Biden & Blinken aren’t interested in defusing any tensions, rather they are doing the opposite.

In this NZCPR newsletter, we outline how a radical new ruling from the Court of Appeal, that ignored the wishes of Parliament, will result in competing Maori tribal groups controlling virtually the entire coastline and Territorial Sea of New Zealand — and we call on the new coalition government to change the law and put it right; our NZCPR Guest Commentator former Judge Anthony Willy has examined the Court of Appeal judgement and believes the only way forward is to restore Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed; and our poll asks whether you agree that New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed should be returned to Crown ownership.

Last week…
In case you missed it, last week we examined the election outcome and the implications for the new government here, and our NZCPR Guest Commentator Frank Newman shared his election analysis and raised concerns over the radicalisation of parties in Parliament here.

Warmest regards,

Dr Muriel Newman. NZCPR Founding Director

A Court of Appeal decision was released last week that will have a profound influence on the future of New Zealand. Poor drafting and a radical application of ‘tikanga’ by the judiciary has delivered the exact opposite outcome from what the public was promised.

The law in question is the Marine and Coastal Area Act (MACA). It was introduced by John Key’s National Government back in 2011 as part of their coalition agreement with the Maori Party. The new law repealed Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed and opened up the coast for tribal claims.

At the time, the public was assured by the architect of the law change, the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, that no more than 10 percent of New Zealand’s 20,000 km coastline would end up being controlled by Maori. Those promises have now been proven false.

The Court of Appeal decision will result in virtually the entire New Zealand coastline and Territorial Sea passing into Maori control.

So how did we get to this point where our own government has surrendered a key public domain to tribal interests?

This debacle began in 2003, when a dispute between iwi and a council over a marine farming application escalated to the Court of Appeal. Taking the law into their own hands, the Court’s Ngati Apa decision over-ruled Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed by finding that pockets of customary interest might still exist.

A resulting flood of claims for the coast, forced Helen Clark’s Labour Government to legislate to restore Crown ownership through the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

While the new law provided for tribal groups to prove their customary interest in the High Court, there were on-going complaints that the bar was set too high for claims to succeed.

The Maori Party campaigned for a law change, and once in coalition with National, MACA repealed Crown ownership and opened up the coast for tribal claims – either through hearings in the High Court or direct negotiation with the Crown.

The prize was huge: 10 million hectares of the richest natural resources in the country covering the distance between the average spring high tide waterline and the 12 nautical mile Territorial Sea limit, along with the airspace above, the water space, and the subsoil, bedrock and mineral wealth below.

At the time, the Maori Party informed their supporters that the new threshold tests for customary title would work in their favour: “Tests incorporate tikanga allowing for variations among iwi, transfers of rights between hapu, and for tikanga to evolve. Test do NOT require claimants to hold adjoining land (so raupatu iwi can claim customary title). Allowing others to fish, and overlapping rights of neighbouring hapu, do not disqualify claims…”

In other words, the Maori Party was confident that tikanga would be a central consideration in the new law, and as a result, neither historic land confiscations, nor overlapping claims would disqualify claimants.

This was at odds with assurances being made to the public.

We were told the tests to gain a Customary Marine Title (CMT) were high. In section 58(1)(a) of MACA, claimants had to firstly, “hold the specified area in accordance with tikanga”. And secondly, under 58(1)(b), they had to have “exclusively used and occupied the area without substantial interruption from 1840 to the present day.”

Overlapping claims, which were obviously inconsistent with the concept of ‘exclusive’ use, were expected to be ruled out, as were claims for areas of the coast where adjoining land had been confiscated, or where third-party use resulted in substantial interruptions.

Furthermore, since tribal groups had limited ability to navigate far from shore in 1840, it was also expected that few, if any, Territorial Sea claims would succeed. 

Claimants gaining CMTs would receive an invaluable property right akin to ownership. This includes a right of veto over all resource consents and conservation activities; involvement in coastal planning and policy development; the ability to charge commercial operators, impose rahui, and restrict public access through wahi tapu; and ownership rights to all non-nationalised minerals – including royalties from existing mining operations, back-dated to when applications were first submitted.

