Customary marine title recognises customary interests that iwi, hapū, and whānau have had in the common marine and coastal area since 1840. Customary marine title can’t be sold and public access, fishing and other recreational activities in a customary marine title area are unaffected (except for some lawful restrictions, including for the protection of wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas).
If customary marine title is recognised under the takutai moana legislation the iwi, hapū, or whānau group may exercise specified rights in relation to the customary marine title area, including:
the right to say yes or no to certain activities that need resource consents or permits (RMA permission right)
the right to say yes or no to certain conservation activities (conservation permission right)
the right to be notified and consulted when other groups apply for marine mammal watching permits
the right to be notified and consulted about changes to Coastal Policy Statements
the right to seek recognition of wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas and restrict access if this is necessary (a wāhi tapu protection right)
the right to ownership of minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, uranium and, if the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 applies, pounamu
the right to ownership of newly found taonga tūturu (unless the Māori Land Court decides otherwise)
the right to create and lodge a planning document for management of natural and physical resources, which then must be taken account of by local authorities and relevant government agencies
When it's a Rich Lister who closes off a chunk of coastline, Hobson's Pledge doesn't give a toss. It seems that all private property rights are equal, but some private property rights are more equal than others.
It’s an advertisement, not an academic paper. Broadly it’s correct. Okay, nobody owns it - effectively that means that all of us do and the Crown can take whatever benefits accrue for the benefit of us all. Maori tribes are seeking to change that. You and Simpson Grierson and being disingenuous. I think most of us prefer Helen Clark’s version.
"New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed have never been in public ownership."
AND
"The Clark government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. It asserted the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed (except where privately owned), and rights of public access"
Unless you are making a distinction between "the public" and "the Crown", these assertions seem contradictory.
It's a really good point, Graham, and I should have addressed it perhaps. But I'd say Crown and public mean different things. With a universal franchise etc, we increasingly assume that the Crown acts on behalf of the people, or the public. I recall a debate in 2004 about whether to say Crown or public ownership. The distinction is still important. The Crown doesn't have to ask permission of the public to sell its land.
Thanks, Duncan. In fact, I think most people will assume that "the Crown is synonymous with "the public".
And "the Crown" is a woolly concept that often means nothing more than "the govt".
Supplementary question: If MACA ruled that no one owned the foreshore/seabed, how could the Crown grant rights to anyone, including iwi given the Crown doesn't own it?
Here's my best explanation: No one owns them, but the Act grants some rights to use those spaces, including fishing, boating, access, and some particular rights for local iwi/hapu. The details can be established in court.
It's parliament that's granted those 'rights to use', on the grounds that no one actually owns the foreshore and seabed. In our system, parliament is supreme.
Parliament can't "grant some rights to use those spaces" if the Crown doesn't own them in the first place. The Courts are empowered by the Act to grant them on behalf of the Crown, directed by the provisions in the legislation set by Parliament (although judges have overturned the plain meaning of s58).
Furthermore, the provisions in the Act include direct negotiation with the minister — as a representative of the Crown — for the award of CMT. He or she can decide unilaterally whether to grant it or not.
It has always been a nonsense for MACA to have declared no one owns the foreshore or seabed. It defies logic.
Can I suggest that parliament can, simply because it has?
Point taken about negotiation with ministers. Add to that the role of local govt in resource consents.
Let me try an analogy out: No one owns the space above a plot of land. But governments can permit or restrict the height to which anyone can build up into that space...
(I'm not versed in the fine points of property law, so I may have got something wrong!)
Property owners can grant rights to the airspace and light above their land via an easement but only because they own the property beneath. Similarly, the Crown can only grant rights to CMT because it owns the foreshore/seabed.
TPM also see the absurdity of the non-ownership assertion in MACA.
On August 1, Rawiri Waititi asked the PM:
"If no one owns the foreshore and seabed, what gives the Government the right to consent to, and profit from, coastal marine farms, seabed mining and deep-sea oil drilling?"
Customary marine title recognises customary interests that iwi, hapū, and whānau have had in the common marine and coastal area since 1840. Customary marine title can’t be sold and public access, fishing and other recreational activities in a customary marine title area are unaffected (except for some lawful restrictions, including for the protection of wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas).
