Compromise suggested on control of foreshore

By RUTH BERRY, political reporter

Iwi and hapu gathering for the third national foreshore and seabed hui today are being asked to review resolutions that only they should control the use of the coastal marine area and its resources.

The compromise, involving sharing that power with the Crown, has been floated by the working group Te Ope Mana a Tai as an option which may be politically more palatable.

Such a model could be based on the treaty partnership, says the working group of iwi representatives.

Two national Maori hui have asserted that whanau, hapu and iwi have exclusive rights over the coastal marine area.

The Government has previously suggested the position taken at the earlier hui was a negotiating one, and at least some hapu and iwi leaders were privately suggesting there could be compromise on it.

Its own position remains unclear, aside from a firm plan to extinguish the right of iwi and hapu to claim fee simple title in the Maori Land Court.

The Government said this week it wanted more time to resolve the issue.

Today's hui is being hosted by Te Arawa, in Rotorua, and the compromise option was included in a paper containing draft options for resolution of the issue prepared by Te Ope Mana a Tai.

It has not stated its preference.

Te Arawa Trust Board chairman Arapeta Tahana said yesterday it was hoped agreement on which solution should be advanced could be reached at the hui.

The paper said the Government had asserted that until customary rights were proven, the Crown remained the beneficial owner of foreshore and seabed.

This was not what the Court of Appeal had said and the starting point for resolution should instead place the onus on the Crown to show that particular parts of the coast were not held by whanau and hapu.

The group said four components were essential to any model:

* A process for investigating the relationship, rights and obligations of iwi and hapu in the coastal marine area. A full examination of the nature and extent of rights could be undertaken before a legal definition was determined, or agreement reached about the extent of the rights.

* A legal formulation of the bundle of rights that emerged from that process. Either an existing legal definition or a new status for tangata whenua rights, such as tupuna title, could be adopted.

* What these rights conferred when coastal marine space and resources allocation decisions were made. Iwi and hapu either had full rights or shared those rights with the Crown.

* What the rights conferred when regulatory decisions were made.