Editorial: Not a time to lose cool over coastal debate

Chris Finlayson. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

Not often do New Zealanders get to know what their politicians really think. The common currency is a courteousness that renders most public statements fairly glib.

Rarely is a spade called a spade. Not so the Attorney-General and Treaty Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson, however.

Over the past couple of weeks, he has called Ngati Kahu protesters "stupid" and told them they could "go to hell' if they thought he would meet them after they moved on to land near Taipa. He has also called members of the Coastal Coalition "clowns" and their views "profoundly sickening".

To a certain extent, it is refreshing to hear a minister speaking so directly. Indeed, such remarks would raise few eyebrows across the Tasman, where little is held back in the cut and thrust of debate.

But this is not Australia, and Mr Finlayson's remarks betray a degree of exasperation that is, on balance, unhelpful in a Government minister embroiled in controversial legislation and sensitive negotiations.

The chief source of his frustration is, of course, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which is intended to replace the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Mr Finlayson has laboured long and hard to achieve a piece of legislation that will meet Maori objections to the present law, while balancing customary rights and the public interest. His promotion of it has seen him speak at public meetings and private National Party gatherings in various centres.

Yet even before this week's oral submissions to the Maori affairs select committee, it was apparent he had not succeeded in staunching the criticism.

Mr Finlayson's main grievance has been with the Coastal Coalition, which he says, with some justification, is spreading "mistruths".

He told the Herald that "he was not going to be beaten by these clowns", and would willingly give up his summer holidays to hold more public meetings countering their claims.

The coalition has responded by asking the Prime Minister to remove Mr Finlayson from duties on the legislation. It was vital, said spokeswoman Muriel Newman, that the minister in charge of the bill remained objective and open-minded.

That criticism is somewhat lame, given that all ministers have a stake in bills they introduce. Indeed, Mr Finlayson has been selling this solution at public meetings since the ministerial review of the law was released and before the bill was even drafted.

Yet it can hardly be claimed he has not remained open-minded. He has, for example, said he would consider an Act amendment that ruled out any charge for access to areas held in customary title.

John Key is highly unlikely to meet the coalition's request to remove Mr Finlayson. But he may well ask him to tone down his remarks. Such a step is probably well advised because there will surely be further criticism of the bill as it works its way through Parliament.

Indeed, the debate is likely to heat up. As much has been guaranteed not only by the Coastal Coalition but by the Maori Party, which has said it would pull its support for the bill if there is strong Maori opposition.

On cue, Maori Party MP Hone Harawira told the select committee this week that the legislation was "dog tucker". It failed to deliver for Maori but also managed to anger "rednecks", he said.

In many respects, Mr Finlayson is not a typical politician. That may explain his readiness to resort to non-political language.

But shepherding the Marine and Coastal Area Bill through Parliament will require considerable political skill. As exasperated as he may be, and as enlightening as his views are, there is little future in language that will serve only to heat up the debate.