Parliament is accepting public submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, which is the legislation written to replace the Labour Government's Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Act party deputy leader John Boscawen speaking in Tauranga.
The latest controversy for this legislation, which potentially returns customary title of the foreshore and seabed to Maori, is that it will enable iwi to charge for beach access.
Spearheading the legislation is Attorney General Chris Finlayson, who on Wednesday said he would consider amending the Bill to specifically ban beach access charging.
'The Bill as drafted does not allow customary title holders to charge for access in the marine and coastal area,” said Chris in Parliament.
'However, it has been suggested that the Bill could be made more readily understandable by inserting a direct statement that charging for public access is not allowed.
'That is something that I'm certainly willing to consider.”
In a recent trip to Tauranga, Act party MP John Boscawen advised that this was particularly serious for people living in coastal areas, such as Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty.
He was also concerned about how only ‘nationalised resources' found in the foreshore and seabed areas were exempt from economic development on coastal areas given to Maori. These resources include gold, silver, uranium and oil.
John gave the example that iron sand is a huge industry developing in New Zealand, but iwi would have economic exclusivity on this because it is not a ‘nationalised' asset.
His advice to the public at this Tauranga meeting was to ‘hold-up' the legislation by swamping Parliament with submissions.
Submissions can be made in writing or, with the Parliament Select Committee coming to Tauranga, can be made in person at a meeting on December 8.
The closing date for submissions on both the bill and the Supplementary Order paper is Friday, November 19, 2010.
4 comments
Keeping to the facts
Posted on 14-10-2010 16:50 | By Pamaxx
The marine & Coastal Legislation certainly needs debating but I urge commentators to keep to the facts. John Boscawen's statement implies that Maori will be returned customary title under this bill. That is not correct; All coastal area not in private ownership becomes public property, open to use by everyone. Maori can lodge a claim for specific areas through the High Court but they must prove to the court that they have occupied the area continuously for an uninterrupted period since 1840. This is a very high bar to qualify for customary rights and very few areas of NZ coastline would pass this test in the high court. All commentators should first read the draft legislation then stick to the facts, avoiding emotive outbursts in this debate. Max Lewis Mt Maunganui
But its been stated
Posted on 15-10-2010 08:58 | By Tony
Maori Have said Yes we will lock of beaches .Iwi will close beaches and charge for entry, Ask senior Maori they will tell you straight to your face , Point a camera at them and its all smiles and no no no nothing will change .
Read the proposed legislation
Posted on 15-10-2010 15:35 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
Max, with all due respect have you actually read and fully interpretted what National and the Maori party have proposed withn this new Marine and Coastal areas Bill? What is also crucial is what the legislation (which has already had it's first reading in the house) DOESN'T SAY. The legislation is designed to repeal/replace Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Many parts of this act have been transferred across to the new act. However, Section 40(b) which specifically prohibits the charging for use or occupation of a customary marine TITLE has been deliberately left out of the new act. This is good news for corporate iwi, bad news for the general public or commercial operators. If charging for access or occupation is not prohibited it is only a matter of time before it happens. It already occurs on Mt Tarawera, and on Maori Land in the Kaimanawa ranges, etc. Maori would also have the right of veto on the continuation or establishment of any new commercial operations and simply run it themselves (monopoly), or 'clip the ticket'. Also, you seem confused between customary rights, and customary title. There is no need for ownership (title) to have customary rights. In order for Maori to gain customary title (clauses 60-91), which also includes monopoly rights to mining, aquaculture, and any new facilities there is NO NEED for them to go to court to prove their case, even though this is defined in great detail in clauses 96-117, it is simply a red-herring. No tribal group in their right mind would go to court with all that expense and risk that entails. WHY? Because in clauses 93-95 of the Bill the awarding of customary title can be done by "recognition by agreement" with the minister IN SECRET, WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE INTERESTS OR OPPONENTS PRESENT, AND WITH NO CROSS EXAMINATION OR PUBLIC SCRUTINY, rather than in the High Court. Even National MP's seem to be poorly breifed about this. There are many other issues with this legislation also. There is no consultation about 'wahi tapu' areas, and little restriction on where they can be placed. Iwi wardens are able to patrol them, and any member of the public caught breaching this is liable for a fine of up to $5000. There is no penalty for charging public access, and there are already issues in this regard at Shipwreck Bay, 90 mile Beach. Bear in mind also that the 'seabed' is actually out to the 222.2 km territorial sea boundary. At the end of the day this Bill is all about money, and control. National's John Key and Christopher Findlayson are setting course for NZ to sail into a storm of racial conflict and even in-fighting amongst different Iwi. Why? National 'owes' the Maori party for it's support of the ETS legistaltion earlier this year. This bill is their payback, although it is not enough for some (Hone), it has been widely touted and simply 'a first step'. After seeing Pita Sharples on TV1 Close Up the other night, I have little doubt about where this is headed. This is potentially one of the most socially devisive/destructive pieces of legislation to be tabled, and it is amazing that it is not getting more media attention. Good on the ACT Party for trying to push it into the public arena, even though it may be for their own political mileage. It is an indictment on the National Party though that they have even allowed Chris Finlayson to table this as written. After all, it was also he who suggested that Tuhoe should have the whole Te Urewera National Park back - later vetoed by J. Key. However, given his past employment with Ngai Tahu as a treaty negotiator, it is fairly easy to see why this has occured. He now hold the positons of Attorney General, and Treaty Claims Minister - is this like the Fox looking after hen house???? Be concerned..... if you want your children to have free unrestricted to public land areas such as our local beaches, please oppose this legislation. Let our local MP Simon Bridges know your thoughts - after all he is one of the 7 MP's on the Maori Affairs select committee. Max, if you have the time there is plenty more factual data for you to read on this matter at www.coastalcoalition.co.nz or www.coranz.org.nz I hope you are sitting down.......
war?
Posted on 15-10-2010 22:44 | By Capt_Kaveman
if the foreshore is taken away from everyday NZers then maybe we have to fight for it and go back to war as this has gone far enough and im sure many stand against this
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.