MPs set cracking pace to hear views

Four thousand and counting - that's the number of submissions so far on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.

The contentious legislation vests ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, which some Maori say is confiscation.

It prevents the Maori Land Court awarding private title but gives groups with ancestral connections or customary rights orders greater rights in decision-making under the Resource Management Act and Conservation Act.

It has attracted a flood of submissions, and the special select committee dealing with the bill is setting a cracking pace to get through as many as possible.

Each submitter yesterday had 20 minutes to put their case - a limited time by parliamentary standards.

Here is a summary of some submissions presented yesterday.

Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)

Believes the bill results from a rushed process, with little chance for constructive input from Maori, other right holders and the public.

As a result it will generate a "less certain legislative environment than the status quo", policy manager Nici Gibbs told the committee.

Key issues include:

* Concern that the bill's drafting might negatively affect the right to catch sports fish, such as tuna, and to go whitebaiting.

* Concern on the lack of clarity about how much the bill replaces common law navigation rights with statutory rights of navigation.

* The uncertain effect on decision-making processes of adding ancestral connection orders and customary rights orders into the RMA regime.

* The high degree of uncertainty for the seafood industry and other property right holders created by declarations that territorial rights did exist and the subsequent pressure on the Crown to provide redress.

Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa (NZ Maori Law Society)

Opposes the bill in its entirety, on the grounds it fundamentally undermines the rights of all iwi and hapu.

It says the foreshore does not need to be vested in the Crown to achieve certainty; it asks whether that is constitutionally possible given the lack of investigation into the pre-existing rights of Maori.

It believes the issue could have been resolved by amending existing legislation to allow recognition of "lesser estates than fee simple".

The society said the Government over-dramatised the "access" issue, creating legislation to protect something that was never threatened.

In another submission Te Ama, the Wellington Maori Law Association, said memorials could be placed on titles to protect access.

It said the High Court test of territorial rights set the bar too high, requiring proof of exclusive occupation and possession when groups might have shared possession.

New Zealand Business Roundtable

Recommends the bill not proceed, saying the Government had no compelling argument for preventing Maori pursuing their claims through the court, a process it should now let run.

It believes foreshore and seabed should generally be publicly owned with open access and use, but wants existing private rights upheld, including legitimate Maori rights to title, if there are any.

Caritas Aotearoa NZ (Catholic Agency for Justice Peace and Development)

Believes the bill will create another grievance, while possibly increasing the fears of other New Zealanders at same time, and wants it withdrawn.

It wants a properly negotiated resolution, possibly modelled on the Lake Taupo deal with Tuwharetoa, which granted title to the iwi while guaranteeing public access.

Ngati Tama, a Wellington tribe

Spokesman Helmut Modlik said it was a great irony the Wellington iwi had signed terms for negotiations over historical grievances with the Crown on Tuesday and was before the committee yesterday trying to prevent the creation of a contemporary grievance. Questioned why onus was on tangata whenua to prove their rights. Totally rejected the bill.

Wellington Tenths Trust

Asked for several small parcels of reclaimed foreshore, now part of the city, to be vested in the Crown, rather than in other entities such as Lambton Harbour Development.

The trust hopes the land will then be returned to claimants during settlement negotiations.

Terms for those negotiations were signed with Treaty Negotiations Minister Margaret Wilson this week.

Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission

Says bill will undermine Maori economic development and management rights in the coastal marine area and the development of relationships within and between iwi.

It wants the Maori Land Court given a wider range of options for recognising and determining the extent of customary rights. This might include restrictions on issuing of freehold title, and provisions for public access and inalienability.

It says ancestral connection orders are unnecessary, might divide groups, and should be axed in favour of a broad acknowledgement that iwi hold ancestral connection.