F&S articles 2018


“Cletus Maanu Paul, on behalf of all Maori, has applied for recognition of customary marine title and protected customary rights over the entire area of Aotearoa New Zealand, including all islands to the outer limits of the territorial sea; and, the Marine and Coastal Area surrounding all islands and reefs lying off shore from the coastline to a distance of 12 nautical miles; and, the entire foreshore and territorial waters of New Zealand under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011”.

That was one of the 200 newspaper advertisements notifying that claims for the coast had been lodged in the High Court under the National Government’s Marine and Coastal Area Act. Most were filed just days ahead of last year’s six-year April 3rd deadline. A further 380 applications were lodged with the Minister of Treaty Negotiations for secret deals through the separate Crown engagement process.

Since, to succeed under the law, claimants have to show that they have used the claimed area ‘exclusively’ since 1840, the ‘whole of New Zealand’ application was clearly grandstanding by Maori sovereignty supporters. The fact that it wasn’t thrown out, and that instead, the claimants are now receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funding to prepare their case, demonstrates not only how badly misled New Zealanders were about the claims process, but that the law itself is fundamentally flawed and should be thrown out!

Let’s look at how we got to this situation.....


It’s not just near Kawhia that such threats are occurring. More and more stories are now emerging of local bullies, who claim to ‘own’ the coast, threatening and intimidating those using the area. There are real fears that if such groups gain ‘title’ to the coast, they will take the law into their own hands and assert their ownership rights by menacing those they regard as “trespassers”.

While the public have a legal right of access to the beaches and the sea, the reality is that few will argue legal niceties when confronted with threats and intimidation. Most will simple stay away and the great Kiwi love-affair with New Zealand’s coast, will slowly but surely come to an end.

Growing numbers of people now believe that National’s Marine and Coastal Area Act has been a colossal mistake. They want it repealed and Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed restored.

Part of the problem is that the Act was not brought in because the existing law was failing, but for political advantage. After the 2008 election, new Prime Minister John Key wanted the Maori Party as part of his coalition government – and they wanted their tribal supporters to have control of the coast.

It wasn’t even as if National needed the Maori Party, as they already had the numbers to govern with United Future and ACT. In effect, the Maori Party’s 5 votes were an insurance policy for National – and tribal ownership of the coast was the price New Zealanders were expected to pay.

So how did we get into this mess – and more importantly, how can we get out of it?......
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s disturbing NZCPR newsletter HERE
September 2, 2018


I am an ‘interested party’ in the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 and am opposed, mainly on the general principal of equality of rights – but also because I am a keen fishermen and don’t want to see any restrictions on my right to fish.

I am not part of any organisation, and the views expressed following are my own.

I have been looking at MACA a lot since I first heard of it a year ago, and one thing strikes me – how vague it is. It is riddled with uncertainties and general matters that will require interpretation

At my last count there are 6 matters requiring clarification, and there will be more. I am sure that there are arguments that could strengthen opposition to claims – which need to be put to the High Court in a cogent and persuasive way.

Here are some of my thoughts on some of those arguments. Concern..

If historical evidence is given that is based on what claimant’s ancestors passed down orally, this is “hearsay” and cannot be relied on.......

To prove a Customary Marine Title exists, under section 58, the Act requires that the applicant group:....

In dealing with the applications, in section 100, the Act outlines who can apply and when:.....

With regards to the establishment of wahi tapu, the in section 78, the Act requires:.....

In addition to wahi tapu restricting public access, holders of a Customary Marine Title will be able to declare rahuis,......
In recent years, there has been intimidation of the public, by some Maori; attempting to prevent others from lawfully accessing public areas and carrying out lawful activities........

How general matters will be determined will be of vital interest to opposing parties.......
Read Rex’s full NZCPR guest commentary HERE 
September 2, 2018


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 > https://www.nzcpr.com/court-hearings-for-tribal-claims-edge-closer/#more-27026
July 29, 2018


The Ngati Porou Bill is now before the Maori Affairs Select Committee. It was initially drafted by the former National Party Attorney General, Christopher Finlayson before National lost the 2017 Election. It has been carried forward by the Labour-led Coalition Government, although why is unclear, as you will find out by reading on.

One needs to understand that the race-based Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) Act allows Maori tribal groups to claim the foreshore (wet and dry) and the seabed (always wet). Only groups with a Maori ancestor can make claims. So the Act is racist, as it eliminates all New Zealanders who do not have a Maori ancestor......

