The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

The HIKOI TAKUTAI MOANA 2011 WILL make it to Parliament before the Coastal and Marine Areas Bill is passed!

18 March 2011

I rang and checked today with the Maori Affairs Select Committee.

The Coastal and Marine Areas Bill is still at the ‘Committee of the Whole House’ stage.

(The stage before the Third Reading).

The earliest debate can resume is at 3pm on Tuesday 22 March 2011, after ‘Question Time’.

Parliament Rises For Week

Thursday, 17 March 2011, 5:59 pm

Parliament Rises For Week

The House rose at 5.56pm interrupting the committee stage debate on the title and commencement clauses of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill .

Parliament will sit next Tuesday at 2pm.

* is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports on Parliamentary Business.



The Hikoi WILL make it to Parlament before the legislation is passed.

Here is the timetable, outlining where the Hikoi is planning to be:

Left Rerenga Wairua on Monday 14th plans to meet the bill at parliament steps on the Tuesday 22nd March
14th March – Rerenga Wairua, Kaitaia, Kawakawa
15th March – Whangarei, Te Hana, North Shore
16th March – Harbour Bridge crossing, Auckland CBD
17th March – Hauraki, Kerepehi Marae, Tauranga, Te Puke – Mangauika
18th March – Rotorua, Te Arawa
19th March – Heretaunga
20th March – Palmerston, Foxton
21st March – Porirua TBC
22nd March – PONEKE – March from Te Papa to parliament, Peaceful protest

Hikoi opposing (Takutai Moana) and Deep Sea Oil Drilling and Mining

Mike Smith invited you · Share · Public Event
Tuesday, March 22 at 9:00am – March 23 at 10:00am

Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa 

Wakefield St

Created By



In 2004 an estimated 50,000 people demonstrated against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, now the new bill is before Parliament and its drawing condemnation from a wide range of Maori people including a significant number of Maori leaders. On Monday a group of young people together with kaumatua began a hikoi to Wellington and don’t forget this is a social justice issue for all New Zealanders to be involved in so there will be Pakeha people for the environmental movement joining the hikoi to add their support to the hikoi’s opposition to deep sea oil drilling and mining …. let our Pakeha whanau and friends know that they are welcome to participate!

Contact these organisers for futher details of exact locations at given times of the day

Tracey-lee 021 0721166 – Northshore
Denise Messiter 027 6443359 – Hauraki
Dotti 021 2432174 – Rotorua
Te Ao Pritchard 027 4578326 – Palmerston
Mike Smith 021 504486 – Foxton, Wellington
Reuben Porter – 027 2001840
Wikatana Popata – 021 1340586
Ropata Paora – 021 2051571




Created By

More Info
Tena tatou te iwi Maori me nga whanau tau iwi katoa.


…- Maori have to prove that they are true kaitiaki of Moana, foreshore & seabeds

– Govt says you are invited to prove customary title under this bill

– If you think you have a claim, then you have to prove since 1840 you have always been beside the moana (that is if your lands weren’t confiscated…)

– They also say you need to go to court to prove it, (nothing in the bill says the govt will assist you to do so)

– Once you gain customary title, then it entitles you to NOTHING other than to be consulted on the issues pertaining to the takutai

– Govt says they dont OWN it, you dont OWN it then who has kaitiakitanga rights over it THE CROWN!!

– PRIVATE OWNERS can charge the public to use the beach
– MAORI UNDER CUSTOMARY TITLE can’t.. its called PUBLIC SPACE ONCE IN CUSTOMARY TITLE…(Maori NEVER EVER see themselves as owners, we are kaitiaki or protectors)

THE LIST GOES ON…… and it gets worse!

