Hapu wants moratorium on Kaipara power project

Former police assistant commissioner Clint Rickards attends a hui about the Government's options to repeal and replace the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. Photo / Dean Purcell

A Ngati Whatua hapu has asked the Attorney-General to place a moratorium on the planned $600 million Crest Energy tidal flow electricity project in the Kaipara Harbour until the foreshore and seabed issue is sorted out.

Chris Finlayson is leading a Crown consultation hui programme around the country talking to Maori about the Government's options to repeal and replace the 2004 act.

Of four options, which include two forms of Crown ownership and one form of Maori ownership, the Government prefers that no single group owns the contested wet area. Instead, it would be treated as public domain.

But Te Uri o Hau hapu members, such as William Wright who addressed Mr Finlayson yesterday at Puatahi Marae, said if the project was allowed to go ahead that would confer on the developer rights akin to property rights, which, in the current environment, wasn't right.

"It is seen as a form of ownership.

"I stand here to request you to give us your support to halt the progression of the Crest Energy proposal until the foreshore and seabed matter has been settled."

Mr Wright said a moratorium made sense given that Ngati Whatua had still to negotiate its Kaipara Harbour settlement.

The iwi took its opposition to the project to the Environment Court because it said the development could impact adversely on the harbour, which is the major spawning ground for west coast snapper.

Mr Finlayson met Te Uri o Hau after the hui and told the Herald he'd made investigations with Crown Law, which would report to him this week.

Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira said another repeal option which isn't on the Government's books could benefit the tribe.

He is pushing for a form of Maori ownership known as Tupuna Title where Maori would not have to prove in court their customary interests in the foreshore and seabed.

"It would then be a case where the Crown would have to negotiate with others who wanted to have an interest in the foreshore and seabed."