Continue reading Dr Hugh Barr's article here > https://www.nzcpr.com/why-are-new-zealanders-allowing-race-based-privatisation-of-our-foreshore-and-seabed/#more-27018
July 29, 2018


....Furthermore the new Labour-led Government has now compounded the problem by sending that Bill, with its unproven rights, to a Select Committee.

Essentially the Ngati Porou Bill outlines a legislative framework that honours a deal agreed to with Michael Cullen in 2008, and amended by Chris Finlayson in 2017, to transition into the Marine and Coastal Area Act regime.

Part 1 gives effect to the deed of agreement between Ngati Porou and the Crown. Part 2 outlines a range of unique privileges that Ngati Porou will gain across their whole claimed area – as part of their 2008 agreement – covering resource consents, conservation activities, customary fishing, and the introduction of wahi tapu. Part 3 outlines changes that will apply once a Customary Marine Title has been agreed, and Part 4 identifies special conditions including a two-year extension to apply for a Customary Marine Title.

As with all other claimants, Ngati Porou has a choice of negotiating their claim with the Minister through ‘Crown Engagement’, or lodging it with the High Court. The same statutory tests that apply to all other claimants – that the tribal group has exclusively used and occupied the claimed area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption – will need to be met for their claim to succeed. If it does not succeed, according to the Bill as it stands, their Part 2 special privileges will continue to apply.

In addition to their Part 2 rights, Ngati Porou will also gain significant financial advantage.

Their original agreement with the Crown shows that Michael Cullen agreed to pay Ngati Porou “to exercise their rights and perform their obligations under the deed and the recognition legislation”. That meant they were not only being given control of the coastline, but they were also being paid for it – to the tune of $7.6 million for the first 5 years, followed by $700,000 a year.

Under Chris Finlayson’s re-negotiated agreement, Ngati Porou will receive $15.3 million tax-free as a full and final settlement. That appropriation has been carried forward into the current 2018 Budget.

As the new Treaty Negotiations Minister, Labour’s Andrew Little had the opportunity to investigate the validity of Ngati Porou’s customary rights claims to the coast. Instead, he rubber stamped the Bill to a Select Committee. Judging by the supportive First Reading speeches in Parliament – see HERE ( https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180510_20180510_12 ) – unless the public get involved and send in submissions, this Bill is likely to receive very little scrutiny......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s alarming NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/coastal-claim-developments/
June 3, 2018


......The ownership of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed was vested in the Crown under common law, in 1840, and has remained that way until 2011.

In general, the MACA Act has always been a very unfair and racist. Any tribal group gains massive free grants amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Government to research and present its claim, while other parties opposing the claims have to pay registration, research and legal fees themselves. Thanks to Government policy, this means non commercial bodies such as my outdoor recreational association CORANZ – a broad-based volunteer national recreational advocacy group that is working hard to maintain free public access to the marine and coastal area for all New Zealanders, are at a serious disadvantage.
SUBMISSIONS: I urge readers to make a brief submission on this Bill – HERE https://tinyurl.com/y7p6fgb3

* Ask the Maori Affairs Select Committee why Ngati Porou hapu have been given the privilege of being allowed two additional years to claim Customary Marine Title.

* And ask who has tested whether Ngati Porou’s claims are valid, since they were never required to prove their case in the High Court, which was the requirement under the old legislation.

* Ask about what checks and balances there will be over the establishment of wahi tapu (so called “sacred” areas), where iwi members will have the right to charge anyone trespassing on what was formerly public land (the Crown-owned foreshore and seabed prior to 2011), where the tribal group can fish etc, but where members of the public – including other groups with a different Maori ancestor – all of whom have had the right to go there since 1840, will be fined up to $5,000 for every trespass.

This Bill has, as its main reason for existing, the desire of the Labour led Coalition Government to give Ngati Porou hapu the opportunity to obtain various MACA property rights, for two years after this Bill is passed. No other tribal group is getting this right. It is unfair and unjustified. What have Ngati Porou done to justify such special treatment? Nothing!

This Bill should not proceed. Please propose this in your submission. The Labour led Coalition Government should withdraw this Bill......

Read Hugh Barr’s full NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/illegal-political-meddling-threatens-our-coastline/#more-26410
June 3, 2018


Attention is also turning to others who may follow Mr English out of Parliament. High on that list is former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, who was responsible for the disastrous Marine and Coastal Area Act

If new National is to regain its spine, it needs to end its association with this ill-fated law and return to the racial equality principles it once advocated.

The Act is flawed in many respects, but especially in its failure to define a critical legal test. As it stands, unless the law is amended, it will be Judges rather than Parliament that determines whether Maori interests will own some of the coastal marine area or most of it.