– OTHER GROUPS (pakeha, unionists, women’s groups etc) would prefer for the takutai to remain in Maori kaitiakitanga then to allow GOVT to sell it’s precious minerals and resources to FOREIGN INVESTORS

come on Aotearoa, if you want our lands to stay in the hands of Maori and all New Zelanders, for all papatuanuku’s special taonga remain with us THEN COME AND SUPPORT THIS HIKOI IN PONEKE


Speech: Harawira – wake up and smell the kaimoana

Thursday, 17 March 2011, 9:52 pm
Speech: Hone Harawira

Maori Party – wake up and smell the kaimoana before it’s too late!!

Part 3, Committee in the House – Marine and Coastal Area Bill
Hone Harawira – Te Reo Motuhake o Te Tai Tokerau
Thu 17 Mar 2011

Mr Chairman, members of both the National and Maori Parties have deliberately tried to disrupt the flow of my korero, particularly during Part 3 of this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, so as we turn to Part 4 I look to their being perhaps a little more understanding and accepting of the fact that issues that I raise during this bill, I don’t raise because of any personal animosity, but because of a genuine and widely-held belief that this bill is not in the best interests of the Maori people, or the Maori Party, or indeed parliament itself.

And as I turn to this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, I pledge not to raise internal Maori Party caucus issues, nor to personalise the relationship between members of the Maori Party caucus and Ministers of the National government, because this debate should not be about what one person may or may not have said to another in the privacy of a caucus meeting, nor should it be about the relationship between MPs in this house, even though such unsubstantiated trivialities were levelled against me during the debate over Part 3 of this bill last night.

Mr Chairman, this debate should in fact be about the principles underpinning the legislation that the house is discussing, so as I turn to Part 4 of this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, I will, as I have done in all previous speaking opportunities during this debate, try to focus on the issues highlighted by this bill, and the public statements of relevant players in the development of this legislation, because Maori people deserve to know exactly how they will be affected by the decisions of those parties and persons promoting this legislation; and Mr Chairman, because I am a Member of Parliament elected to represent the specific interests of Maori, it is that particular area that I intend to focus my comments on.

So, Mr Chairman, if I might be allowed, I would like to begin my contribution to this debate by asking whether or not the Maori Party knows that the legally prescribed detail found in this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, and other legislation like it in the field of treaty settlements, and the oversight, governance and management of natural resources is setting a dangerous trend for Maori, by forcing us into the legal environment where the value of traditional Maori principles, or Kaupapa Maori, will be determined and legal precedents and benchmarks established which will impact on those principles forevermore?

And does the Maori Party realise that allowing the courtrooms to become the battleground for determining the rightness or otherwise of Kaupapa Maori found in this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, is detrimental to the principles themselves, and to the world view that they represent?

And will that make the Maori Party reconsider the position that they announced the other day … that “This bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones. This is a Maori Party Bill. We are pleased to stand here in support”?

And does the Maori Party realise that by so doing, they are sanctioning the legal capture of Kaupapa Maori as found in this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, thereby limiting the effectiveness of those principles, by tying them to legal concepts which themselves are derived from a society that has over time developed into the resource-exploiting, consumer dominated society that we see today, a society which in many ways is at conflict with the Maori world view that Kaupapa Maori are based on?

And will realising that they have actually done that, make the Maori Party think about withdrawing their view that … “This is a Maori Party Bill and we are pleased to stand here in support”?

And does the Maori Party realise that by giving their support to the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, they are endorsing government’s attempts to codify those principles that I have already mentioned, in a way that our tupuna would not agree with and that our people will not accept, and that by supporting this bill, the Maori Party is setting the stage for decades of litigation as Maori seek to reclaim ground lost through the passage of this bill?

And if they do realise the mistake the have made, will it help the Maori Party think about dumping the position that they announced the other day … that “This is a Maori Party Bill and we are pleased to stand here in support”?

And does the Maori Party realise that by giving their support to this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, they are setting the stage for the spectacular loss of Maori connection to the foreshore and seabed, by forcing Maori into the High Court, where $100,000 is the price of an opening address, half-a-million is the cost of progress, and unfortunate rulings are the order of the day?

