New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy
Encyclopedia
The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics
of New Zealand
. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed
, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi
. On the 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act
, was enacted on the 24 November 2004. Some sections of the Act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal found that "native property rights are not to be extinguished by a side wind.... The need for 'clear and plain' extinguishment is well established and is not met in this case. In the Ninety-Mile Beach case, the Court did not recognise that principle of interpretation" . The ruling was foreshadowed by academic work during the late 1980s and 1990s, which argued that the Ninety Mile Beach case was wrongly decided.
of Cambridge University stated that this was unlikely to result in full exclusive ownership, however these assurances were not strong enough to counter the perception that the door was now open for Māori to claim title to the entire coastline of New Zealand through the Māori land court. The prospect of a successful claim created considerable hostility in many sectors of society as New Zealand has a strong tradition of public access to beaches and waterways and this was perceived as being under threat. The Prime Minister
, Helen Clark
of the Labour Party
, announced that the government would legislate to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed.
At the same time, however, the government was strongly attacked by the opposition National Party
, led by Don Brash
. In sharp contrast to Te Ope Mana a Tai, the National Party claimed that the government's proposals were too favourable towards Māori. While the government's plan did indeed vest ownership in the state, they also incorporated provision for Māori to be consulted over matters relating to the foreshore and seabed. The National Party claimed that Māori were to be given too much control, and that the government was giving rights to Māori over and above those possessed by other New Zealanders.
Once the Government's policy framework was released, the Waitangi Tribunal
held an urgent inquiry into the government policy. The hearing took place over six days in late January 2004, and a report was issued four weeks later. The tribunal issued a report that was highly critical of the Crown’s approach. The Government response was equally sharp and critical, accusing the tribunal of ‘implicitly’ rejecting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
.
Although under attack from both sides, the government chose to press forward with its legislation, asserting that what it called its "middle way" was the only means of satisfactorily resolving the controversy. Criticism of the government, both from Māori and from opposition parties, continued to intensify, and the government began to lose ground in opinion poll
s.
On January the 27th 2004, National Party leader Don Brash
delivered a speech at Orewa
that was highly critical of the government's policy towards Māori. Brash said that the government was showing strong favouritism to Māori, both in the foreshore and seabed debate and in many other areas of government policy. Brash's speech was condemned both by the government and by many Māori groups, but met with widespread approval from many other sectors of New Zealand society. Shortly afterwards, an opinion poll put the National Party ahead of the Labour Party for the first time in over 18 months.
The government was also facing serious internal debate over its proposed legislation. Many of the party's Māori MPs were deeply unhappy with the government's plans, and raised the possibility of breaking ranks to oppose the legislation in Parliament. This left the government unsure of whether it had a sufficient number of votes to pass its legislation through Parliament. In theory, the government had a narrow majority willing to support its proposed bill, with Labour, the Progressives
, and United Future all prepared to vote in favour. If two of Labour's Māori MPs were to vote against the bill, however, it would fail. Moreover, any attempt to make the bill more favourable to these MPs would risk losing the support of United Future.
On 8 April 2004, it was announced that the centrist-nationalist New Zealand First
party would give its support to the legislation. New Zealand First's price for this support was that ownership of the seabed and foreshore would be vested solely in the Crown
, ending the concept of "public domain
" (vesting ownership in the public at large rather than in the state) that United Future had promoted. United Future withdrew its support for the legislation, but New Zealand First provided sufficient votes to make this irrelevant. It is believed that Helen Clark preferred United Future's "public domain", and this was acknowledged by United Future leader Peter Dunne
, but United Future could not provide enough votes to guarantee the bill's passage, forcing Labour to seek support elsewhere.
One of the strongest critics of the bill within the Labour Party was Tariana Turia
, a junior minister. Turia indicated on a number of occasions that she might vote against the government's bill, but for a considerable time refused to give a final decision. It was made clear that voting against a government bill was "incompatible" with serving as a minister, and that doing so would result in Turia's dismissal from that role. Turia was encouraged to either abstain or simply be absent when the vote was taken. On the 30th of April, however, Turia announced that she would vote against the legislation, and would resign (effective May 17, 2004) from the Labour Party to contest a by-election
in her electorate. She was dismissed from her ministerial post by the Prime Minister the same day. Another Labour MP, Nanaia Mahuta
, eventually decided that she would also vote against the bill, but chose not to leave the Labour Party. Mahuta had no ministerial post to be dismissed from.
