Editorial: Another go at the foreshore and seabed

OPINION: If anything exemplifies the sea change in National Party, and national, politics, it can be found in the twists and turns over the foreshore and seabed.

Don Brash brought the party back from the brink with a speech at Orewa in 2004 that focused on so-called race-based privilege and, while popular with the general public, appeared to have struck a mortal blow to the always tenuous relationship between National and Maori. Dr Brash subsequently dealt Maori mana another blow when he removed Maori Affairs spokeswoman Georgina te Heuheu from her portfolio for refusing to endorse his ideas.

Fast forward five years, and Mrs te Heuheu is Associate Minister of Maori Affairs and holds the Pacific Islands portfolio, and National and the Maori Party appear to have a warm and growing working relationship. The latter party, of course, was born out of Maori anger over the Labour Government's ill-considered 2004 legislation blocking iwi from taking a claim for title to parts of the foreshore and seabed to court. That single action destroyed a cosy and long-standing relationship between Labour and Maori, and might yet help to ensure the John Key dynasty is a lengthy one.

Now, to complete the turnaround, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has been charged by the prime minister with rewriting the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Mr Key expects him to come up with legislation that will win cross-party support. One option is simply to scrap the old law without replacing it. This would take the country back to where it was in 2003, when Ngati Apa won a Court of Appeal ruling that it was entitled to test its case in court for a mussel-farming licence in its traditional rohe (area) in the Marlborough Sounds. That led to a public outcry, including a large protest march in Nelson by those concerned that the ruling might ultimately mean people were denied access to the coast, or that if granted ordinary title for specific coastal sites, Maori would eventually sell it.

Such suggestions were always denied by iwi, but they generated mileage for conservative politicians and spooked Labour into writing law seen as flawed. Hopefully, Mr Finlayson will rise to the challenge and produce legislation superior to the status quo. Though the right to seek redress should never have been denied Maori, there are surely better, cheaper and less divisive ways for them to have any claims or grievances heard. It is also worth noting that one iwi, Ngati Porou, has already negotiated a customary rights claim under the existing act, suggesting Labour's legislation is workable and the problems are more about perception than reality.

Though the pressure is on the attorney-general to solve a vexing issue, much of the political heat has evaporated. There is awareness that iwi do not expect to sell our beaches or close them to the general public – apart, perhaps, from some urupa (burial places) – and Mr Key has made it clear that this will be the bottom line of any new law. MPs will be able to consider the Finlayson rewrite thoroughly and calmly – something that did not happen under the previous government. Rushed, kneejerk legislation to placate the mob rarely makes good law.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First