While the law protects commercial fishing, navigation, and public access, as well as existing marine reserves, aquaculture activities, and essential infrastructure operated by the Crown, port companies, and councils, it does not prevent CMT holders from regulating consent applications for expansion plans and other variations.

On the eve of the six-year deadline for MACA claims in April 2017, almost 600 overlapping applications for the entire New Zealand coastline and Territorial Sea flooded in – some 200 for the High Court and the balance for Crown Engagement. 

While Maori claimants were offered up to $458,000 to fund their High Court cases, there was no financial assistance available for those wanting to oppose the claims. As a result, despite widespread public concern, opposition to the claims was limited.

That’s when the NZCPR stepped in to raise funds to enable a voluntary community group to oppose the first “Edwards” claim in the public interest.

Our understanding was that none of the multiple applicants for a 44 km stretch of the Bay of Plenty coastline around Opotiki would meet the high MACA threshold for a CMT, and our hope was that ensuring a sensible outcome for the Edwards case would have a precedent effect on all other claims.

However, the High Court ended up awarding three CMT orders – one of them shared between six applicants, and another shared between seven – as well as six orders for the lesser Protected Customary Right for activities such as gathering shells and driftwood.

In his controversial decision, Justice Churchman ruled that ‘tikanga’ outweighed any property-right requirements: “The task for the Court in considering whether the requirements of s 58(1)(a) of the Act have been met is therefore not to attempt to measure the factual situation against western property concepts… The critical focus must be on the question of whether or not the specified area was held in accordance with the tikanga that has been established.”

The Churchman judgment elevated tikanga – which had been determined by Pukenga (cultural advisors engaged by the Court) rather than the Judge himself – above any need to consider the property-rights s 58(1)(b) test. And with ‘tikanga’ defined to include ‘sharing’, any consideration of “exclusive” use of the area was dismissed as irrelevant.

As a result, instead of being ruled out, overlapping claims were accommodated through a new tikanga-based concept of “shared exclusivity”. And “substantial interruptions” were interpreted to mean that small parts of a claimed area might need to be excluded, rather than the claim itself.

Since the High Court ruling delivered the exact opposite of what we expected from the National Party’s assurances about their law change, we appealed the case to the Court of Appeal. It was their decision that has just been released.

The three Court of Appeal Judges delivered a split decision – while they all agreed on the remedies, their reasoning varied.

Our argument was that the Edwards case needed to be sent back to the High Court so the s 58(1)(b) property-rights test of whether claimed areas had been used and occupied exclusively and continuously since 1840 could be properly determined by fact and proof.

While the Court agreed with us that two of the three CMT orders should be sent back to the High Court to be re-assessed, it was a hollow victory.

The Court of Appeal decision affirms tikanga as the dominant consideration when assessing CMT applications. As a consequence, the hurdles to gaining title are now so low and self-serving that virtually all of the claims are likely to succeed.

As a result, the entire marine and coastal area of New Zealand will end up under the control of competing Maori tribal groups, which is the exact opposite of what National promised when they introduced the new law in 2011.

What the judgement has highlighted is the danger of including ‘tikanga’ in the law, since it can be interpreted to mean virtually anything at all.

But what is particularly concerning about this case, is that while the Court of Appeal understood our argument that the law should deliver what Parliament intended, they did not agree:

“We have found it exceptionally difficult to reconcile the text of s 58(1)(b) with the purpose of MACA. On a literal reading of s 58(1)(b), and its requirement that the group must have exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day, it seems likely there would be few areas of the foreshore or seabed where CMT could be made out. In some areas where the common law would recognise that a group had customary title, incursions into that area over the last 180 years by third parties would deprive the group of CMT… Far from recognising and promoting customary interests, MACA would in many cases extinguish those interests.”

In other words, since the Judges reasoned that doing what Parliament intended would be perceived as unjust and contrary to MACA’s purpose, they interpreted the law in a way that will ensure virtually all of the tribal claims succeed.