On the 5th of May 2004, a hikoi
(a long walk or march — in this case, a protest march) arrived in Wellington
. It had begun in Northland thirteen days earlier, picking up supporters as they drove to the capital. The hikoi, which some estimated to contain fifteen thousand people by the time it reached Parliament, strongly opposed the government's plans, and was highly supportive of Tariana Turia's decision.
Turia and her allies, believing that the time was right for an independent Māori political vehicle, established a new Māori Party
. Many of Turia's supporters, such as Mana Motuhake
leader Willie Jackson and Māori academic Pita Sharples
, claimed that Māori who formerly supported Labour would flock to the new party en masse. On the other hand, other commentators pointed to a poor track record for Māori parties in the past, and said that it would be difficult to unite diverse Māori opinion into a single group.
On 18 November 2004, Tim Selwyn
put an axe through a window of the electorate office of Helen Clark, an act he described as a protest against Helen Clark's handling of the issue.
The government's foreshore and seabed bill passed its first vote in Parliament on the 7th of May 2004, backed by Labour, the Progressives, and New Zealand First. The National Party opposed the bill, saying that it gave too much control to Māori, United Future opposed it due to the removal of the public domain concept and ACT opposed it on the grounds of the legislation being retrospective, that it was a denial of property rights (in this case Māori property rights), and that it was an unwarranted incursion by the Crown into areas that were specifically Tikanga Māori http://www.act.org.nz/media?keys=foreshore+and+seabed&taxonomy_terms%5B%5D=&taxonomy_operator=1&form_token=5c137dc8f0e74b9bfb3480e7f19efca6&form_type=search&form_id=trip_search_page#act=/search//node/26303. The Greens
, another party in Parliament to take a position similar to that of the Māori protesters, also voted against the bill, saying that it overrode Māori rights and offered no guarantee that the land would not later be sold. Tariana Turia and Nanaia Mahuta both voted against the bill. The final vote tally was 65 in favour and 55 against. The Deputy Prime Minister
, Michael Cullen, told Parliament that the bill "safeguards the seabed and foreshore for everyone", protecting the rights of both Māori and non-Māori. Opposition to the bill remained strong, however, and protests and criticism continued as the government's legislation progressed.
The bill's passage through its first vote meant that it was then considered by a special select committee of Parliament, which heard public submissions on the matter. The select committee having allowed six months for submissions, reported back to the parliament in November that they had been unable to agree on a position and were therefore reporting back the bill with no recommendations whatsoever. The bill, slightly amended by the Government itself, passed its second vote on 17 November 2004 by the same margin as in the first vote. It was then considered by a Committee of the House (with Parliament sitting under urgency). It finally received its third vote on 18 November 2004. The final vote tally was 66 in favour and 54 against — Nanaia Mahuta, who had previously voted against, this time voted in favour.
On December the 15th, the legislation was modified slightly after it was realised that as it was written, the Act nationalised all council-owned land reclaimed from the sea. This includes areas such as Auckland
's Britomart
and Wellington
's waterfront. This was not part of the intention of the act.
The United Nations
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, after being asked by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
to consider the legislation, issued a report on March 12, 2005 stating that the foreshore and seabed legislation discriminates against Māori by extinguishing the possibility of establishing Māori customary title over the foreshore and seabed, and by not providing a means of redress. Tariana Turia and the Māori Party claimed this as a significant victory, although the report has not prompted any change in government policy.