Let me explain....

Section 58 of the Act contains the test for a customary title. Under (1)(a) an applicant group must have held their claimed area in accordance with “tikanga”, which is defined as “Maori customary values and practices”. In effect, this can mean anything the tribal group wants it to mean, so that’s an easy test for claimants to meet.

Clause (1)(b)(i) however, states that in relation to their claimed area, the applicant group must have “exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption”.

Yet the exact meaning of exclusively is not defined in the Act.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘exclusively’ means “to the exclusion of others”. If a Judge was to apply such a literal definition, then the only claims that would succeed are for areas that are used by the tribal group and no-one else – apart from those involved in fishing and navigation, which are permitted activities under Section 59(3).

Given that the foreshore and seabed was considered to be publicly owned under common law from 1840 until just recently, there would be very few coastal areas where tribal groups would have been able to continually chase the public away.

However, if a liberal determination was applied – such as that made by the former Minister Chris Finlayson in Ngati Pahauwera’s Crown Engagement case, then tribal groups could well end up controlling a majority of New Zealand’s coastline.

Ngati Pahauwera from the northern Hawke’s Bay lodged a claim in 2011 for an area of coastline around Mohaka, alleging they had held it exclusively and continuously from 1840 to the present day.

However, it turns out that the area had been used as a public road for over 100 years.

Research carried out by the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ), which quotes newspaper reports on the challenges faced by travellers, drovers, and even the postman, states: “Because of the steep papa cliffs the only way by land for drovers and travellers to get from Napier to Wairoa and beyond was along the coast of the area that is now being claimed by Ngati Pahauwera. That is exactly what all people did – from the early days of settlement from 1840 and before, until the inland road was built between Napier and Gisborne via Wairoa in the 1930s.”

Yet, in his Letter of Determination offering a Customary Marine Title to Ngati Pahauwera, Minister Finlayson ignored 100 years of history, when he stated: “I am satisfied that the combined historical and contemporary third party activities are not of sufficient intensity and scale to amount to a substantial interruption of any exclusive use and occupation that Ngati Pahauwera are able to establish.”

He accepted Ngati Pahauwera’s assertion that because they did not exclude third parties who abided by their tikanga from their claimed area, in effect their occupation was ‘exclusive’: “Ngati Pahauwera evidence asserts that third parties are not excluded provided they abide by Ngati Pahauwera tikanga.”

If the High Court was to use a similar liberal interpretation of ‘exclusive’, as applied by the former Minister, it is entirely possible that most claims to the coast would succeed.

Is that what National really wanted, when they passed the law? Is that what new National wants?.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s foreboding NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/last-chance-to-oppose-coastal-claims/#more-25358


The Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) Act should be closed down, but instead it remains a privatisation threat to our coast. My Association, the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ), has been concerned about attempts to privatise New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed since 2004. CORANZ has been a party to MACA claims since 2012, so we have built up extensive knowledge of the process.

The New Zealand Court of Appeal, in its controversial 2003 decision, said that Maori customary rights may still exist, in spite of New Zealand adopting British law, where the state owned the foreshore and seabed out to 3 nautical miles (nm) in 1840, and since 1977, out to 12 nm (22 km). That is, until the MACA Act was passed in 2011.

Crown ownership is essential for outdoor recreation, as it allows public access at will. In New Zealand, there is no charge to the public for access to the coast. In 2004, Helen Clark and her Labour Government, supported by Winston Peters and New Zealand First, decided against the race-based privatisation of our foreshore and seabed to iwi, after significant public consultation, reaffirming Crown ownership through their 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, Chris Finlayson and John Key enabled iwi privation of our foreshore and seabed to tribal groups through the Marine and Coastal Area Act in 2011. Labour and the Green Party voted against National’s law change. New Zealand First was not in Parliament between 2008 and 2011 and so could not vote.

The MACA Act sensibly contained a termination clause for new claims after 6 years. This was ample time for cases to be registered and assessed. This deadline – 3 April, 2017 – has now passed. Up until then, around 30 claims were registered by tribal groups, but a number were refused because they obviously did not meet the requirements of the Act. These were for the strongest property right, called Customary Marine Title (CMT), which requires the tribal group to have exclusively used and occupied the claimed coastal and sea area from 1840 to the present day.
One claim that has met this condition, involves two small titi (muttonbird) islands off the coast of Stewart Island. So it is possible to meet the test........