As a result, there is now no doubt at all that the Courts will apply the law to the bulk of claims yet to be considered – some 200 in the High Court and 385 awaiting Crown Engagement – in such a way that title to New Zealand’s coastal marine area will pass to Maori.

What is also clear is that they will not be managing their area in the public good but will prioritise controlling the resource for their own financial advantage.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has even gone so far as to offer guidance on managing competing applications. While Justice Miller held that the claimant groups would have to apply jointly for a CMT, or at least not openly disagree as to what the relevant tikanga was, President Cooper and Justice Goddard established a new role for the Court – to appoint a trustee to formally hold CMT rights until the groups could work it out ‘in accordance with tikanga’.

In other words, the various claimants to a particular area will in effect have a holding trust through which the area will be managed, with income from CMT rights received and distributed according to an agreed formula.

Since multiple groups expressing an interest in an area will undoubtedly want to exercise their rights to be consulted as affected parties to resource consent applications, the end result, where literally hundreds of tribal groups will all want to be involved so they can clip the ticket, will make managing New Zealand’s coastline virtually impossible.

The bottom line is that since we now know that National’s law change will deliver a disastrous outcome that is the exact opposite of what they promised to the New Zealand public, we believe the new National Government has no option but to put it right by changing the law.

I will leave the final word to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, the former Judge and law lecturer Anthony Willy, who has examined the Court of Appeal finding and agrees that repealing MACA and restoring Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed is the only way forward:

“This case has a way to travel through the Courts before the law is settled… The costs of this litigation are and will be enormous… Given that the legal costs are being met by the taxpayer except for those opposing the claims (they must meet their own) costs to the applicants will not be a concern. If nothing else, this whole process will become a bonanza for the lawyers and the court lists will be cluttered by such claims for years to come. More importantly the process will create division between competing Maori families and between Maoris generally and other ethnicities. Given the uncertainty surrounding the judgments and their effect on society the only course is to return the foreshore and seabed to Crown ownership where it has resided since 1840.”

from Southwards:

A show not to be missed! ‘The Boss’ Bruce Springsteen Experience is an international level show honouring the timeless music of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. With a full nine-piece line-up, The Boss presents Bruce’s music at a captivating level of visual and audio excitement. This show has wowed audiences at every performance, with standing ovations being the norm. Just a few of the hundreds of accolades include: “Best show I’ve been to” – Mary Gardiner; “World class” – Rachel Joy; “Do not miss it!!” – Robyn Halkett; “Best show ever .. brilliant” – Peter O’connell; “Superb … a must see” – Elise Schwass.

Buy Tickets Here

here’s the real thing:

Drivers cruise around Porirua competing in ‘siren battles’ blaring Celine Dion songs at high volume as late as 2 am, much to the chagrin of local residents and nearly 300 of them have so far signed a petition demanding Porirua City Council put a stop to it

The beloved Canadian singer’s melodies lose their charm when blared at high volume as late as 2am, say the sleepless residents of Porirua, north of Wellington and home to 60,000 people.

“It’s a headache,” Porirua Mayor Anita Baker said.

Siren battles have erupted in parts of New Zealand for at least seven years.

Local media have reported on contestants – often people with family links to Pacific Island nations – using large siren-type speakers on cars and even bicycles to drown each other out with their powerful systems.

They “love Celine Dion”, the mayor said.

“They like anyone with a high pitch and great tone in their voice,” she said.

“Although I enjoy Celine Dion in the comfort of my lounge and at my volume, I do not enjoy hearing fragments of it stopping and starting at any time between 7 pm and 2 am,” one resident said. 

More

by Geoffrey Churchman

The 2022 elections in October last year took place amid the background of the Labour government’s plans to destroy as much local democracy as possible and replace it with centralised planning committees run by political appointees of Ministers and favoured Iwi elites. The most infamous of these was Mahuta’s ‘3 Waters’ infrastructure looting which was opposed by most of the councils in the country (although not by Kapiti). That wasn’t all; town planning was being taken over, too.