While the Act was widely criticised by Māori, some iwi have chosen to negotiate agreement within the bounds of the Act. The first agreement made through the act was ratified by Ngati Porou and the Crown in October 2008 (see #First foreshore and seabed agreement signed).
and heard severe criticism of the government. He also met with Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen who crafted the foreshore law. While the Foreshore and Seabed issue was central to his visit, discussions also related to Treaty of Waitangi settlements
, and economic, social and cultural rights generally. On 25 November 2005 he issued a statement which noted that “[w]hile the standard of living of the Māori of New Zealand has improved and is better than that of indigenous peoples in poorer countries, there is widespread concern that the gap in social and economic conditions is actually growing larger and an increasing proportion of Māori are being left behind”. His final report was completed in March 2006. It was highly critical of the Government in a number of areas, including the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which it recommended should be repealed or significantly amended. The Government response to this further criticism was again negative describing Professor Stavenhagen's report as "disappointing, unbalanced and narrow."
designed to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In recreating the legal status before the Foreshore and Seabed Act was passed, however, the bill is reported to vest ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. Turia denied that her bill would do anything but repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in its entirety and described Labour's descriptions as "scaremongering."
area on New Zealand's East Cape and the Crown (effectively the New Zealand government). The NZPA reported about 200 people representing Ngati Porou were present to witness the signing of the deed. The deed protects customary rights of local iwi and retains wider public access to Ngati Porou coastal areas.
National front bencher Christopher Finlayson, sworn in as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations in November 2008, has described the act as "discriminatory and unfair". Commentary at the time of his appointment suggested the Foreshore and Seabed Act would be reviewed under a National government.
, feel that the bill risks free access to coastal areas for a large part of New Zealanders.
Politics of New Zealand
The politics of New Zealand take place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic monarchy. The basic system is closely patterned on that of the Westminster System, although a number of significant modifications have been made...
of New Zealand
New Zealand
New Zealand is an island country in the south-western Pacific Ocean comprising two main landmasses and numerous smaller islands. The country is situated some east of Australia across the Tasman Sea, and roughly south of the Pacific island nations of New Caledonia, Fiji, and Tonga...
. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed
Seabed
The seabed is the bottom of the ocean.- Ocean structure :Most of the oceans have a common structure, created by common physical phenomena, mainly from tectonic movement, and sediment from various sources...
, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi
Treaty of Waitangi
The Treaty of Waitangi is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand....
. On the 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act
Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004
The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is Act of the Parliament of New Zealand. It arose out of, and further fueled, the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy.It was replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.-External links:*...
, was enacted on the 24 November 2004. Some sections of the Act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand created to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.-Features of the Act:The Marine and Coastal Area Bill:* Guarantees free public access....
.
Court decision
In 1997, an application was made to the Māori Land Court requesting, amongst other matters, that "the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds, extending to the limits of New Zealand's territorial sea" be defined as Māori customary land under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 . The Māori Land Court determined that it could consider the issue, however, were overruled by the High Court. On the 19th of June 2003, New Zealand's Court of Appeal ruled, amongst other matters, that:- "The definition of 'land' in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 did not necessarily exclude foreshore and seabed";
- "The title vested in the Crown was radical title which was not inconsistent with native title";
- Various Acts had influence over but did not extinguish property rights;
- The Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine "an investigation of the title to the land ... under s 132 and an order determining the relative interests of the owners of the land".
The Ninety Mile Beach Decision
The Court of Appeal overturned a line of precedent dating back to the 1877 decision in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington, and affirmed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the 1963 Ninety Mile Beach decision. These early decisions held that because of circumstances unique to New Zealand, Māori land ties were so weak that they could be extinguished through such indirect routes as unrelated phrases in legislation or through the Native (now Māori) Land Court’s investigation of dry land adjoining the foreshore.In its ruling, the Court of Appeal found that "native property rights are not to be extinguished by a side wind.... The need for 'clear and plain' extinguishment is well established and is not met in this case. In the Ninety-Mile Beach case, the Court did not recognise that principle of interpretation" . The ruling was foreshadowed by academic work during the late 1980s and 1990s, which argued that the Ninety Mile Beach case was wrongly decided.