And when they realise how this bill forces Maori into the court of great cost and no return, do you think that the Maori Party might actually disown the position that they announced the other day … that “This is a Maori Party Bill and we are pleased to stand here in support”?

And does the Maori Party know that by their support of this Marine and Coastal Area Bill, they may be signalling the end of all treaty claims to the foreshore and seabed, because once this bill is passed, the foreshore and seabed will no longer be in Crown hands, it will become “common space”, owned by no-one, and therefore unable to be claimed by Maori?

And when they realise how this bill will put an end to all treaty claims to the foreshore and seabed, do you suppose it might finally make the Maori Party finally wake up and say – perhaps we made the wrong decision when we announced the other day … that “This is a Maori Party Bill and we are pleased to stand here in support”?

And does the Maori Party know that their support of clause 105 of this Marine and Coastal Area Bill where Maori are required to prove customary title, is inconsistent with the position widely held by Maori throughout the country, that Maori should not have to go to court to prove what the whole world already knows anyway – that Maori were here first, why do we have to prove it?

And will the Maori Party finally accept that their position, that “This bill is in the House on our initiative. Make no bones. This is a Maori Party Bill We are pleased to stand here in support” is simply untenable to Maori and unacceptable to all those who support the principle of justice.

Mr Chairman, I began my speech by saying that I hope that those from the Maori Party and the National Party who heckled me last night (and thankfully not today) while I was speaking, understand and accept that the issues I raise during this bill, I don’t raise because of any personal animosity towards them, but because of a genuine and widely-held belief that this bill is not in the best interests of the Maori people, or the Maori Party, or indeed parliament itself.

Mr Chairman, the arrogance of the government in refusing to participate in this debate is widely noted by all New Zealanders; the decision by the Maori Party to adopt the same attitude is duly noted by all Maori as well.

tu te ao maori
tu te rangatiratanga
tu motuhake
tena tatou katoa


Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill – Part Four

Thursday, 17 March 2011, 5:25 pm
Press Release: The Maori Party

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill – Part Four

Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga

Thursday 17 March 2011

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Bill.

I want to take a call to speak to Clause 97 and Clause 105 of Part Four.

Clause 97 allows the High Court to refer a question of tikanga to the Maori Appellate Court for its opinion, or to obtain the advice of a pukenga. The concept of pukenga of course comes from the Maori Land Court and the Maori Appellate Court, where the Court seeks the assistance of those experts who have experience and knowledge of tikanga Maori.

It has really saddened me to hear the nature of the kōrero from the Act Party around tikanga.

One of the major achievements the Maori Party has secured through this Bill, has been in ensuring tikanga permeates the legislation –and in that way, we see the value accorded to Maori customary values and practices being reflected right throughout.

And I am mindful of the challenge left by a former MP and esteemed Maori leader, Ta Apirana Ngata, in his much quoted words, E Tipu e Rea. In that passage Ta Apirana encouraged Maori to grasp the tools of the Pakeha world, while at the same time cherishing ‘nga taonga a o tupuna Mâori’ – the treasures of our ancestors. It was, if one likes, the notion of promoting excellence in both worlds.

And I have to wonder, whether the Act Party has grasped the notion of living in a Treaty-based nation – in which partnership means to cherish the foundations of the two Treaty partners – walking in two worlds, Aotearoa New Zealand.

A commitment to nationhood driven from the Treaty would mean this House would never again be subjected to the cultural assault of tikanga being described in the terms of ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

For the sake of generations to come, I want to make it explicitly clear what we in the Maori Party understand of tikanga as consistent with kaupapa Maori – kaupapa such as kotahitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga.

Tikanga are our practices – that which is ‘tika’ – true and accurate. Tikanga are derived from kaupapa Maori, the foundation of Maori culture, and the basis of Maori worldviews.