Continue reading Dr Hugh Barr’s concerning NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/tribal-privatisation-threat-to-our-coast/#more-25362


“A spokesman from the local marae said, ‘…We have to put these rahui in place for protection of our culture…’

“But my response is since when did conforming to other people’s culture become compulsory? Why should those who don’t believe in spiritualism be forced to abide by the spiritual beliefs of others? Why it is now compulsory for those who are not Maori, or even Maori for that matter, to live by Maori culture? The whole thing is an absurdity, yet it is becoming the norm.”

It is an absurdity but under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, the absurdity is going to become a whole lot more common as tribal owners of the coast use rahui to keep the public away – claiming environmental protection, of course, as the excuse.

So what are the chances that tribal groups will end up in control of large tracts of our coastline?

To answer that question we need to look at the number of claims and the statutory tests.

Prior to the 3rd of April 2017 six-year deadline for submitting claims, around 50 or so had been lodged across the two pathways specified in the Act – the High Court, and Crown Engagement with the Minister of Treaty Negotiations.

However, just before the deadline, another 580 claims were submitted – 200 to the High Court and 380 for Crown engagement. As could be expected, the large number of claims increases that chance that significant portions of the coast will go under tribal control.

But, the key factor is the statutory test: have claimants used the area exclusively and continuously from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

Only one case has been resolved in the High Court. Judge Mallon stated in her Customary Marine Title finding, “The evidence that has been presented of exclusive use and occupation of the Tītī Islands by Rakiura Māori from 1840 without substantial interruption is overwhelming.”

She also explained, “This makes it unnecessary to consider in detail what may or may not constitute exclusive use and occupation without substantial interruption for the purposes of s 58 of the Act.”

In other words, there has been no judicial determination, as yet, regarding the meaning of “exclusive use”.

If a literal interpretation is made, that the applicant group can be the only group to use and occupy the specified area of coastline – apart from those involved in fishing and navigation, who are excluded under section 59 (3) of the Act – then only remote areas of the coastline would qualify for tribal control.

But on the other hand, if a lenient interpretation is made, then it is likely that large areas of the coast would end up under tribal control.

In the only case of Crown Engagement to be resolved by the former Minister, the leniency of his approach was so extreme that an urgent review of his decision should be undertaken by the new Government, lest it becomes the standard for the hundreds of new claims in the pipeline.

In that case, the Minister offered a Customary Marine Title to Ngati Pahauwera for an area of coastline that they claimed to have held “exclusively” since 1840, when for over 100 years, it was used as the main route of travel and trade between the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne.

By taking a lenient approach and ignoring historical facts in favour of tribal “oral history”, the former Minister has set a dangerous precedent that could see most of the coastline go under tribal control.

If that was to occur, what would it mean?....... 

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/tribal-control-of-the-coast/#more-25100


The use of rahui becomes more of an issue in the context of the 580 claims by iwi/hapu regarding the ownership of the marine and coastal area. Of these, 380 claims have been referred to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations who will decide whether customary rights exist. The Minister is likely to ask for public submissions on each of the claims that are accepted for consideration, although the Minister alone will decide and there is no appeal process. The other 200 claims have been referred to the High Court. In those cases, those who file a Notice of Appearance as an interested party (and pay $110 per claim) can be involved in the court process and have the right of appeal.

The claims cover the entire New Zealand coastline and the seabed extending out 12 nautical miles from the coast to the edge of the Territorial Sea. In most cases there are multiple competing claims for the same area. In essence, the claims are for ownership and absolute and uninterrupted rights to extract the resources (shellfish, fish, minerals, etc), impose levies, restrict access, and so on.

The applicants appear to be claiming ownership on the grounds that they have occupied the area in accordance with tikanga since before 1840, and they have used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption. The statutory test of “exclusive” use and occupation is likely to be a critical point of legal debate in this current round of claims.

Unfortunately court rulings on the matter of aboriginal title have been contradictory and political interference has added to the confusion. The end result is the current legal gravy train where a multitude of lawyers are extracting eye-watering fees, funded by taxpayers.

All of this works against those who wish to have a say in the process. It is very difficult to find the detail of the claims, and a layperson would find it impossible. To find the claims one must first obtain the case (CIV) reference number from your local council (and in our case our local council was not able to provide all of the CIVs) and then contact the High Court and ask for the claim details.

Something that could be very easily posted on a website by the local council or the High Court, isn’t.

This issue is important. If you think access to beaches and harbours will remain freely available as they are now, then think again. It will be at the whim of the Maori owners whether there is a rahui in place and you too will be confronted by an individual saying, “Clear off…You can’t swim here, you can’t fish here, you can’t play on the beach, so get out of here”......

Read Frank Newman’s full NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-beaches-are-becoming-a-battleground/