Initial responses
The ruling granted only the right to pursue establishing an interest. Experts such as Paul McHughPaul McHugh
Paul McHugh is a New Zealand academic lawyer. He teaches at the University of Cambridge where he is a Reader in Law and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College.-Education:...
of Cambridge University stated that this was unlikely to result in full exclusive ownership, however these assurances were not strong enough to counter the perception that the door was now open for Māori to claim title to the entire coastline of New Zealand through the Māori land court. The prospect of a successful claim created considerable hostility in many sectors of society as New Zealand has a strong tradition of public access to beaches and waterways and this was perceived as being under threat. The Prime Minister
Prime Minister of New Zealand
The Prime Minister of New Zealand is New Zealand's head of government consequent on being the leader of the party or coalition with majority support in the Parliament of New Zealand...
, Helen Clark
Helen Clark
Helen Elizabeth Clark, ONZ is a New Zealand political figure who was the 37th Prime Minister of New Zealand for three consecutive terms from 1999 to 2008...
of the Labour Party
New Zealand Labour Party
The New Zealand Labour Party is a New Zealand political party. It describes itself as centre-left and socially progressive and has been one of the two primary parties of New Zealand politics since 1935....
, announced that the government would legislate to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed.
At the same time, however, the government was strongly attacked by the opposition National Party
New Zealand National Party
The New Zealand National Party is the largest party in the New Zealand House of Representatives and in November 2008 formed a minority government with support from three minor parties.-Policies:...
, led by Don Brash
Don Brash
Donald "Don" Thomas Brash , a New Zealand politician, was Leader of the Opposition, parliamentary leader of the National Party from 28 October 2003 to 27 November 2006 and the leader of the ACT Party for 28th April 2011 - 26 November 2011...
. In sharp contrast to Te Ope Mana a Tai, the National Party claimed that the government's proposals were too favourable towards Māori. While the government's plan did indeed vest ownership in the state, they also incorporated provision for Māori to be consulted over matters relating to the foreshore and seabed. The National Party claimed that Māori were to be given too much control, and that the government was giving rights to Māori over and above those possessed by other New Zealanders.
Once the Government's policy framework was released, the Waitangi Tribunal
Waitangi Tribunal
The Waitangi Tribunal is a New Zealand permanent commission of inquiry established under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975...
held an urgent inquiry into the government policy. The hearing took place over six days in late January 2004, and a report was issued four weeks later. The tribunal issued a report that was highly critical of the Crown’s approach. The Government response was equally sharp and critical, accusing the tribunal of ‘implicitly’ rejecting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. In the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions—including any executive or judicial bodies...
.
Ongoing debate
Opinion poll
An opinion poll, sometimes simply referred to as a poll is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence...
s.
On January the 27th 2004, National Party leader Don Brash
Don Brash
Donald "Don" Thomas Brash , a New Zealand politician, was Leader of the Opposition, parliamentary leader of the National Party from 28 October 2003 to 27 November 2006 and the leader of the ACT Party for 28th April 2011 - 26 November 2011...
delivered a speech at Orewa
Orewa Speech
The Orewa Speech was a speech delivered by the then-leader of the New Zealand National Party Don Brash to the Orewa Rotary Club on 27 January 2004. It addressed the theme of race relations in New Zealand and in particular the special status of Māori people...
that was highly critical of the government's policy towards Māori. Brash said that the government was showing strong favouritism to Māori, both in the foreshore and seabed debate and in many other areas of government policy. Brash's speech was condemned both by the government and by many Māori groups, but met with widespread approval from many other sectors of New Zealand society. Shortly afterwards, an opinion poll put the National Party ahead of the Labour Party for the first time in over 18 months.
The government was also facing serious internal debate over its proposed legislation. Many of the party's Māori MPs were deeply unhappy with the government's plans, and raised the possibility of breaking ranks to oppose the legislation in Parliament. This left the government unsure of whether it had a sufficient number of votes to pass its legislation through Parliament. In theory, the government had a narrow majority willing to support its proposed bill, with Labour, the Progressives
New Zealand Progressive Party
Jim Anderton's Progressive Party , is a New Zealand political party generally somewhat to the left of its ally, the Labour Party....
, and United Future all prepared to vote in favour. If two of Labour's Māori MPs were to vote against the bill, however, it would fail. Moreover, any attempt to make the bill more favourable to these MPs would risk losing the support of United Future.
