Our aim is to be your guide to living life to the full. The keys to staying vital and active for longer are within our grasp! Read more...
Become a GrownUp and join our Community. Stay up to date with our weekly newsletter, discuss topics with other members, grab some great member-only offers and so much more.
Select the radio station you would like to listen to live.
Member since 02 Apr 2008
Member from Orewa
A pdf Flyer for emailing to contacts or post the link on blog sites.
Member since 15 May 2012
Member from Taupo
Let us not divide this country further, the coast and its riches should belong to everyone. An article I read said the oil reserves found during exploration in the great southern basin were bigger than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. This could be wealth for the country, not just for some.
Member since 22 Oct 2006
Member from Christchurch CBD
Sitting here in GODSZONE on Golden Bays pristine Coast @Collingwood or@ MAPUA IN Nelson or in Marlboroughs Marfells Beach OR @Boat Harbour by Goose Bay near Kaikoura enjoying the natural riches of our beautiful country we are indeed lucky.
Member since 02 Feb 2007
Member from Mangere Central
"Who should own our Coast?' No-one.If you can't pick it up.and take it with you.It stays where it is.
Member since 31 Jan 2007
Member from Mosgiel
Real Kiwi's should administer our Coast . End of story.
Member since 13 Jan 2010
Member from Alicetown
BennyThen why did John sell out to the Maori Party and change the legislation that protected our coasts for all New Zealanders?
Member since 02 Nov 2006
Member from Linwood
Not my squabble. I don't really care but the crown are the rightful guardians but can we trust them to treat us all equally over our rights to enjoy it. Too much of our costline is being used privately for marinas and mussel farming. Do these farmers pay rent to anyone. I know that a berth in a marina costs an arm and a leg, but then, if you can afford a flash boat then like a car it needs a garage.
Would Maori ownership be on a moneymaking gig or will it just be in name only with all of us having free access. You see everyone has too much to say and don'r say anything of any worth really. The words are couched in terms only known to that band of lawyers who don't speak plain English. A simple yes or no or even maybe is foreign to this band of political once were lawyers on seats in the Beehive.
Member since 23 Nov 2009
Member from Stratford
Morgana has asked the right question - why did the National-led government change the legislation that at least guaranteed Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders.
Joybel points out that business and individuals already use, and benefit financially from, parts of the Fs&Sb - marinas and marine farms and port companies, a few private beaches from which outsiders are banned unless they can reach them by water and remain below the high tide mark.
I think that 'opportunity' was widened to enable others to do so too. Maori amongst the many.
Mona, you can't pick it up and take it with you but you can plunder it, strip it, pollute and degrade it, and then leave it behind for others to pay to clean up the mess. You know, 'privatize the profit - socialize the loss'.
So let's just call it what it is - Privatisation of a public asset - shall we?
First let's clear up what is legally defined as foreshore and seabed, which is – The entire beach made wet by the tide and then all the airspace above, water space and seabed for 22km out. It is not the dry sand or land above the high tide mark.
There are approx 12,500 private titles to the F&S, of these some are ports, marinas, whitebait stands, community boat ramps etc, they also include areas where erosion have occurred, some of these PT's bring in revenue to the economy, do you want to see these dismantled?
Included in those 12,500 PT's are 3,000 which are Maori PT's, which is equivalent to approx 25%, when Maori only equate to 15% of the population of NZ. Furthermore Maori PT's on average are much larger so in fact they already own more area of the coastline in PT than non-Maori.
The Coastal Coalition's position on existing PT's is that they remain in PT.
LINZ believes the area of the F&S in private title is small, only a few sq km. Which according to Dr Hugh Barr who has crunched the numbers seems a fair estimate. - about 46.8 sq km. As a fraction of the F&S (105,000 sq km) this is 0.04%, very minute.
Apart from some historical allowance for port companies and a few private titles, the government has not tried to sell off the foreshore and seabed in the last 170 yrs.
Would you prefer privatisation of the coast to money-hungry corporate tribes through a law that promotes "commercialisation"? Because that's what the new law does >> https://www.box.com/s/40e0112c565438b7ce80
At least under Crown ownership the Department of Conservation (DOC) & Local Authorities effectively controls the foreshore, and if any commercialisation is planned, the public/local communities would get a say. So the Crown would have two watchdogs (DOC & the public), whereas successful Maori claimants under the 'Marine and Coastal Area Act' have no restrictions.
Anybody claiming the government will sell is just scaremongering.
Under the new law, tribal groups can’t sell but they can lease out to foreigners for hundreds of years. Read Chris Finlayson’s interview with Duncan Garner here: http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=979.
Member since 06 Oct 2011
Member from Ahuriri
Yogi, I oppose the Marine & Coastal Area Act for it's separatist consequences, so I have been quietly following your posts of which many are ho hum, but your post above has some enlightening facts.
As Winston Peters says it will pit Maori against Maori and Non-Maori against Maori, is that what New Zealanders want?
Member since 18 Mar 2007
Member from Papakura
"Winston Peters says it will pit Maori against Maori"
Is that not happening at Raglan now. ???
To post a comment on this discussion please log in or register