The government's Marine and Coastal Area Bill is a new approach to ownership of the common marine and coastal area that guarantees free public access to all New Zealanders and protects our unique beach culture.
There has unfortunately been a lot of misinformation about it.
Article by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
We're making clear what we all instinctively feel – that no-one owns the marine and coastal area.
The government just looks after it for all New Zealanders, present and future. It is a common space.
Everyone has the right, equally, to walk, swim, fish, sail, dive, surf, picnic or play in it. It can't be sold off.
The law guarantees free public and recreational access to all our common marine and coastal area, whether it has customary title or not (see below).
Unlike the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Marine and Coastal Area Bill makes it an offence for anyone to interfere with the public's access and enjoyment.
The status quo is not an option. Every political party in parliament acknowledges that the Foreshore and Seabed Act has failed and needs to be replaced.
The Bill has now been returned to parliament from select committee.
The Bill will not be passed under urgency, unlike the 2004 Act it is replacing.
The Bill has been reported back to parliament by the Maori Affairs Select Committee after five months of submissions and consideration.
The chief concern of a number of submitters was that allowing customary title to be recognised by Order in Council (that is, by cabinet rather than parliament or the courts) could leave open the possibility of ‘backdoor' deals done by future governments.
That is why we are amending the Bill to say any negotiated agreement to recognise customary title will have to be passed by an Act of Parliament.
This means it will be subject to full parliamentary and public scrutiny.
For the truth about the Bill, visit: www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/common-marine-and-coastal-area
15 comments
Truth is stranger than fiction
Posted on 01-03-2011 15:33 | By Writerman
Good show. So now we have one man's version of the truth. Given that we have more than one political party, (although sometimes it's hard to tell)I trust we will hear what the others view as the truth too.
The Truth
Posted on 01-03-2011 18:15 | By Turk4
Very funny... I emailed the National,Labour and Maori parties with my concerns regarding the bill. I got very nice prompt replies, ALL Saying EXACTLY the opposite of each other. Who does one believe?????
Rob
Posted on 01-03-2011 18:36 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
The truth will be revealed in the fullness of time (now there is a well hackneyed political statement) The test will be whether in the future any 'honest" (is there such a thing) government will rescind or modify the bill to provide equal rights to all NZers. What an insult to all those who demonstrated against apartheid in SA.
Truth about the Bill
Posted on 02-03-2011 10:26 | By Rayna
The Bill clearly states that customary rights titles will give Maori rights to give or withhold permission for applications under the RMA. and inter alia the ownership of certain minerals - without any corresponding history. This will cost NZ big time. The 2004 Act was formulated to avoid the loss of ownership by the Crown who were holding it for the benefit of all NZers in perpetuity.
Racist
Posted on 02-03-2011 12:28 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
My thoughts *This Bill is literally Racist therefore illegal? *NO input allowed for "non-Maori", therefore illegal? *What about my "customary usage" as a New Zealand of non-Maori ethnicity? *Not sure that "Maori" is a legal term anymore as there are no 100% Maori ethnicity New Zealanders therefore who are "Maori" anyway? We surely have only part-Maori and non-Maori (as well as other races of course) * This Bill is actually apartheid. *John Key (alias Shonkey) PROMISED that he would drop the Bill if the majority of New Zealanders were against it. We/they ARE!!!! He is therefore going back on his word. *This Bill is to gain some Maori votes for the Government. Is he so stupid that he can't see that EVEN IF the Bill were to be passed and he got his few votes it would be the last thing he did as P.M. and would also probably spell the end of the National Party as New Zealanders would NEVER forgive him for it. Bruja
U.N. Human Rights
Posted on 02-03-2011 15:10 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
New Zealand signed up to The Human Rights area of the United nations in 1945. One of the areas under the umbrella of Human Rights is that there will be no discrimination on the basis of race. This Bill CLEARLY discriminates against non-Maori New Zealand citizens. Bruja
FORESHORE & SEABED RORT
Posted on 02-03-2011 20:27 | By Hebegeebies
I support Winston Peters' and the Coastal Coalition's original attack on what looks like a re-opening of the contenious foreshore and seabed debate. Leave the current 2004 Act in place and by all means make appropriate amendments to tidy up the odd minor anomaly where applicable. Maori should not be allowed to seek any land title through the Courts for large parts of the foreshore area. The Crown must continue to be the sole owner of the Foreshore and Seabed with perhaps some very limited exceptions. Free unimpeded access to the foreshore or seabed should be the sovereign right of every New Zealand citizen and must not based on race, colour, religion or creed. You certainly would not allow people with vested interests, obvious bias and dubious track records, to call the shots - it's like letting mice into a cheese factory. Foreshore and seabed ownership must always remain with the Crown and no compensation paid for this. The review panel select committee could hardly be regarded as unbiased, impartial or qualified to make any sort of recommendation. What on earth, may I ask, are these so-called ‘customary rights' anyway, spell them out! That cannot be accommodated through free and full access to foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders. I would have thought everyone would have learned their lesson by now so simply stop the ‘Waitangi type' gravy-train greedies and boot this ‘pie in the sky' rort for touch. Stop kow towing to the Maori Party and Maori iwi.