On 8 April 2004, it was announced that the centrist-nationalist New Zealand First
New Zealand First
New Zealand First is a political party in New Zealand that was founded in 1993, following party founder Winston Peters' resignation from the National Party in 1992...
party would give its support to the legislation. New Zealand First's price for this support was that ownership of the seabed and foreshore would be vested solely in the Crown
The Crown
The Crown is a corporation sole that in the Commonwealth realms and any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof represents the legal embodiment of governance, whether executive, legislative, or judicial...
, ending the concept of "public domain
Public domain
Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired, if the intellectual property rights are forfeited, or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all...
" (vesting ownership in the public at large rather than in the state) that United Future had promoted. United Future withdrew its support for the legislation, but New Zealand First provided sufficient votes to make this irrelevant. It is believed that Helen Clark preferred United Future's "public domain", and this was acknowledged by United Future leader Peter Dunne
Peter Dunne
Peter Dunne is a New Zealand politician and Member of Parliament who leads the United Future political party. He has served as a Cabinet minister in governments dominated by the centre-left Labour Party as well as by the centre-right National Party...
, but United Future could not provide enough votes to guarantee the bill's passage, forcing Labour to seek support elsewhere.
One of the strongest critics of the bill within the Labour Party was Tariana Turia
Tariana Turia
Tariana Turia is a New Zealand politician. She gained considerable prominence during the foreshore and seabed controversy, and eventually broke with her party as a result...
, a junior minister. Turia indicated on a number of occasions that she might vote against the government's bill, but for a considerable time refused to give a final decision. It was made clear that voting against a government bill was "incompatible" with serving as a minister, and that doing so would result in Turia's dismissal from that role. Turia was encouraged to either abstain or simply be absent when the vote was taken. On the 30th of April, however, Turia announced that she would vote against the legislation, and would resign (effective May 17, 2004) from the Labour Party to contest a by-election
By-election
A by-election is an election held to fill a political office that has become vacant between regularly scheduled elections....
in her electorate. She was dismissed from her ministerial post by the Prime Minister the same day. Another Labour MP, Nanaia Mahuta
Nanaia Mahuta
Nanaia Cybelle Mahuta BA, MA in social anthropology, is a New Zealand politician and was a cabinet minister in the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand. She was Minister of Customs, Minister of Local Government, Minister of Youth Development, Associate Minister for the Environment and Associate...
, eventually decided that she would also vote against the bill, but chose not to leave the Labour Party. Mahuta had no ministerial post to be dismissed from.
Hikoi
Hikoi is a term of the Maori language of New Zealand generally meaning a protest march or parade, usually implying a long journey taking days or weeks....
(a long walk or march — in this case, a protest march) arrived in Wellington
Wellington
Wellington is the capital city and third most populous urban area of New Zealand, although it is likely to have surpassed Christchurch due to the exodus following the Canterbury Earthquake. It is at the southwestern tip of the North Island, between Cook Strait and the Rimutaka Range...
. It had begun in Northland thirteen days earlier, picking up supporters as they drove to the capital. The hikoi, which some estimated to contain fifteen thousand people by the time it reached Parliament, strongly opposed the government's plans, and was highly supportive of Tariana Turia's decision.
Turia and her allies, believing that the time was right for an independent Māori political vehicle, established a new Māori Party
Maori Party
The Māori Party, a political party in New Zealand, was formed on 7 July 2004. The Party is guided by eight constitutional "kaupapa", or Party objectives. Tariana Turia formed the Māori Party after resigning from the Labour Party where she had been a Cabinet Minister in the Fifth Labour-led...
. Many of Turia's supporters, such as Mana Motuhake
Mana Motuhake
Mana Māori Motuhake was a Māori political party in New Zealand. The name is difficult to translate accurately, but essentially refers to Māori self-rule and self-determination — mana, in this context, can be understood as "authority" or "power", while motuhake can be understood as...
leader Willie Jackson and Māori academic Pita Sharples
Pita Sharples
Pita Russell Sharples, CBE, , a Māori academic and politician, currently co-leads the Māori Party. He currently is the member for Tamaki Makaurau in New Zealand's Parliament.-Early life:...