The frontrunner to replace Guru as mayor, Gwynn Comption, told me he couldn’t see the point in leading a council that was only going to be responsible for streets, parks, reserves and libraries. He didn’t seek election again, which left Labour Party hack Janet Holborow to win the mayoralty by a slim margin over then Cr Rob McCann. The one positive thing that can be said about Holborow is that unlike her predecessor she has a pleasant clear speaking voice. Otherwise it has meant political rhetoric and practices I can’t abide.

The Labour Party also poked its nose into the elections as part of the campaign by the scurrilous Stuffers to identify those who had opposed Comrade Jacinda’s compulsory jabbing with an unproven and dangerous substance, claiming these people wanted to make NZ ungovernable! Despite that, I know of at least one Councilor and 3 Community Board members who opposed it and got elected regardless.

The biggest issue a year ago was the fate of the outgoing mayor’s vanity project, the Guru Gateway. Glen Cooper in the Paraparaumu Ward made his opposition to it the main feature of his campign, as did Martin Halliday — both were elected — and only $1.5 million later, the propsal was scrapped this year.

The main positive development in Kapiti last year was the departure of the awful Chief Executive Wayne Maxwell, who ran the show like a tinpot dictator, and his replacement with Darren Edwards whose style is the complete opposite and is well liked.

The Guru Gateway has now been scrapped, and instead the new Waikanae Library has been advanced. The promised superloo in Waikanae’s Aputa Place has been installed and the clocktower finally works!

For Waikanae there are still several other gripes, however. What has happened for the plan for a roundabout at the Te Moana Road/Rauparaha Street interesection? What about a reno/replacement for the Waikanae Beach community hall? What about beautification of the Main Road instead of the uglification that the NZTA has given it? And what happened to that pretty brownstone wall on the Main Road that was going to be rebuilt elsewhere? What about the recycling centre at the west end of Waikanae Park that Wayne Maxwell closed with the help of sycophantic councilors? What about the extra amentities at Waikanae Park? (One of them, the small BMX cycle track did happen).

Thankfully, the decisive defeat of the Labour government means that there is now certainty over the water systems infracture — it will stay in local hands and the council can get on with needed works. Labour’s new planning rules hopefully will be reversed, we might see that extra school in Waikanae that Labour promised in 2020, and also see extended commuter trains to Otaki, Levin and Palmerston North.

It would be great if the Climate Cultists could desist over ‘Managed Retreat’ and the unnecessary Paekakariki seawall scrapped. All we need are more large boulders or concrete blocks in parts of the Raumati and Paekakariki shores in case of storm surges. In Waikanae we don’t need anything.

The Rates impost on locals won’t ease (there is too much accumulated debt from the Dougherty and Maxwell years and there are still too many central government requirements that must be complied with that require staff and too much general stuffing around), but the future looks a little brighter for Kapiti people than it did.

Looking 120 degrees around from yesterday’s photo.

We have seen Liz Gunn’s recent video discussing information shared with her by a whistleblower. 

We have not seen the information Liz Gunn discusses though we are not surprised by the allegations.  For over 2.5 years we have been discussing, attempting to bring attention to, and asking for an investigation of serious adverse events and deaths potentially caused by covid vaccination.

We have struggled to have confidence that our authorities are assessing these events and deaths thoroughly as our questions have been either ignored or answered superficially.  We have also seen evidence that post vaccination deaths and adverse events have not been adequately investigated by CARM/Medsafe/pathologist/Coroner. We are seeing suggestions of evasion and cover-up, especially through analysis of Official Information Act responses.

We agree with Liz Gunn that there are at least hundreds of dead and tens of thousands of injured (many seriously and likely permanently) New Zealanders due to the covid injection.