If customary marine title is recognised under the takutai moana legislation the iwi, hapū, or whānau group may exercise specified rights in relation to the customary marine title area, including:
the right to say yes or no to certain activities that need resource consents or permits (RMA permission right)
the right to say yes or no to certain conservation activities (conservation permission right)
the right to be notified and consulted when other groups apply for marine mammal watching permits
the right to be notified and consulted about changes to Coastal Policy Statements
the right to seek recognition of wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas and restrict access if this is necessary (a wāhi tapu protection right)
the right to ownership of minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, uranium and, if the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 applies, pounamu
the right to ownership of newly found taonga tūturu (unless the Māori Land Court decides otherwise)
the right to create and lodge a planning document for management of natural and physical resources, which then must be taken account of by local authorities and relevant government agencies
When it's a Rich Lister who closes off a chunk of coastline, Hobson's Pledge doesn't give a toss. It seems that all private property rights are equal, but some private property rights are more equal than others.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-front-page-why-are-there-so-many-battles-over-boatsheds-and-helipads-across-nz/62BR4Z725RD7ZFE7QYJEOL6Q4I/
It’s an advertisement, not an academic paper. Broadly it’s correct. Okay, nobody owns it - effectively that means that all of us do and the Crown can take whatever benefits accrue for the benefit of us all. Maori tribes are seeking to change that. You and Simpson Grierson and being disingenuous. I think most of us prefer Helen Clark’s version.
Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi confirms the absolute wrongness of your reckons.
You might have to expand on that, Andrew. What are my wrongnesses and reckons?
You might have to expand on that, Andrew. What are my wrongnesses and reckons?
Delete the last and, subs are.
I'm just going by what the law says. I do note that the law may be amended.
I'm not sure how you can assert:
"New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed have never been in public ownership."
AND
"The Clark government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. It asserted the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed (except where privately owned), and rights of public access"
Unless you are making a distinction between "the public" and "the Crown", these assertions seem contradictory.
It's a really good point, Graham, and I should have addressed it perhaps. But I'd say Crown and public mean different things. With a universal franchise etc, we increasingly assume that the Crown acts on behalf of the people, or the public. I recall a debate in 2004 about whether to say Crown or public ownership. The distinction is still important. The Crown doesn't have to ask permission of the public to sell its land.
Thanks, Duncan. In fact, I think most people will assume that "the Crown is synonymous with "the public".
And "the Crown" is a woolly concept that often means nothing more than "the govt".
Supplementary question: If MACA ruled that no one owned the foreshore/seabed, how could the Crown grant rights to anyone, including iwi given the Crown doesn't own it?
That's a good question, Graham!
Here's my best explanation: No one owns them, but the Act grants some rights to use those spaces, including fishing, boating, access, and some particular rights for local iwi/hapu. The details can be established in court.
It's parliament that's granted those 'rights to use', on the grounds that no one actually owns the foreshore and seabed. In our system, parliament is supreme.
I know it's not the most satisfying compromise!
Cheers
Grant
Parliament can't "grant some rights to use those spaces" if the Crown doesn't own them in the first place. The Courts are empowered by the Act to grant them on behalf of the Crown, directed by the provisions in the legislation set by Parliament (although judges have overturned the plain meaning of s58).
Furthermore, the provisions in the Act include direct negotiation with the minister — as a representative of the Crown — for the award of CMT. He or she can decide unilaterally whether to grant it or not.
It has always been a nonsense for MACA to have declared no one owns the foreshore or seabed. It defies logic.
Can I suggest that parliament can, simply because it has?
Point taken about negotiation with ministers. Add to that the role of local govt in resource consents.
Let me try an analogy out: No one owns the space above a plot of land. But governments can permit or restrict the height to which anyone can build up into that space...
(I'm not versed in the fine points of property law, so I may have got something wrong!)
I wrote a comment that seems to have disappeared.
Property owners can grant rights to the airspace and light above their land via an easement but only because they own the property beneath. Similarly, the Crown can only grant rights to CMT because it owns the foreshore/seabed.
TPM also see the absurdity of the non-ownership assertion in MACA.
On August 1, Rawiri Waititi asked the PM:
"If no one owns the foreshore and seabed, what gives the Government the right to consent to, and profit from, coastal marine farms, seabed mining and deep-sea oil drilling?"