, claimed that Māori who formerly supported Labour would flock to the new party en masse. On the other hand, other commentators pointed to a poor track record for Māori parties in the past, and said that it would be difficult to unite diverse Māori opinion into a single group.
On 18 November 2004, Tim Selwyn
Tim Selwyn
Tim Selwyn is a New Zealand political activist who was found guilty of sedition on 8 June 2006, the first person charged with sedition in New Zealand for more than 30 years. He is also editor of magazine, has a with the same name....
put an axe through a window of the electorate office of Helen Clark, an act he described as a protest against Helen Clark's handling of the issue.
Legislation
On the 18th of November 2004, the Labour/Progressive government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which declared that the land in question was owned by the Crown. Māori can, however, apply for "guardianship" of certain areas. The Act was highly contentious.Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is a political party that has seats in the New Zealand parliament. It focuses firstly on environmentalism, arguing that all other aspects of humanity will cease to be of concern if there is no environment to sustain it...
, another party in Parliament to take a position similar to that of the Māori protesters, also voted against the bill, saying that it overrode Māori rights and offered no guarantee that the land would not later be sold. Tariana Turia and Nanaia Mahuta both voted against the bill. The final vote tally was 65 in favour and 55 against. The Deputy Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand
The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand is second most senior officer in the Government of New Zealand, although this seniority does not necessarily translate into power....
, Michael Cullen, told Parliament that the bill "safeguards the seabed and foreshore for everyone", protecting the rights of both Māori and non-Māori. Opposition to the bill remained strong, however, and protests and criticism continued as the government's legislation progressed.
The bill's passage through its first vote meant that it was then considered by a special select committee of Parliament, which heard public submissions on the matter. The select committee having allowed six months for submissions, reported back to the parliament in November that they had been unable to agree on a position and were therefore reporting back the bill with no recommendations whatsoever. The bill, slightly amended by the Government itself, passed its second vote on 17 November 2004 by the same margin as in the first vote. It was then considered by a Committee of the House (with Parliament sitting under urgency). It finally received its third vote on 18 November 2004. The final vote tally was 66 in favour and 54 against — Nanaia Mahuta, who had previously voted against, this time voted in favour.
On December the 15th, the legislation was modified slightly after it was realised that as it was written, the Act nationalised all council-owned land reclaimed from the sea. This includes areas such as Auckland
Auckland
The Auckland metropolitan area , in the North Island of New Zealand, is the largest and most populous urban area in the country with residents, percent of the country's population. Auckland also has the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world...
's Britomart
Point Britomart
Point Britomart is a former headland in the Waitemata Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand. Located between Commercial Bay and Official Bay, it was later quarried away to produce fill for land reclamation in Mechanics Bay, and no physical trace remains at street level in what is today an area of the...
and Wellington
Wellington
Wellington is the capital city and third most populous urban area of New Zealand, although it is likely to have surpassed Christchurch due to the exodus following the Canterbury Earthquake. It is at the southwestern tip of the North Island, between Cook Strait and the Rimutaka Range...
's waterfront. This was not part of the intention of the act.
The United Nations
United Nations
The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace...
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, after being asked by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
Ngai Tahu
Ngāi Tahu, or Kāi Tahu, is the principal Māori iwi of the southern region of New Zealand, with the tribal authority, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, being based in Christchurch and Invercargill. The iwi combines three groups, Kāi Tahu itself, and Waitaha and Kāti Mamoe who lived in the South Island prior...
to consider the legislation, issued a report on March 12, 2005 stating that the foreshore and seabed legislation discriminates against Māori by extinguishing the possibility of establishing Māori customary title over the foreshore and seabed, and by not providing a means of redress. Tariana Turia and the Māori Party claimed this as a significant victory, although the report has not prompted any change in government policy.
