Fran O'Sullivan writes that the Maori Party is doing itself a disservice by acquiescing to National's foreshore 'solution'.
The National Government's "solution" to the controversial foreshore and seabed affair is patronising, adds an unnecessary layer of Maori bureaucracy when it comes to the administration of our coastal areas and paves the way for future "brownmail".
The better solution would simply be to restore the ability by Maori to pursue any property rights they have to "customary title" in the foreshore and seabed through the courts, then leave it to the government of the day to negotiate settlements to proven claims in a fashion which acknowledges cultural and commercial aspects - not try and pose a political "solution" when the potential grievance has yet to be fully defined.
It's unfathomable that Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are chasing this horse right now. Instead of trying for a quick settlement to "customary title" claims which will embed an outdated way of doing things, they would have been better off letting the courts process continue and using their political muscle to extract a share of the prospective government royalties from New Zealand's potential $400 billion oil and gas bonanza that lies not just on land, but beneath the foreshore and seabed itself.
This would enable Maori to gain a much more valuable and modern financial springboard for their future, instead of embedding a "Maori world view" that may not serve the best long-term interests of their future generations.
It is not as if the grounds for such a campaign are not compelling.
The Waitangi Tribunal found in 2003 that a number of Taranaki iwi, including Nga Ruahinerangi, Nga Rauru and Ngati Ruanui had legal title to the petroleum in their land before petroleum rights were nationalised under the Petroleum Act 1937.
The tribunal found it was a breach of Treaty Of Waitangi principles for the Crown to exclude petroleum from claim settlements and recommended that the Crown's royalties and its 11 per cent ownership stake in the Kupe gas field should be available for inclusion in settlements.
But former Labour attorney-general Margaret Wilson stomped on the tribunal's recommendation. Wilson said the government believed it was in the country's interests to nationalise petroleum resources.
In fact, the tribunal said the 1937 Petroleum Act was passed over the opposition of Maori, although in a climate building to war.
It said the then government's strategic concerns were undoubtedly genuine given the worrying signs of Japanese and German expansionism, but noted that the government added to the sense of emergency, appealing strongly to the "national/imperial interest".
"Maori objected not to the Crown taking control of a strategic resource but to the failure either to compensate them for the loss of their rights in petroleum, which, as a natural feature of the land, they saw as protected under the Treaty of Waitangi, or, alternatively, to make provision for their ongoing interest in the form of a right in the royalties," the tribunal said.
What makes the Maori case even more attractive is the fact that officials now believe the oil and gas has the potential to produce $10 billion annually for the Government from royalties and taxation over a 40-year period.
National's stopgap solution on the foreshore and seabed is clearly designed to keep Maori Party support in Parliament. Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has issued a discussion document which basically entails the repeal of the controversial 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act , and, vesting the foreshore and seabed in "public domain"; a new concept which effectively means that nobody - Crown, Maori or private persons (except for those private persons who already own affected areas) - will have outright ownership. Public access to the foreshore and seabed will be preserved, and fishing quota will be not be affected.
But the Finlayson document doesn't really get to the heart of what many Maori leaders want - the ability to expand their property interests in parts of the foreshore and seabed, and maximise the financial returns from "ownership" of its potential riches.
This became clear when Ngai Tahu leader Mark Solomon told the Herald's Audrey Young that the Government needed to clarify vital issues such as:
* The definition of public domain.
* Who holds the right to go to court and/or negotiate with the Crown.
* The scope of development rights and ability to share in the benefits of commercial developments.
* The status of non-nationalised minerals (all minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium) and the rights of hapu and iwi to those resources.
* Whether legal aid would be available to iwi or hapu to seek recognition of their rights in courts or negotiations.
Maori have already been short-changed by the previous government. They do not need to short-change themselves again.
Neither does New Zealand as a whole need to endure the uncertainty that will be created when coastal iwi - that do manage to get their customary title recognised through direct negotiations with government or through the courts - exercise their proposed veto over coastal development by claiming it conflicts with a "Maori world view".
Or wonder what will happen when existing coastal permits expire.
There is no need for undue haste here.
