Foreshore and Seabed Bill starts last lap

By RUTH BERRY

We believe we have a far better piece of legislation - you won't get any better protection mechanism for sacrosanct land. John Tamihere

Maori groups with strong ownership interests in the foreshore and seabed will be able to negotiate governance powers over the coastal areas, under legislation set to be passed under urgency this week.

The final Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which has undergone a number of mutations, is expected to be finally signed off at Cabinet today and by the Labour caucus tomorrow before being introduced in the afternoon.

New Zealand First has already signalled its support, but will also have to give its final approval before the bill goes to the House.

A number of changes have been made to the legislation since it was mooted last year and first introduced earlier this year.

The primary changes to the introduced bill will revolve around giving greater clarity to redress provisions.

The bill initially said redress would be negotiated between the Government and a group if the High Court declared it had a strong territorial customary right (TCR) claim, but for the assertion of Crown ownership.

But it did not spell out what redress could then be negotiated, sparking accusations redress could result in nothing.

Under the supplementary order paper to be tabled, a basic redress model will be laid out.

It will be similar to the Maori Reservations model recently proposed by Government MPs on the foreshore select committee, enabling groups with strong claims to take a trustee-type responsibility over the relevant coastal area.

The bill will direct groups to enter negotiations with local authorities to draw up an agreement, defining the governance model and powers.

While local authorities may also be trustees, the applicant group would be the dominant group under the governance model, sources say.

If an agreement can't be reached, the bill directs the parties back to the High Court, which will then determine a resolution.

All agreements will be registered through a court consent order.

Groups are still set to be able to bypass the court and enter directly into private negotiations with the Government and local authorities - although this is a sticking point with NZ First the Government is still finally resolving.

Those groups would also require a consent order cementing the deal.

The Government is still engaged in private negotiations with East Coast tribes who wanted to reach a deal before the bill was passed in order to protect their ownership interests.

They have run out of time and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen is scheduled to meet Ngati Porou and Te Whanau a Apanui representatives today in an attempt to assuage their concerns.

Ancestral connection orders, recognising traditional associations with coastal areas, were unpopular with Maori submitters and have also been dumped from the bill.

While they were an unpopular mechanism, they were also heralded by the Government as a way of taking a stick to local authorities who were not meeting their consultation obligations to Maori.

It appears this concomitant plan has fallen by the wayside in terms of the bill.

But Dr Cullen, in a speech to the Labour Party conference yesterday, signalled the issue still needed addressing, saying the controversy had thrown up the need to "continue to improve the effectiveness of the current processes of consultation".

He also said the bill would spell out the TCR threshold.

"That includes tests relating to continuity, contiguity of land ownership and exclusive use and occupation."

A maximum of 10 per cent of coastal land is in communal Maori ownership - the land most likely to be placed under a form of Maori trusteeship following redress negotiations.

Negotiations have also seen the powers of the Minister of Maori Affairs beefed up, lessening those of the Conservation Minister.

Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia said in the view of the Labour Maori caucus "it is where we want to get to".

Tamaki Makaurau MP John Tamihere said "we believe we have a far better piece of legislation. You won't get any better protection mechanism for sacrosanct land."