Panepane Point legalities

Following on from my recent expose (January 26) on the PanePane Point fiasco, I note that Western Bay District Council declined the offer of a right of reply on this issue and my correct assessment of the situation – hardly surprising because council cannot defend the indefensible.

Much of the Matakana Island is general, not Maori land. Roads, wharves etc. are public domain and, of course, the beaches are for public use.

The harbour purposes for which the land was taken and paid for in 1923 still exists today and will do so for the foreseeable future. If and when the purpose for which the land was taken ceases, then land, as I understand the Public Works Act, must first be offered back to the original owners or their successors.

No other iwi/hapu, nor anyone else, have any rights whatsoever to the land, so why on earth council is talking to or negotiating with present agitators heaven only knows.

Council is unlawfully interfering with the legal rights of the original Maori owners and their successors. The Minister of Local Government needs to step in and stop this nonsense with a declaration that Panepane Point is still needed for harbour purposes and until no longer required, no disposition of the land can be made to anyone.

R Paterson, Matapihi.


@ crazyhorse

Posted on 12-02-2018 13:51 | By waxing

I repeat. There is nothing in public records, including any media, that shows/reports Maori protestors assaulting staff in the Kaitaia terminal. You obviously must have been watching some show. And since you reject the history that Maori chose Britain for a treaty, please share with us what will be your extremely interesting version of NZ history.

LOL!!, Amnesia Oasis,DUH!

Posted on 12-02-2018 08:09 | By crazyhorse

Lol, anyone watching the national news when the protestors dragged staff from their seats in the airport offices at Kaitaia saw what happened, do you get your news the same place you get your history, maori picked the British for a treaty you reckon!!, I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad and bizarre.


Posted on 11-02-2018 15:50 | By waxing

There were thousands involved in the protests. How many were charged for blocking the Hutt/Wellington motorway for example? The protestors at Kaitai airport did not occupy the terminal at any stage - you must be fantasising again. Six people outside were arrested and charged with trespass when they wouldn’t move on when the police instructed them to. No public record anywhere supports what you are saying. Looks like you’re having problems with the facts again.

Waxo Bell

Posted on 10-02-2018 17:23 | By crazyhorse

Those protests you talk about, people were changed and convicted, non for Kaitia airport or blocking the wharf on Matakana and as far as the assaults on the staff at the airport it was on TV staff being dragged from there chairs at their desks, that’s assault, and it was one convicted, why?.

@ crazyhorse: Kaitaia Airport occupation

Posted on 09-02-2018 18:45 | By waxing

What evidence do you have of any assaults on people during the airport land occupation? The terminal was not occupied. The protestors allowed a plane and a fuel truck to be retrieved. And six protestors were arrested when they refused to leave. Bit of a different story to what you have presented, again.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 09-02-2018 18:32 | By waxing

I’m sorry you don’t see to keep up with the news and current events, or that you only seem to concentrate on anything involving Maori. But you wanted examples: TPPA protests. G7 protests, Springbok Tour protests, CND protests etc etc. How long a list do you want? And what a silly comment to say that only Maori get away with their protests. The above examples alone prove you wrong, again.

Waxo blocking a wharf

Posted on 08-02-2018 22:35 | By crazyhorse

Is not legal, just like the assaults on the people in the airport up North during their occupation, it’s just something only Maori can get away with, unless you have other examples including non Maori, have you Waxo?.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 07-02-2018 11:53 | By waxing

What a silly comment again. Blocking the wharf was protesting about all the mess that visitors leave behind them. It’s turned out to be a very effective protest with actions now in place to address the issues. Just like many other protests by all sorts of people (yes, even pakeha) that highlight issues of concern and have nothing to do with the treaty.


Posted on 05-02-2018 20:00 | By crazyhorse

And blocking the only way onto the island is the way to go about this, block the jetty this time they can block it anytime, not as if local government has the guts to do anything about it,just cut off all services they can pretend it’s

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 04-02-2018 16:32 | By waxing

I’m sorry you failed to read my comments properly and don’t realise that much of the land acquired was not needed and is in fact now leased to a forestry company. The proposal would see public access retained for the areas the public accesses now. But crazyhorse wants access to all of it. So please give us your address, as it seems you are keen for me and the public to access privately owned land, and I assume this applies to your own property.....

Public access to parts.

Posted on 03-02-2018 19:58 | By crazyhorse

Of the land, abut sums it up,

Facts please

Posted on 02-02-2018 12:50 | By waxing

Mr Paterson continues his struggle with the facts. Matakana Island has been continuously populated for centuries (well before colonisation) by a number of Maori tribes mostly associated with Ngai Te Rangi.The issue is that most of the 200ha has not been used for the purpose it was taken for under the Public Works Act in 1923, with only a small area needed for the navigational lights and beacon. The majority of the area is leased to a forestry company. An agreement similar to that developed for the ownership and governance of Mauao is possible, with the land to be transferred to iwi becoming a reserve, with access guaranteed to harbour navigational aids and public access to parts of the land.Why does Mr Paterson have any objection to that?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

Should the speed on SH2, between Katikati and Bethlehem, be reduced to 80km/h?