Bay iwi slam new foreshore bill

Representatives from Tauranga’s three iwi appeared before MPs at a select committee hearing in the city on Thursday and expressed their opposition to the new foreshore and seabed bill.


Members of the public at the select committee hearing in Tauranga on Thursday.

The select committee, which includes Tauranga MP Simon Bridges, is travelling around New Zealand hearing submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

Labour’s controversial foreshore and seabed legislation was repealed earlier this year and it is hoped the new Marine and Coastal Area Bill will replace it.

Linda Te Aho was one of the main speakers for Ngati Ranginui’s eight hapu at the hearing in central Tauranga.

She told the select committee Ngati Ranginui opposes the bill because it gives Maori a ‘subordinate’ form of title to the foreshore and seabed.

The proposed bill allows Maori to claim customary title to parts of the foreshore and seabed, either through direct negotiation with the government or by taking their case to court.


A map showing Maori land ownership in the Tauranga area.

She says Ngati Ranginui is not only concerned about the form of customary title included in the proposed legislation, but also the process her iwi would have to go through to achieve the ‘watered down’ form of ownership.

The bill stipulates that for Maori to claim customary title they must prove ‘uninterrupted’ and ‘exclusive’ use of the foreshore and seabed since 1840.

Linda says Tauranga iwi have suffered extensive confiscation of coastal areas since 1840 and it would be impossible to show they had uninterrupted and exclusive use.

“What we are saying is that confiscation substantially interrupted the use and occupation, rights and ability of the Ngati Ranginui people.”

Rehua Smallman, chairman of another Tauranga iwi Ngati Pukenga, says the bill does not put Maori on a ‘level playing field’ with other private land owners of coastal areas.

“There is a lot of coastal areas in New Zealand already in private ownership where public access in denied.”

“The finger is being pointed at Maori but they are not looking at private titles that already exist.”

He says New Zealanders should not be worried about being denied access to the foreshore and seabed if Maori are given customary title.

“The majority of Maori will not deny public access.”

Ngati Ranginui wants the bill modelled on a past agreement reached between a previous government and Auckland tribe Ngati Whatua.

She says the agreement allowed Maori to co-manage the foreshore and seabed with the local council.




You may also like...

10 Comments

BEST ANSWER

Posted on 12-01-2011 19:02 | By TERMITE

To avoid the tiffs about the beach and all that, why not allocate a percentage of coastline to each ethic group, like each group gets "x" number of miles of the beach say starting at Bluff (I will go first of course). To implement this new policy we would need to setup various new elections, one for each ethinic group, just like Moari have now, so we will have say 5 Maori seats, 6 Chinese, 1 Japanese, 3 Somalians, 1 from the IRA, 2 from the Taliban .... you get the idea. Government would be truly then a complete mess after all that, what a mess it would be!

DRINKITH THE ALE

Posted on 05-01-2011 00:35 | By The Master

Speakup ... if you let them drink the ale then they will claim it as thier own, best you drink all yourself, dont share a drop if you do then that will be the last drop you shall have for free .... PAY PAY PAY there after

I'm on my knees and repent.

Posted on 14-12-2010 10:23 | By SpeakUp

What a nice brew! By the way, can we allow maori to drink pakeha beer without intellectual copyright protection? Or for the consume by this charade commission, should it be watered down 90%? Questions, questions, questions. Has the waitangi tribunal looked into this dilemma?

Exaggeration

Posted on 14-12-2010 09:27 | By Ratcatcher

SpeakUp. Bias, surely not as only about 90% had maori pedigree.Go and rinse your mouth out with Mata beer as an act of contrition.

Bias?

Posted on 13-12-2010 10:18 | By SpeakUp

Do I see only maori sitting in the select committee? What a bias scheme, what a bias scam.

1>1/2>1/4>1/8>1/16>1/32>1/64 and so on

Posted on 11-12-2010 22:46 | By Ratcatcher

Concept of land ownership pre European civilisation was not known so in effect everyone ’owned it’ a bit like Crown Land or a public domain... get the picture.If thats not good enough try conquest just like GREEKS ROMANS HUNS VIKINGS SPANISH PORTUGESE NORMANS MAORI etc etc.Perhaps even the reason of failing to continuously use or occupy F&S but mainly because it vests in the Crown under Common Law.

Eye-poking continues

Posted on 11-12-2010 14:11 | By Socantor

Big Brother must know best. When did the Crown acquire/steal/purchase the S & F? Or was that a secret confiscation?

GRABBIT & RUN 4 IT

Posted on 11-12-2010 09:28 | By POCO O POCO

Claypole : The answer is yes but the media had long disappeared once the 3 ring Circus was over. Whats the mileage in giving a rounded picture anyway & people wonder whats wrong with NZ~~it won’t get any better

NON contributing SOBS

Posted on 10-12-2010 15:13 | By Ratcatcher

Everyone hates the 2010 Bill so scrap it.The 2004 ACT is fine as it provides full access without charge,High Court has exclusive jurisdiction,Crown owns S&F,& qualifying standards realistic.We do not need to put up with this claptrap

and the afternoon session?

Posted on 10-12-2010 15:04 | By claypole

I attended the morning session hearing iwi submissions. Could anyone tell me if the afternoon submissions from the likes of Rob Patterson and underwater diving club were also opposed to the new bill?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now