Ironically, the reference to Alice was made during the kōrero we had on the preamble. A preamble which monumentally introduces for the first time in any public environmental or resource management related legislation; the kaupapa of manaakitanga – and the tikanga that are derived from it.

In Ngai Tahu, for instance, the concept of manaakitanga, as that tikanga which tangata whenua practise towards manuhiri, enabled whalers from foreign shores to remain on the takutai and set up whaling stations.

The tikanga surrounding manaakitanga is such that the more hospitality which tangata whenua display, the more mana they demonstrably possess.

Ngai Tahu has great mana – as we have seen with their response to recent events that have struck the people of their rohe – and so, as many people of great mana have done throughout New Zealand’s history, they gave without hesitation.

Manaakitanga – as mana in action – only works when the system of reciprocity on which it is based, is understood.

So when this legislation states that it should be enacted to reflect the principle of manaakitanga, we are not entering a virtual rabbit-hole of unknown quantities. We know exactly what it is that we seek, and that is to restore the balance of mana and to uphold tikanga.

While this bill does not consolidate mana motuhake as some may wish to see, it does propose a relationship in keeping with those tikanga derived from the kaupapa of kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga. There is great mana in this.

In order for the fruits of this exchange of mana to fully materialise it is imperative that local and regional authorities step up to the mark in their exercise of kāwanatanga.

Giving mana to those expressions of rangatiratanga by the kaitiaki of our takutai moana, such as in their input to the planning document.

While a misguided few look to role models such as Alice, I know there are those amongst us who look to our own Pacific role models. Figures such as Māui who looked beyond the horizon, using the wisdom of his ancestors with the boldness of his youth, to seek change in his world.

The other key clause I want to refer to in Part Four is that related to Clause 105.

This is an extremely significant clause which has attracted great interest from those who have taken the time to read the Bill.

I do have to say, in passing, that it is hard to tolerate some of the statements I heard in the public arena from people – unfortunately including some MPs – claiming they are opposing the Bill without having to read it. I don’t understand the logic that someone can be opposed to something if they don’t actually know what it is they are opposing.

But back to Part Four – the Burden of Proof clause, clause 105, is a major initiative of this Bill – and indeed, was something instigated by discussions with the Member for the North.

The 2004 Act required Maori to prove extinguishment of customary title had not occurred. Proving something had not happened over a 170 year period was a significant burden on Maori.

The Takutai Moana Bill now places that burden on the Crown where it should be. If the Crown cannot prove extinguishment then customary title will be recognised, provided the other elements of the test are met.

Sub-clause two of 105 provides that, for customary marine title, an applicant group must prove that the specified area is held in accordance with tikanga; and has been used and occupied by the applicant group, either from 1840 to the present day; or from the time of a customary transfer to the present day.

Sub-clause 105(3) provides that, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that a customary interest has not been extinguished.

The amendment is required as the Government’s intention regarding burden of proof was unclear.

The clause as re-drafted is explicit that applicant groups must only prove the positive elements of the tests; for example, the group has held the area, or customary right has been exercised, since 1840 in accordance with tikanga.

This means the Crown, is responsible for proving that the applicant group’s use and occupation of the area has not been exclusive or that there has been a substantial interruption to the group’s occupation of the area or that there has been extinguishment at law.

The intention of clause 105 is to make it clear where the burden of proof lies for the evidence relating to the tests for protected customary rights and customary marine title. And I want to really highlight this initiative as it is something which I believe establishes a very clear precedent for working in a way in which tangata whenua and the Crown operate as Treaty partners. Clause 105 is a very important issue. It picks up what the Court of Appeal said in the Ngāti Apa case: that the burden of extinguishment lies on the personal body that seeks to have it extinguished—in this case, the Crown. So the Crown has the burden of extinguishment, and the advice that I have received from iwi is that it is a just and proper thing to do. Tena koutou katoa.



March 18, 2011 - Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Human rights

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: