An aerial view of the Tairua Marina.
‘Hobson’s Pledge’ is the child of Don Brash, former leader of the National Party and ACT Party remembered for his controversial ‘Kiwi Not Iwi’ campaign and his Orewa speeches about NZ’s race relations.
The advertisement headlined in extra-large lettering the statement ‘RESTORE THE FORESHORE AND SEABED TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP’. The rest of the ad was about what they see as the problem; the possible awarding of customary marine title to iwi.
I know enough about local history to have confidence that any application for iwi customary marine title in the Tairua area would not succeed. I can see no way that exclusive use and occupation since 1840 could be proven.
There is however another very real threat to public ownership of the foreshore and seabed in Tairua and it has nothing to do with iwi or Maori.
The Tairua marina is owned by Tairua Marine Ltd, a commercial entity of Auckland property developer Craig Watts. The marina is built into the harbour and takes a small but significant piece of what was once publicly owned foreshore/seabed. The marina is privately owned, caters for the lifestyle of the most wealthy and has keyed entry. The public are excluded.
Waikato Regional Council is currently reviewing its regional coastal plan. The plan covers and administers the coastal marine area of the whole region from mean high water spring out to 12 nautical miles. The law requires that it has to be reviewed every 10 years and that the review be notified and open to public submissions.
Tairua Marine Ltd have submitted that expansion of its marina as well as construction and reconstruction of its structures be considered as ‘controlled’ activities rather than ‘discretionary’ activities, as it is at present. ‘Discretionary’ means that approval is at the discretion of those considering the effects of the proposal and allows for approval to be refused. ‘Controlled’ means that there is no way approval can be refused, although conditions can be imposed.
Acceptance of Tairua Marine’s submission would mean that the company could take exclusive use of more and then more of the harbour, and the Council and the people it serves would be powerless to prevent it.
Opposition to Tairua Marine’s submission will probably require professional expert evidence and considerable cost for those wanting the public harbour kept for public use.
I sent off an email to ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ asking for their support. Supporting opposition to Tairua Marine’s submission would fit perfectly with their campaign to keep the foreshore and seabed in public ownership.
As evidenced by their ability to mount a nationwide advertising campaign, they do have money. A tiny fraction of that would be more than enough.
I have had no reply to my email.
There seems to be a smell of double standards here….opposing Maori claims for customary marine title that would not affect public access and use and at the same time, not supporting opposition to a commercial use that would see the public excluded from areas of public foreshore and seabed.
There also seems to be the same smell of double standards in the ACT party presenting itself as the champion of ‘One Law for All’ and at the same time being an influential part of a government changing the law to negate a High Court decision and thus ensure almost all claims for customary marine title will fail.
There are many New Zealanders who have studied the history and say this double standard has been going on since immediately after 1840.
