Change likely in foreshore plan

By RUTH BERRY political reporter

The Government appears set to define the foreshore and seabed as public domain vested in Crown ownership in its latest contortion designed to win support for its proposed legislation.

The plan would enable it to defuse National's main objection to the plan and to counter accusations of a u-turn.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen and United Future leader Peter Dunne hinted at the compromise solution in Parliament yesterday.

Dr Cullen said: "The concepts of Crown ownership and public domain are not mutually exclusive."

Mr Dunne later refused to confirm the Government's intention, but said placing the foreshore and seabed in public domain vested in the Crown was the best solution.

United Future has pledged to support the legislation, and NZ First says it will support Crown ownership.

On Tuesday, NZ First leader Winston Peters offered conditional support to Helen Clark's commission of inquiry into Treaty of Waitangi issues.

He named the vesting of foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership as one of the trade-offs.


Yesterday, Mr Peters said he did not believe the Government was planning a combined Crown ownership/public domain approach and his party would not support one.

"You can't have both. Don't be ridiculous," he said.

But the Herald understands the Government has been favouring this approach for several weeks.

Most of the Government's Maori MPs believe it is more honest to overtly assert Crown ownership, and some believe it could bring benefits.

Tainui MP Nanaia Mahuta, who is still considering crossing the floor over the legislation, said overt Crown ownership would make the Crown's obligations to Maori clearer.

Last year, Attorney-General Margaret Wilson triggered a furious reaction from Maori when she said, within days of the Court of Appeal foreshore decision, that Crown ownership would be asserted.

The Government backed away from the term and began talking about "public domain" instead.

But Crown "ownership" remained at least implicit.


The Waitangi Tribunal said the difference between vesting in the people of New Zealand and vesting in the Crown was "symbolic only and is most unlikely to have any significant legal implications".

Act, the Green Party and most Labour MPs agree.

National, which has made Crown ownership its key plank, maintains anything but explicit Crown ownership creates uncertainty.


Mr Dunne said it was important to highlight Crown ownership but also the fact the areas were held on everyone's behalf.

Public domain provided "protection against the possibility that the Crown might one day "divest itself somehow of the foreshore and seabed", he said.

Professor Margaret Mutu of the lobby group Te Ope Mana a Tai said the argument was semantic only and the real issue was the confiscation of Maori land and rights.

* A spokesman for Helen Clark said yesterday the Government was continuing to consult on the proposed treaty inquiry, and would not be rushed.

The choices

The Government's options in December for "legally defining the foreshore and seabed as public domain unable to be sold or otherwise alienated" were:

* Vesting the foreshore and seabed land in the Crown.

* Vesting the foreshore and seabed in the people of New Zealand.

* At that time, it opted for the people, saying the word "Crown" was considered divisive.