We were aware:

• that the government wrote in Feb 2021 that it was expecting 1.1 % of vaccinees to have a serious adverse event that would necessitate time off work,
• that Medsafe only expect 5% of adverse events to be reported,
• that Medsafe usually expects 3000-5000 reports per year for ALL medicines,
• that in the first year of covid vaccination there were over 58,000 reports for ONE medicine,
• that there were 3,688 SERIOUS adverse events documented in Medsafe’s final Safety Report at the end of November 2022 when they stopped reporting numbers publicly,
• that there have been over 13,000 serious adverse events reported according to an OIA response from April 2023.

We have presented a list of dead New Zealanders to authorities on more than one occasion.

We have asked the police to investigate the deaths of children and young people.

We have been met with dismissals, best summarised as deferring back to Medsafe’s assertions of safety. 

We have documented the list of letters (with links to each letter) we have written.  If the letters have been replied to, the reply is posted as well when it was received.  We have written over 60 letters.

We suggest that you at least glance at the list of letters if not read them in full to see how hard we have tried to get action to protect New Zealanders from harms caused by the injection.  This includes contacting the police and asking for an urgent investigation into potential contamination in the vaccine vials discovered in late 2021. The latest evidence of actual contamination is posted here, an urgent expert convention at the World Council for Health.

On 24 May 2022 we posted an open letter which was sent to every MP on 3 June 2022.   This letter contained a list of New Zealanders whose deaths had (closely) followed covid vaccination.  The names were changed but they were all real people and circumstances. (That list is now larger, more children and young people being added).

On 2 June 2022 our lawyer sent a letter directly to the Police Commissioner requesting an urgent investigation into the deaths of 150 named New Zealanders within a month of vaccination, many occurring within 1-2 days.

A dismissive response was received on 15 July 2022 stating that the Police “do not accept the views expressed by NZDSOS and do not intend to respond by way of an investigation of Medsafe or other agencies involved in the administration of the covid-19 vaccine”. 

On 18 Jul 2022 our lawyer wrote a second letter to the Director for Police Legal Services, Mr Bill Peoples.  We did not receive a reply.

On 10 August 2022 we contacted police again with our request for them to investigate suspicious deaths of named children.  On 5^th Sept we received a reply stating that they would not be investigating child deaths and would not be providing further information.

We have just sent a further updated open letter summarising the latest scientific evidence of harms. Remember, all the supposedly reassuring data is irrelevant and should be side-lined if evidence of harm emerges.

It is our opinion, consistent with that of Liz Gunn, that members of the recent New Zealand parliament knew of the potential harms and knowingly allowed this new technology to be released upon the public, in many cases insisting that it be used.  All 120 members of the former parliament have been informed on multiple occasions of the harm being done to the population and the science to back up our assertions.  Not one of them has acted to protect New Zealanders.

We have been urging the public to get involved and ask questions and demand answers because we, and our serious concerns, have been ignored.  Following our own, and Liz Gunn’s lead, New Zealanders en masse MUST demand an investigation into the dead and injured victims of the contaminated covid injection.

If this does not occur, the harm will continue and potential solutions will not be addressed.

You can say you care about America, but if you’re sending $100 billion to foreign countries right now, you’re lying. pic.twitter.com/jFmBlAW3qG

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 25, 2023

A trusted FBI agent revealed that Joe Biden, using his son as a middle man, accepted millions of dollars in bribes from Ukraine. When a reporter asked Joe about this, Biden laughed arrogantly and replied, “Where’s the money?”

The House Oversight Committee recently released evidence of that money, and it’s probably the tip of the iceberg.

Joe received a $200,000 [cheque] from his brother James. On March 1, 2018, Americore, a struggling health care business, wired that same amount to James, who then immediately turned it over to Joe as a ‘loan repayment.’ The Bidens often use the word ‘loan’ to cover up their bribes and money laundering. There is no evidence that Joe ever loaned his brother such an amount.

Congress has the cashed check—the smoking gun—and there will be more smoking guns coming. Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly engaged in bribe taking, otherwise known as ‘pay for play.’ Joe did not destroy evidence like Hillary. It’s still out there in the form of bank records…..

—Ben Garrison

website

Will there be queues of Russians lining up to borrow screwdrivers from the neighbours?