Brash fires salvo at foreshore bill

By AUDREY YOUNG political editor

The Foreshore and Seabed Bill will give Maori dual management over virtually the entire coastline, National leader Don Brash argued yesterday in his first major speech on the issue since the legislation was introduced.

And he implied that Maori would charge "koha" to drop objections to activities by non-Maori developers.

Dr Brash said the Government was conning the public and delivering two competing messages about the policy: it was telling all New Zealanders they owned the beaches because ownership would be vested in the Crown; and it was telling Maori that they would have control.

"It's a ticking time-bomb that's begging for treaty industry opportunism.

"It paves the way for dual management over our coast with the words 'ancestral connection'."

Dr Brash's speech drew a sharp attack from Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen and New Zealand First MP Dail Jones, both of whom claimed he was misrepresenting the policy.

New Zealand First is providing essential votes to the Government to support the bill.

National has spent several weeks consulting resource management law experts over the bill since it was introduced just before Easter.

"The proposed legislation opens the way for an extension of the powers of the Maori Land Court and will undoubtedly signal the beginning of a whole new grievance industry," Dr Brash said.

Maori would get new rights of consultation and rent-seeking while special Resource Management Act provisions "would give greater weight to the Maori point of view".

Some Maori approached the Resource Management Act with three simple rules: "Object, object, object."

"And we know from experience that there is usually a way around the regulatory deadlock - it's called koha.

"We all better get used to that word because we'll be using it a lot more under this Government."

Dr Brash has concluded that the test for groups to establish "ancestral connection" is much lower than that set for the Maori Land Court to award customary rights orders.

He also said the bill limited the chance for non-Maori to object to Maori claims of ancestral connection before the Maori Land Court.

"It effectively shuts them out of the Maori Land Court decision-making process," Dr Brash said.

Maori applicants were automatically entitled to representation but non-Maori objectors would have to prove they had "an interest in the proceeding that is different from an interest in common with the public generally".

"I'm desperately worried that these policies will put the future development and protection of our foreshore and seabed in the hands of minorities whose primary interest will be in lining their own pockets."

Dr Cullen said Dr Brash's speech was full of "half-truths and nonsense".

His claim that the bill imposed two standards of representation was wrong and divisive, Dr Cullen said. "The distinction the bill draws in terms of a right to be heard in legal proceedings is between applicants and objectors, not between Maori and non-Maori.

"Both Maori and non-Maori wishing to lodge an objection to a claim have to meet the same test; they have to establish that they have an interest different to the common public interest."

Mr Jones said Dr Brash was either naive or mischievous and he would be happy to explain the legislation to him. Unlike Dr Brash, he believes the test for ancestral connection is the same as that for customary rights - uninterrupted use since 1840.

* A hikoi protesting at the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation set out from Cape Reinga yesterday.

The protest march is intended to arrive in Wellington on May 5, when Parliament is likely to be voting on the bill for the first time.

The law

A 10-step guide to the Foreshore and Seabed legislation ...

* It started when eight iwi took a claim for customary title over the Marlborough Sounds to the Maori Land Court.

* It is the Government's response to the Court of Appeal judgment last June recognising the possibility that the Maori Land Court could award fee simple title over the foreshore and seabed - something the Government says is an unintended consequence of Te Ture Whenua Act 1993.

* It prevents the Maori Land Court awarding private title.

* It vests ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, which some Maori say is confiscation.

* It establishes a system under which the Maori Land Court can register groups' ancestral connection with particular coastal areas if they have had a connection with the area at least since 1840.

* It allows Maori groups to avoid the courts and approach the Government to directly negotiate agreements for "ancestral connection".

* It establishes a system under the Maori Land Court to register customary rights of groups that have carried on a particular activity in an area largely uninterrupted since 1840.

* It gives groups with ancestral connections or customary rights orders greater rights in decision-making with local government bodies under the Resource Management Act and Conservation Act, and is in some cases a veto.

* It abolishes the right of Maori to claim customary title (also known as aboriginal title) under the High Court common law jurisdiction.

* It renames "customary title" as "territorial customary rights" and requires the High Court to refer cases to the Government for redress if it finds that the claimants would have been awarded customary title were it not for the legislation preventing this happening.