A Submission

on the

Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

To the Ministerial Foreshore and Seabed

Review Panel

In which Ngati Kuta me Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti, Bay of Islands, reject the Foreshore and Seabed Act, 2004.

QuickTimeª and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Emailed to:foreshorereview_submit@justice.govt.nz but site disconnected. Sent by post.

Date: 23/04/2010

Ko Rakaumangamanga te Maunga

Ko Ipipiri to moana

Ko Ngatokimatawhaorua te waka

Ko Ngapuhi te iwi

Ko Ngati Kuta me Patukeha nga

hapu

Ko Te Rawhiti te marae

Ko Te Pere-te Mauri o Patukeha me

Ngatikuta-te wharehui

Ko Rakaumangamanga, ko te maunga rongo nui,

E tu mai nei, kei te marangai

Ko te herenga kupu o nga tupuna

Ko Rakaumangamanga, no Hawaiki e.

Rakaumangamanga is the well-known mountain

Standing to the east

The binding word of the ancestors

Rakaumangamanga is from Hawaiki.

Na Henare Clendon

Te Rohe Moana o Ngati Kuta me PatukehaOur rohe kaitiakitanga begins at Taupiri on the eastern side to Tapeka in the west, from Wiwiki in the north to Motukokako in the south and 200km out as set out in Map 1 below.

Map 1

Tapeka TaupiriCape WiwikiMotukokako

Te Rawhiti Marae Rakaumangamanga

Mana Whenua Mana Moana

Ngati Kuta and Patukeha hold mana whenua and mana moana over Te Rawhiti and Rakaumangamanga tribal lands.

The tribal lands of Rakaumangamanga have an ancient history with a direct link to Hawaiiki. Our ancestor, Kupe, the greatest navigator we know, charted a vast navigational triangle covering the entire Pacific Ocean. Rakaumangamanga, Hawaii and Rapanui were the markers. It was to Rakaumangamanga that our ancestors were directed. This is where the huge ocean waka gathered. This was the place where we stepped ashore. As the seventh pillar of the Whare Tapu o Ngapuhi, we guard and care for it as ahi kaa roa. We take their inherited role and responsibilities seriously.

Ngati Kuta and Patukeha share mana whenua of Te Rawhiti, Rakaumangamanga. We are a coastal people. As ahi kaa roa we hold mana whenua and mana moana for this district of Ipipiri (Bay of Islands). This is what underpins our actions in developing our projects to care for our rohe, and placing our claim with the Waitangi Tribunal to redress the past and to oppose the present Foreshore and Seabed Act in its current form.

We acknowledge that Te Rohe o Te Rawhiti has great significance to iwi/hapu, to the community, the nation and government agencies. Our goal is to develop beneficial relationships with all iwi/hapu interests so that we participate in the decisions and management of our rohe. In this way we honour our bond with the past and the future, to care for the mauri, the life force, of ‘nga taonga tuku iho’, the treasures handed down. These treasures are the people, all people, and the environment-the air, the whenua and the moana and our tikanga.

Developing ways to keep this mauri of people, whenua and the moana healthy is the main purpose of our submission. If this mauri is alive with health, then so is everything, everywhere.

There will be hapu collaboration with all stakeholders in the Bay of Islands. We all need this co-operation at managerial, decision-making levels to ensure the best care for the most precious Mauri. We welcome this. This submission is based on the foundation that we, the hau kainga, have primary ahi kaa status in each hapu rohe and therefore hold mana whenua and mana moana.

Our reasons for opposing this Act.We oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its entirety for the following reasons:

Section 3 states that the object of the Act is “to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand, including the protection of the association of whānau, hapū, and Iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.

Section 4 (a) gives effect to the object of the Act, by “vesting the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown”.

1. By vesting all foreshore and seabed in the Crown, the Act extinguishes all existing Maori customary/property rights and ownership relating to the foreshore and seabed, and this:

1.1 is totally unwarranted and unacceptable confiscation,1.2 is imposed on Maori without their consent,1.3 is in clear breach of Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi,1.4 is contradictory to the increasing international

acknowledgment of the rights of indigenous peoples,1.5 will create harmful and unnecessary division in the

country,1.6 denies Maori meaningful and appropriate roles of

Rangitiratanga and kaitiakitanga of our tikanga.

