Just two and half minutes each for iwi to present submissions

11 August 2004

Eight iwi given only two and half minutes each to present their submissions on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill yesterday were not getting the promised opportunity to have their say, their representative told MPs.

Kensington Swan lawyer Baden Vertongen presented submissions on behalf of Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Ngaruahine, Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti, Te Whanau a Kai, Ngati Hineuru, Ngati Tionga hapu of Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Oneone but only got 20 minutes to do so.

Normally 20 minutes is allowed for each submission. A special select committee is reading about 4000 written submissions and hearing 2000 oral submissions on the bill.

Yesterday Mr Vertongen complained to the committee that politicians had repeatedly promised Maori a proper chance to make their points. "We would like to express the anger, frustration, and hurt that our clients and the whanau and hapu they represent, feel in the prospect that they are not going to be given the courtesy to be adequately heard on a bill that proposes to remove rights they and their tipuna (ancestors) have held in the foreshore and seabed for many generations," he said. Mr Vertongen was only been given a day's notice to prepare and no alternatives were offered. "We were told that this week was the only opportunity for clients we represent to be heard and that the select committee would be very limited in the other places it would be going. We represent clients throughout the North Island and were told the select committee would possibly be visiting Auckland and that would be the only other place to go. This was essentially given as a take it or lose it opportunity today." Mr Vertongen said the failure to listen to Maori threatened to make extremists of the most conservative of Maori.

Committee member ACT MP Richard Prebble sympathised. "I think it's an outrage how long you have been given." However, committee chairman Russell Fairbrother emphasised that each group's substantial printed submission had been read by the MPs.

Among concerns raised in submissions by iwi was that the bill was not about protecting public access but was about removing Maori rights so the Crown could allocate benefits to other groups for example Marine farming. "The 1860s Raupatu (land confiscations) took land rights from Maori and reallocated those property rights to settlers and farmers. In 2004 the Crown is taking property rights from Maori so it can allocate interests to farmers - this time marine farmers," Mr Vertongen said. He said in return Maori would get token customary and ancestral rights.