Situation following the controversy
The foreshore and seabed issue, as part of the larger race relations debate, was one of the most significant points of contention in New Zealand politics at the time, and remains a significant issue for many people. The Labour government's popularity was severely damaged by the affair, although subsequent polls showed that it recovered its support and Labour was elected for a third term in September 2005.While the Act was widely criticised by Māori, some iwi have chosen to negotiate agreement within the bounds of the Act. The first agreement made through the act was ratified by Ngati Porou and the Crown in October 2008 (see #First foreshore and seabed agreement signed).
Special Rapporteur
In November 2005, following government criticism of the report issued by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), Special Rapporteur Professor Stavenhagen, a Mexican researcher who reports to UNCERD, arrived in New Zealand at the invitation of the Government. He attended four huiHui (Maori assembly)
A hui is a New Zealand term for a social gathering or assembly.Originally a Māori language word, it was used by Europeans as early as 1846 when referring to Māori gatherings - but is now increasingly used in New Zealand English to describe events that are not exclusively Māori....
and heard severe criticism of the government. He also met with Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen who crafted the foreshore law. While the Foreshore and Seabed issue was central to his visit, discussions also related to Treaty of Waitangi settlements
Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements
Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements have been a significant feature of New Zealand race relations and politics since 1975. Over the last 30 years, New Zealand governments have increasingly provided formal legal and political opportunity for Māori to seek redress for breaches by the Crown of...
, and economic, social and cultural rights generally. On 25 November 2005 he issued a statement which noted that “[w]hile the standard of living of the Māori of New Zealand has improved and is better than that of indigenous peoples in poorer countries, there is widespread concern that the gap in social and economic conditions is actually growing larger and an increasing proportion of Māori are being left behind”. His final report was completed in March 2006. It was highly critical of the Government in a number of areas, including the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which it recommended should be repealed or significantly amended. The Government response to this further criticism was again negative describing Professor Stavenhagen's report as "disappointing, unbalanced and narrow."
Private Member's Bill
In October 2006, Tariana Turia introduced a Private Member's BillPrivate Member's Bill
A member of parliament’s legislative motion, called a private member's bill or a member's bill in some parliaments, is a proposed law introduced by a member of a legislature. In most countries with a parliamentary system, most bills are proposed by the government, not by individual members of the...
designed to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In recreating the legal status before the Foreshore and Seabed Act was passed, however, the bill is reported to vest ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. Turia denied that her bill would do anything but repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in its entirety and described Labour's descriptions as "scaremongering."
First foreshore and seabed agreement signed
The first foreshore and Seabed agreement was ratified on 31 October 2008. The agreement was negotiated between people of the Ngati PorouNgati Porou
Ngāti Porou is a Māori iwi traditionally located in the East Cape and Gisborne regions of the North Island of New Zealand. Ngāti Porou has the second-largest affiliation of any iwi in New Zealand, with 71,910 registered members in 2006...
area on New Zealand's East Cape and the Crown (effectively the New Zealand government). The NZPA reported about 200 people representing Ngati Porou were present to witness the signing of the deed. The deed protects customary rights of local iwi and retains wider public access to Ngati Porou coastal areas.
Continued calls for repeal
Following a change of government with the election of National in November 2008, the Green Party continued to call for repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.National front bencher Christopher Finlayson, sworn in as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations in November 2008, has described the act as "discriminatory and unfair". Commentary at the time of his appointment suggested the Foreshore and Seabed Act would be reviewed under a National government.
Announcement of repeal
On 14 June 2010, Prime Minister John Key announced that he would be proposing the repeal of the Act. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act proposed in late 2010 has in turn created opposition from both sides, with some Maori arguing that the bill was a fraud as essentially no Maori groups would meet the test for increased rights to the foreshore, while others, such as the Coastal CoalitionCoastal Coalition
The Coastal Coalition is a political group in New Zealand that opposes the removal of coastal and marine land from Crown ownership. It was created to fight what it considers the risk of coastal land and marine areas coming under the control of local Maori under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area ...
, feel that the bill risks free access to coastal areas for a large part of New Zealanders.
External links
- Official government website on the issue
- Ministry of Justice Foreshore page
- Foreshore and seabed information page
- Te Ope Mana a Tai - a lobby group in favour of Māori ownership.