Proposal needs more work, insists tribal leadership group

Naida Glavish. Photo / Martin Sykes

The iwi leadership group of eight tribal leaders last night said the Government's proposal needed more work and clarification - including the ownership of minerals.

Chairman and Ngai Tahu leader Mark Solomon identified five issues that needed clarification: the definition of public domain; who holds the right to go to court and/or negotiate with the Crown; the scope of development rights and ability to share in the benefits of commercial developments; the status of non-nationalised minerals (all minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium) and the rights of hapu and iwi to those resources; and whether legal aid would be available to iwi or hapu to seek recognition of their rights in courts or negotiations.

Mr Solomon said there were three possible responses to the Government's proposals - to accept them, improve them or substitute an alternative approach.

The iwi leadership group has produced a paper with four alternatives, including the one suggested by Maori Party MP Hone Harawira of Maori title, resulting in ownership being held by Maori.

Naida Glavish, the chairwoman of Ngati Whatua, said "the Crown's proposal to recognise our mana and kaitiaki [guardianship] role over the foreshore and seabed needs more work ... and resolution will come from new and creative thinking."

Waikato-Tainui leader Tukuroirangi Morgan said the framework "must be transformative and recognise the inherited mana and obligation of iwi and hapu to act as kaitiaki of their rohe moana [foreshore and seabed]."

Labour has indicated it will support National's proposals to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Shadow Attorney-General David Parker said Labour saw very little difference between Crown ownership at present and the proposed concept of "public domain" in which no one owns the foreshore and seabed.

And rights that would be awarded to an iwi under customary title were similar to those that had been negotiated with Ngati Porou under the current act.

He said Labour would be more likely to vote for it on the basis that it was similar to the law than oppose it because there was no need for it.

He had a caveat, however. He wanted to have a further look at the lowering of the threshold test that would apply for iwi to be awarded customary title.

The change to "public domain" was not a change in substance, he said, but a change in name.

"But there is difference in substance if you change the threshold test for customary title.

"We are not quite sure what it means yet."

The Act Party has concerns about potential problems under the concept of public domain, which has been translated as "takiwha iwi whanui."

MP David Garrett said it was an "entirely new concept" and problems could arise in the translation of it by the courts, as had happened with "taonga" in the Treaty of Waitangi.

Act preferred the option that would simply restore the right of Maori to test their claims in the court.

United Future leader Peter Dunne welcomed the return of the concept of public domain - he proposed it under the Labour solution before it was dropped in favour of Crown ownership at the insistence of New Zealand First.