Cullen rejects commercial development rights claim

By RUTH BERRY political reporter

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen rejects claims that commercial development rights to minerals flow from the Court of Appeal's foreshore and seabed decision.

He says iwi and hapu who believe otherwise have read things into the decision that are not there.

But several iwi say Government attempts to restrict the parameters of the debate will prevent resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue.

A Te Tau Ihu-led group has warned the Government must acknowledge a range of commercial rights were tied to customary use of the coastal environment.

"The recent decision of the Court of Appeal is inextricably linked to any discussion on customary rights," said a discussion document released by the group, Te Ope Mana a Tai.

The court's ruling, together with a Waitangi Tribunal ruling that Maori continued to have an interest in petroleum, reinforced the view that "customary rights are broad in nature and ... include a development right to the resources located throughout the coastal marine area".

Petroleum, gold, silver and uranium are owned and managed by the Crown under the Crown Minerals Act, and the Government this year rejected the findings of the tribunal's petroleum report.

But several tribes continue to assert rights to exploit and regulate the use of those resources, usually through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.

Federation of Maori Authorities deputy executive chairman Paul Morgan, from Te Tau Ihu, said the Court of Appeal decision meant "as far as we are concerned all natural resources are [now] back on the table".

The ruling made it clear customary title to the foreshore and seabed had never been extinguished, and iwi had always believed the right to exploit resources went hand in hand with ownership.

Hauraki Maori Trust Board spokesman John McEnteer said yesterday that the court decision strengthened Hauraki's mineral claims and Dr Cullen was drawing distinctions which "you can't draw at all".

Dr Cullen said that although commercial development rights had emerged from the treaty settlement process, there was no reference to them in the Court of Appeal decision. "This is not a development right issue," he said. " Some people are trying to transform it into that. I don't know why they are making this leap."

Coastal rights around commercial fisheries had been resolved and the Crown owned key minerals, regardless of who owned the land - so almost all significant exploitable resources appeared off the table.

"You have got to try and imagine something which is on foreshore and seabed, which is not covered by existing law like minerals or fisheries, which might involve customary rights from which there might be a commercial development," he said.

"Well, maybe there are such things but I find it hard to imagine them."

Dr Cullen said the Maori Land Court would be left to define what customary rights were, but hinted if it went too far, governments could overrule its decisions.