will be before Maori tribal groups are dictating access rights to your favourite beach.
Few holidaymakers will realise that ownership of the beach they are visiting is under claim. It doesn’t matter where it is in the country, or how many generations of family and friends have been holidaying there, multiple claimants are trying to convince the High Court and the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, that they have exclusively used the area since 1840.
But before you dismiss the possibility of such claims succeeding – because the area has always been so popular with the public – consider this. The former Minister, Chris Finlayson has offered a Customary Marine Title to a tribal group that claimed exclusive use of an area of coastline that was used as a public road for almost 100 years!
Under Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area Act, claimants must furnish evidence that not only have they used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without any substantial interruption, but that their use has been exclusive.
Unbelievably, Ngati Pahauwera in the northern Hawke’s Bay claimed these conditions were fulfilled, for an area of coast from the Waikare River to the Waihua River, even though in 1840 they were living 100 km away in Mahia. Not only that, but the area they claimed to have used exclusively, was the main route for travel and trade between the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne right up until the inland road was built in the 1930’s.......
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s very concerning message in the latest NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/defend-your-beach/#more-24980
A VIOLATION OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ACT
The facts clearly deny that Ngati Pahauwera have had the required exclusive and continuing use and occupation of this part of the coast as required by Section 58 of the Act – the Mohaka River mouth being in the middle of their claim.
There is no reason to believe that they have had “exclusive occupation and use” since then, as by law, the coast has been publicly owned since 1840,
In view of these UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS it is both surprising and disturbing that the former National Party minister of Treaty Settlements, instead of throwing out the claim on the grounds that it clearly does not qualify for Customary Marine Title (as he did for numerous other claims), offered this tribe a Customary Marine Title.
This recommendation for a Customary Marine Title over the coast from the Waikare River mouth to the Waihua River mouth to Ngati Pahauwera is, in the light of the facts mentioned above, a violation of the Act as they cannot show continued and exclusive use and occupation without substantial interruption of any part of this coast from 1840 as required by the Act. It will now be over to the new Minister of Treaty Settlements, Labour’s Andrew Little, to deal with this shambles, and turn it down, as it clearly does not qualify.......
Read the LISTED FACTS in Dr Hugh Barr’s well researched article here > www.nzcpr.com/a-violation-of-the-marine-and-coastal-area-act/#more-24962