Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 1, 2018 10:31:20 GMT 12
COURT HEARINGS FOR TRIBAL CLAIMS EDGE CLOSER
Most New Zealanders strongly believe that the country’s beaches and sea are part of our national heritage and should be in public hands. They share a sense of dismay that the National Party repealed Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed to appease their then coalition partner, the Maori Party, allowing opportunistic tribal groups to lodge hundreds of claims, covering every square inch of our coast many times over.
This means that if you want to prevent the ownership of your local beach or fishing spot being given to tribal groups, then you, along with your family and neighbours, will need to help refute their allegations that they have “exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption”, which is the statutory test that claimants must satisfy to successfully gain title to the coast.
National justified their law change with assertions that Labour’s 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act did not allow tribal applicants “to have their day in court”. But this was not true.
Under Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act, no claims could be settled without the evidence being tested in the High Court. In comparison, in their 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act, National established a completely separate Crown Engagement pathway to enable claimants to avoid the High Court altogether. In these cases the Minister of Treaty Negotiations acts as the Judge, awarding title to the coast without any right of appeal.
It’s therefore no surprise that two out of three of the almost 600 tribal claims for the coast are for Crown Engagement, with only a third lodged in the High Court.
But having Ministers negotiate coastal claims has already been shown to be a disaster – as the Ngati Porou Bill that is in front of Parliament again demonstrates.
Ngati Porou’s claim for control of 200 km of coastline north of Gisborne – stretching out 12 nautical miles to the edge of the Territorial Sea – was lodged under the old Foreshore and Seabed Act, and a deal was negotiated with Labour’s then Treaty Minister Michael Cullen. However, to finalise the agreement, their evidence of exclusive use and occupation had to be tested in the High Court. Ngati Porou delayed their hearing, and then when the new Government changed the law, they were able to avoid the Court altogether.
In 2013, National’s Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, resumed negotiations with Ngati Porou under the new law and commissioned a report to assess their evidence. But since the results were never published, and with locals continuing to challenge the validity of Ngati Porou’s claims to the coast, I lodged an Official Information Act request a copy of the report.
According to the OIA, the report was never completed – in spite of the Judge’s requests, Ngati Porou failed to provide the evidence justifying their claim for the coast: “Dame Justice Judith Potter was contracted by Office of Treaty Settlements to complete an independent assessor’s report in relation to Ngati Porou’s potential customary marine title interests in 2013. The independent assessor is waiting for further material from the Crown and Te Runanganui o Nati Porou. She will be in a position to progress her report when this material is provided.”
In other words, if the current Bill is rubber-stamped by Parliament, Ngati Porou will gain control of a vast area of coastline – along with a huge $15.3 million pay-out – without the legitimacy of their evidence of exclusive use and occupation of the coast ever being officially verified.
This is an appalling state of affairs that could lead to a gross miscarriage of justice.
What should happen is that the Bill should be........
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s disturbing NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/court-hearings-for-tribal-claims-edge-closer/#more-27026
Most New Zealanders strongly believe that the country’s beaches and sea are part of our national heritage and should be in public hands. They share a sense of dismay that the National Party repealed Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed to appease their then coalition partner, the Maori Party, allowing opportunistic tribal groups to lodge hundreds of claims, covering every square inch of our coast many times over.
This means that if you want to prevent the ownership of your local beach or fishing spot being given to tribal groups, then you, along with your family and neighbours, will need to help refute their allegations that they have “exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption”, which is the statutory test that claimants must satisfy to successfully gain title to the coast.
National justified their law change with assertions that Labour’s 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act did not allow tribal applicants “to have their day in court”. But this was not true.
Under Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act, no claims could be settled without the evidence being tested in the High Court. In comparison, in their 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act, National established a completely separate Crown Engagement pathway to enable claimants to avoid the High Court altogether. In these cases the Minister of Treaty Negotiations acts as the Judge, awarding title to the coast without any right of appeal.
It’s therefore no surprise that two out of three of the almost 600 tribal claims for the coast are for Crown Engagement, with only a third lodged in the High Court.
But having Ministers negotiate coastal claims has already been shown to be a disaster – as the Ngati Porou Bill that is in front of Parliament again demonstrates.
Ngati Porou’s claim for control of 200 km of coastline north of Gisborne – stretching out 12 nautical miles to the edge of the Territorial Sea – was lodged under the old Foreshore and Seabed Act, and a deal was negotiated with Labour’s then Treaty Minister Michael Cullen. However, to finalise the agreement, their evidence of exclusive use and occupation had to be tested in the High Court. Ngati Porou delayed their hearing, and then when the new Government changed the law, they were able to avoid the Court altogether.
In 2013, National’s Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, resumed negotiations with Ngati Porou under the new law and commissioned a report to assess their evidence. But since the results were never published, and with locals continuing to challenge the validity of Ngati Porou’s claims to the coast, I lodged an Official Information Act request a copy of the report.
According to the OIA, the report was never completed – in spite of the Judge’s requests, Ngati Porou failed to provide the evidence justifying their claim for the coast: “Dame Justice Judith Potter was contracted by Office of Treaty Settlements to complete an independent assessor’s report in relation to Ngati Porou’s potential customary marine title interests in 2013. The independent assessor is waiting for further material from the Crown and Te Runanganui o Nati Porou. She will be in a position to progress her report when this material is provided.”
In other words, if the current Bill is rubber-stamped by Parliament, Ngati Porou will gain control of a vast area of coastline – along with a huge $15.3 million pay-out – without the legitimacy of their evidence of exclusive use and occupation of the coast ever being officially verified.
This is an appalling state of affairs that could lead to a gross miscarriage of justice.
What should happen is that the Bill should be........
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s disturbing NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/court-hearings-for-tribal-claims-edge-closer/#more-27026