2. The Act removes all meaningful judicial routes for we Maori to have our rights investigated and legally recognised and this is:

2.1 effectively an unfair reversal of the Court of Appeal decision on the Act and as such represents an abuse of Parliamentary power,

2.2 totally inconsistent with internationally recognised principles of human rights,

2.3 at odds with the common law principles of access to the Courts and due process of law,

2.4 in breach of Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi,2.5 seriously eroding Maori confidence in our supposedly

equal and bicultural society, and discourages engagement in the legal system and its processes,

3. By referring to “public foreshore” the Act excludes areas that are already privately owned, most of which are in non-Maori hands, particularly in our rohe moana area of the Bay of Islands. This means that our rights as Maori are taken away, while the property rights of non-Maori are not.

3.1 The Act’s purpose clearly breaches Article Two of the Treaty as well as the standard common law rules

about property rights etc. It also breaches the rights we have always had according to tikanga. It is an unjust raupatu.

3.2 By protecting non-Maori but not Maori rights the Act also breaches international human rights norms such as the

Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination. 4.0 Section 14 states that “no part of the public foreshore and

seabed may be alienated or otherwise disposed of (except) by a special Act of Parliament”

4.1 The Crown has said they needed to take the foreshore because it was worried Maori would sell it.

However Section 14 clearly gives the Crown a right to sell it through a “special Act of Parliament”.

4.2 Since the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been passed, the government has auctioned off areas of the seabed along

the west coast from South Auckland to Whanganui, under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, for mineral and petroleum exploration. The first of these licenses was issued on the 21 February 2005 which suggests that the sale was

actually being negotiated even before the Act was passed. The sale was conducted in secrecy without any consultation with mana whenua.

4.3 Maori experience of the large-scale asset sales of the 1980’s and 1990’s caused concern among Maori

that the Crown could quite easily do this again.

5.0 The manufactured concerns about the risk of decreased public access and alienation/sale if Maori can gain title were exploited for political ends. The Act contradicts the governments and Crowns’ concerns as it does not assure

Maori or New Zealand that the Crown will retain assured public access or ownership.

6.0 We agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that the Crown policy, represented in this Act, is not necessary to protect the

interests of all New Zealanders when, in other areas such as Lake Taupo and Okahu Bay in Auckland, ownership interests of Maori have been recognised in a way that provides for everyone’s interests.

7.0 We agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that recommended that the Crown have a further ‘conversation’ with our people about the legislation because many experts from

Iwi/hapu gave evidence to the Tribunal about the tikanga pertaining to the foreshore and all agreed that the then proposed legislation was in breach.

8.0 We do not support the Crown claim to overall ownership of the foreshore and seabed and suggest instead that rights to the Foreshore and seabed are inherent in Maori. This model would require the Crown to prove its claim, not Maori.

The Way Forward

9.0 We ask the Committee recommend that this Act be abandoned and the Government enter into true meaningful and dialogue with Maori to find an acceptable and constructive solution.

10.0 We ask that the option of confirming public access be legislated

11.0 We ask that the option of legislating to confirm that the foreshore and seabed be managed equally by tangata whenua, who have ownership of the whenua adjacent to the foreshore and seabed, and the Crown, in our case out to 200km.

12. 0We ask that mana whenua be recognised by the crown and where tribal ownership of whenua adjacent to the foreshore and seabed, have riparian rights in the same way that non-Maori land owners have riparian rights.

13.0 We ask that any exploration/sale/lease of the foreshore and seabed and the rights and outcomes of such be shared with tangata whenua whose land is adjacent to the foreshore and seabed.

14.0 We ask that the ‘Queen’s Chain’ imposed in Tai Tokerau be removed as it contradicts riparian rights and separates the foreshore from the land adjacent to that shore. Point 10.0 above will guarantee public access to the sea which the ‘Queen’s Chain’ was apparently set up to do. This ‘Queen’s Chain’ is another raupatu.

We would appreciate receiving the findings of the committee once the submissions have been processed and a decision has been made. We would also appreciate any analysis of the submissions that may be relevant to the committee’s final decision that may affect us as tangata whenua ki Te Rawhiti.

Robert Hiriwanu Rewha Willoughby, Kaitakawaenga, Te Kupenga o Ngati Kuta me Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti Hapu

Email contact: bob@terawhiti.co.nzPostal Address: 835 Te Rawhiti Junction, Hikurangi RD4

Northland 0184

Email contact: Moka Puru hinepuru@xtra.co.nzPostal Address: 393 West Coast Road Panguru RD2

Northland

QuickTimeª and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Rakaumangamanga. This photo shows part of Te Rawhiti’s eastern coastline