KEY POINTS:
The Government has signed its first Head of Agreement with iwi under the Foreshore and Seabed Act - a "historic moment" which prompted immediate criticism from the Maori Party and Green Party.
The Government yesterday signed the agreement with about 41 Ngati Porou hapu, laying out rights and
powers the hapu will have in the management of the foreshore and seabed in their rohe [tribal areas] along the East Coast.
It includes the power to veto developments - such as marinas, aquaculture farms and marine reserves - in specific areas and allows hapu to bypass the resource consent process and district plan rules for certain "customary activities."
It is the first agreement to reach this stage under the controversial act, and Attorney-General Michael Cullen yesterday said it marked a maturing in the relationship between Crown and iwi after the initial "heat" from the introduction of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
However, the Green and Maori Party have claimed the Government is using Ngati Porou in a "divide and rule" game to try to show iwi have now accepted it.
The final agreement for Ngati Porou is still some time away and must be passed by Parliament, which is unlikely before the election.
The 2004 act vested ownership of the seabed and the coastline below the high tide mark in the Crown and provoked a storm protest from Maori claiming it stripped them of legal rights to claim for title in the seabed and foreshore.
The Maori Party and Green Party continue to demand the repeal or amendment of the act despite the Ngati Porou deal.
However, the first agreement effectively makes it difficult to repeal or alter the legislation without affecting rights conferred under it.
Yesterday, National leader John Key said his party had not yet come to a decision on what it would do with the law, but a full-scale repeal was now difficult. "One of our concerns about repealing it is people in good faith are negotiating customary rights under the new law and to repeal it would simply take those newly negotiated rights off them."
Mr Key said he could not comment on the contents of the Ngati Porou agreement, because he had not had a chance to review it. "But we hope the Government has got the balance right between Maori customary rights and the public interest."
However, yesterday Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who has a member's bill before Parliament to repeal the act, said it was a "sham charade" and Ngati Porou had bought into Government "paternalism" by entering an agreement for rights which it already had.
But Ngati Porou runanga chairman Api Mahuika hit back at the Maori Party, saying it should congratulate Ngati Porou for cementing its rights.
"If that is the policy of the Maori Party, then I would warn Maori people to think again before they vote in that direction, because if they are the Maori Party they should actually be saying to Ngati Porou 'congratulations for making inroads and creating a precedent for others to follow'."
Dr Mahuika said he did not believe the agreement would be affected by a change in government because Ngati Porou had worked in good faith.
"We're not concerned about that because we believe there is a process that has been put into place by this Government and we will stand by this agreement," he said.
The Green Party's Maori affairs spokesperson Metiria Turei said the Government was using Ngati Porou in "a divide and rule tactic" because it indicated an iwi had accepted the law.
The agreement:
* Applies to hapu who sign it - about 40 of 51 Ngati Porou hapu - for seabed and foreshore from Cape Runaway to Turanganui River in Gisborne.
* Allows veto rights over applications for developments such as marine reserves, and aquaculture ventures in specific "territorial customary rights areas", which must be approved by the High Court.
* Hapu approval needed for some resource consent applications that adversely effect "customary activities" throughout the rohe.
* Allows hapu to carry out customary activities - yet to be defined - without resource consent or compliance with local body plans, although restrictions can be placed on this.
* Wide range of rights consultation and co-management rights.
