PAUL QUINN (National) to the Attorney-General: What are the key aspects of the Government’s preferred approach in the foreshore and seabed consultation document released yesterday?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The key aspects are: first, to repeal the 2004 Act and replace it with new legislation; second, to remove Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed; third, to create a public domain that recognises and balances the interests of all New Zealanders; fourth, to restore any uninvestigated customary title that was extinguished by the 2004 Act; fifth, to restore the fundamental human right to seek access to justice through the courts; and, sixth, to provide for public access and the continued operation of existing use rights.
Paul Quinn: What are the key differences between the current Act and the Government’s preferred approach?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, it provides for the recognition of customary title, which the current Act extinguished; second, it removes Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed, and places it in a public domain; and, third, it restores the fundamental right of New Zealanders to seek access to the courts in this regard.
Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister agree that designating the foreshore and seabed as public domain, which United Future has advocated since 2004, is the best way to ensure that the traditional rights and interests of all New Zealanders can be protected? Is this the reason why he is now promoting the creation of a public domain as the Government’s preferred option?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I do. I acknowledge that United Future has been advocating this position since 2004, and, with respect, I think it is right. I commend the member and his party for the contribution that they have made to this debate.
Paul Quinn: Under the Government’s preferred approach, what rights and practices would be protected?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, public access to the foreshore and seabed would be provided for; second, any part of the foreshore and seabed that is privately owned would be unaffected, and there are about 12,500 titles around the coastline that fall into that category; third, existing fishing and navigation rights would remain unchanged; and, fourth, all existing use rights, such as costal permits, would remain unchanged until the end of their term. I will add, in this respect, that most New Zealanders will not notice any dramatic change, but that those people who had their rights taken away will.
Hon David Parker: Are the rights that Māori hapū or iwi may obtain under customary title claims under the Government’s preferred approach similar to those achieved by Ngāti Porou in their agreement with the previous Labour Government?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They could be. I have studied very closely the Ngāti Porou agreement, which some on the member’s side of the House have characterised as being an agreement under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact, those rights are not the same; they go beyond those provided for in the Act. In analysing the awards and the tests I have endeavoured to look at what is currently there under the 2004 Act and under the Ngāti Porou agreement, then to take that to customary title. In this respect it is different: customary title will be a species of property right. It will not be able to be sold, public access will be retained, and there will also be a right to develop.
