Tribunal call for 'fruitful' seabed talks

By RUTH BERRY political reporter

The Waitangi Tribunal yesterday delivered the Government a broadside, urging it to engage more "fruitfully" with Maori in talks on the foreshore and seabed. It appeared to dispute claims being made by Government ministers that the media was exaggerating the extent of opposition to its plans, suggesting the level of animosity was significant.

The comments came at a hearing in Wellington yesterday during which the tribunal upheld submissions on behalf of a large number of iwi for an urgent hearing to be held into the Government's proposed policy.

Claimant lawyers submitted the proposals breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government, unusually, supported the applications - an admission its consultation hui have failed its expectations and it wanted the tribunal's help.

Crown counsel Virginia Hardy said whereas opposition to the proposals had been expressed at the hui "there has been limited discussion of the detail of the proposals". "The Crown considers a tribunal hearing might provide a useful forum for further exploration ... of the issues relevant to the Crown proposals."

It wanted a hearing held as soon as possible, before the end of October. Submissions for an urgent hearing to be held into the Government's consultation process, also alleged to be a treaty breach, were not upheld.

Judge Carrie Wainwright said: "We consider that the focus must remain on the policy itself."

But in a statement which appeared to question the value of the consultation hui, she said: "We consider the level of animosity among Maori to the substance of this policy is such that no process of interaction that did not involve a major reworking of the policy would meet Maori demands.

"In light of that and our understanding that no such major reworking is on the table, we are disinclined to schedule an urgent inquiry focused on the process."

The Government has argued its proposals do not breach the Treaty and argued it was endeavouring to strike a balance of interests.*

But Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen hinted it was a risk worrying the Government at a consultation hui in Omaka on Tuesday.

"How we deal with it can become a treaty issue if the Crown does not deal with it properly."

Judge Wainwright did not agree to an October hearing, reminding claimants and the Government its schedule was already full. It would be held from November 5-7, and the policy would be notified to claimants and the tribunal by October 17. Any big changes to the policy would require a review of the hearing time.

"Nothing we've said should discourage the Crown from taking the opportunity in the meantime to engage more fruitfully with Maori on the foreshore and seabed issue and embark upon discussions aimed at altering the policy prior to the tribunal's hearing if that is indeed possible. We would encourage any such interaction," said Judge Wainwright.

Lawyer Grant Powell, for Te Ope Mana a Tai and a number of iwi, said it was a step in the right direction. The Government's admission it did not get what it wanted from the hui was "very revealing, it acknowledges there's a problem".

MP blasts Elias

Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias has been accused of sparking the row over the foreshore and seabed because of her personal views on Maori issues and belief in judicial activism.

Act MP and former lawyer Stephen Franks launched a stinging attack on Dame Sian, defying the convention that MPs and judges do not attack each other.

Mr Franks said that even if her judgment in the court case at the centre of the issue was correct, Dame Sian's obvious bias was so great that she should have stepped aside.

She headed the bench which said customary title over those areas had never been extinguished by law.

Mr Franks said Dame Sian had been a campaigner for Maori claims as a lawyer and had lost a case claiming for a portion of the seabed.

"She had at the very least an apparent conflict of interest ... She has been passionately partisan in treaty matters."

* CORRECTION: In the original version of this report, we stated incorrectly that the Government said its proposals breach the Treaty.