No Maori guardianship of seabed - Nats

07 April 2005
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3240761a10,00.html

A National government would not allow any group of New Zealanders to have guardianship over the seabed and foreshore, National Party leader Don Brash said today. Dr Brash made the policy announcement at Waiotahi Beach on the East Coast.

This beach is the subject of the first claim under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Maori Land Court has agreed to hear the Whakatohea iwi's claim for kaitiakitanga [authority and guardianship] over the 50km stretch of coastline running east of Whakatane.

Whakatohea say they will not restrict public access to the beaches. But Dr Brash said today that if the claim was successful, Whakatohea would have guardianship over the coast. "As far as most New Zealanders are concerned, this was never the intention of the legislation," Dr Brash said.

The National Party has said it will repeal the Government's controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act. Today it said specifically it would rule out guardianship over the seabed and foreshore by any group of New Zealanders.

National would amend the Government's "bungled legislation," Dr Brash said in a statement. He told National Radio today that if Whakatohea did get guardianship and authority over the stretch of beach it was laying claim over, it would have "some kind of veto right".

"The right in itself may or may not be exercised aggressively in the short term but giving a right of that kind means that down the track if you want a consent under the Resource Management Act, for example, the iwi - as we read it - would have a right of veto over that development. If you want to do some fishing activity in the area the iwi might well have a right of veto or at least a right to comment on, to influence, that right as well. What we're saying is this legislation has created this uncertainty, the way the Government brought it into being has created the uncertainty, we're saying the beaches should belong to everyone. I think where there are customary rights for example to gather mutton birds or launch a waka from a particular site, I think those claims could be dealt with under the treaty settlement process. But generally rights to have guardianship or authority over substantial chunks of the coastline simple aren't on. If we don't deal with this firmly now we'll have scores of these claims," Dr Brash said.

The Government had fuelled expectations by telling non-Maori that their beaches were safe while telling Maori New Zealanders that they would have "some special claim, some special rights" over the seabed and foreshore, Dr Brash said.

National was "drawing a line in the sand" over the issue. It would remove any preferential treatment for Maori over the seabed and foreshore. "No special deals for any special group of New Zealanders," Dr Brash said. "The National Party holds that the beaches and seabed should be owned by all New Zealanders, not by any subset of New Zealanders," he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen rubbished National's policy statement, saying there was nothing to be reclaimed. "The Government is satisfied that the legislation achieves an appropriate balance between the rights of all New Zealanders to enjoy the coastline and Maori customary interests as the tangata whenua of this country. "I think most New Zealanders share that view."

Dr Cullen said in a statement that the Act clearly stated the Crown was the full and beneficial owner of the public foreshore and seabed. The Act also clearly provided that the Maori Land Court must not make customary rights orders that restricted or had the effect of restricting public access or rights of navigation.

The Whakatohea claim before the Maori Land Court was at the interlocutory stage only. "The Crown will be taking a vigorous stance before the Court in support of Parliament's intentions in the Act and will appeal the judgement if we believe that is justified."