FORESHORE AND SEABED LEGISLATION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Posted on 02-03-2011 20:31 | By EYESPY
The Government's public announcement earlier this year and now the introduction of proposed new legislation with propaganda is of real concern. • General Whether under the existing 2004 Act or the proposed new Act, the position of the Foreshore and Seabed, if it is described as Crown Land or Public Domain is just fine. If we must have an aberration currently proposed to be called ‘Customary Title' which the general public of New Zealand appear to be totally opposed then: - (i) No formal legal Title should issue. (ii) It should not be described as a Title but rather a Customary Licence issued by the Crown to all those New Zealanders who can prove their case directly to the Highest Court, that is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. It is that critical to get it right. (iii) Any Customary License issued must be capable of being revoked at any time by the Crown, particularly in the case of abuse or breach of terms by any recipient(s). • Mandatory Restrictions in respect of Customary Licence area No buildings to be erected on the foreshore and /or seabed No exclusive rights conferred No mineral rights granted No right to sell or assign the Licence (any benefits to be for own personal use only) Right to relate only to fish, seafood, seaweed and the like (not on a quota system) limited for own reasonable personal /food requirements only Licence to confer no paramount rights on any recipient over other New Zealanders No right to charge access fees to public. 2004 Act - Guarantees public access and prohibits charging. 2010 Bill - Guarantees public access but does not prohibit charging. • Licence Applications - If a Supreme Court application is made for a ‘Customary Licence': - (i) Applicant must fund the application(s) (ii) Crown to have the right of veto on any application made to the Court (iii) NZ public to have equal standing with the applicant in any application made and the right to be heard on all applications made to the Court (iv) Public notification of all applications required to be made in all main national newspapers. (v) Applications must be heard in High Court nearest to Foreshore & Seabed area involved. All these should be regarded as minimum rules on the grant of any customary licence and should by no means regarded as exclusive. Currently the present 2004 Act introduced by the previous Labour Government seems to be working very well and really there is no need or justification to repeal or amend it. It is pointless endeavouring to address the special provisions contained in the proposed new Bill until the general framework can be agreed upon. The Bill is not something that should be pushed through under urgency by a small Parliamentary majority against what appears to be the wishes of most New Zealanders who oppose it. In fact, National Party supporters are in open revolt over it.
Confusing make believe with reality
Posted on 03-03-2011 21:52 | By ROCKY
The truth is that this grubby piece of double dealing and horse trading will shaft the average KIWI so far as proper access to Foreshore and Seabed goes . This countrry's valuable mineral rights will go to the usual greedy grelims the only benefactors being MAORI IWI the least deserving of anyone in this country.The Labour Party, Coastal Coalition , ACT Party and Mr Peters plus the other critics are dead right it is a SCAM and a RORT.Only PM Key & A-G Findlayson and the usual suspects the drivers of this rip off think its kosha. The National constituent MPs in the main are gutted by what their local branches are telling them and what revenge will be heaped on them if they support the current Bill.A full Public referendum must be held first before any further consideration is given to it.If this aberration God forbid is ever passed at least any future NZ Government can abolish it thereby cancelling any deals and restoring the status quo.So any party to this subterfuge be warned right now most KIWIS won't rest unless Foreshore & Seabed are owned by the Crown on behalf of all NZERS no ifs or buts !!!!!!!!!!!!
IWI Beaches should be
Posted on 04-03-2011 20:46 | By TERMITE
I agree with all the comments made in opposition to teh Bill, all NZers will suffer as a result of it without doubt, it is a absolute "NO NO" and we should can it now before any one thinks they are going to get some beaches for free, National Party MP's should be very worried about public backlash later this year.
NO confidence & no principles
Posted on 05-03-2011 12:36 | By Insider
The haste is indecent and obscene on legislation that goes to the very heart of every value mainstream NEW ZEALAND stands for. Just let true democracy rule and hold a binding Public Referendum on the 2010 Marine and Coastal Bill at the upcoming 2011 General Election. The cost would be small and the time factor is irrelevant. If National refuses to do this it shows they know they have no mandate to proceed and the whole charade is a back room RORT
CUSTOMARY AND OWNERSHIP, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ?
Posted on 06-03-2011 22:43 | By TERMITE
Cant see what the difference is, this is like slipping down a greasy pole, once you are on it there is only one way to go ... down! If you don't go there then nothing gets worse in fact as is remains that being all can use go see do as please, all that needs to happen now is to recognise the rights of NZers, is that so much to ask?
Election
Posted on 07-03-2011 22:31 | By Ross
Could I suggest that those voters who are strongly opposed to the Marine and Coastal Bill but who continue to want a center-right government consider Party Vote National, Electorate Vote Labour. This won't change the party strength in the house post election but it might send a strong message to those provincial National MPs who believe NZ should be an apartheid and racially divided nation similar to the current Zimbabwe and the old South Africa.
T of W promises.
Posted on 16-03-2011 19:39 | By Socantor
All of the above appear to come from the same bigoted, rather nasty source. At school we were taught that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed Maori free and continued access to their forests, fisheries and lands. Ever since, white settlers have progressively conned, stolen (either by direct theft or by government edict - ref disgraceful Tuhoi treatment). The only thing honest in this story is the continued determination of settlers and their descendants to alienate T of W promises. The present doom-sayers are no different in their approaches than any of those early and latter-day grabbers. Be assured, there are two separate and distinct cultures in NZ. One is very strong (guess which) and the other, while weak after decades of pillaging, is slowly regaining a degree of composure and fair share of what the country has to offer. I'm all for good honest debate, but the coastal coalition crowd are prime examples of either people who don't know their history, don't want to keep promises, or a just plain blind bigots. No exceptions!
NUKARAU
Posted on 19-03-2011 11:33 | By POCO O POCO
Socantor you are spouting consummate rubbish its Alice in Wonderland stuff- "the words will mean what I want them to mean".The Treaty itself is a devisive nothingness in todays world and the continual settlements reached through a biased Waitangi Tribunal are unbelievable.It would also make sense to adopt the correct Crown version of the Treaty (Littlewood) which incidentally equates with the Maori version almost word for word.>>>>>>He tiku tonu
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.