Foreshore and seabed debate
16 February 2011

Here is my take on the current foreshore and seabed debate.

 Since this issue first arose in 2003, it has been UnitedFuture's constant position that the only durable solution to the foreshore and seabed issue rests with it being held as public domain for all New Zealanders. That was the whole point behind the public march we organised in Nelson in 2003, and my position has not changed since then.

 Despite initially agreeing with this approach, the Labour Government changed its stance in 2004 when it was forced by New Zealand First to declare the foreshore and seabed to be the property of the Crown, as its price for supporting the legislation. UnitedFuture withdrew its support for Labour's legislation at that point, because Crown ownership is more restrictive and allows the possibilities of both parts of the foreshore and seabed being sold to private interests, and hitherto public access being restricted arbitrarily by Crown fiat. For those reasons we voted against Labour's legislation thereafter in Parliament.

 The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill effectively picks up our original concept of public domain, which is far more in tune with the expectations of all New Zealanders - that, to put it colloquially, their right to go to the beach remains largely unimpeded. That was why I supported the development of the current Government's legislation and its introduction, although I considered there needed to be an amendment to make it absolutely clear that free access is preserved. Such a provision is not in the current law, which leaves access at the prerogative of the Crown. I am pleased the Minister has now agreed to make such an amendment.

 Claims that this Bill introduces differential rights are not correct. In fact, the tests for proof of customary ownership and/or customary title remain as they are at present, but the assertion of Crown ownership is removed, and replaced by the concept of "shared space" or public domain. It is also wrong in its claim my vote is the critical one on the Bill. It is not. Nor is the Bill being forced through under Urgency.

 I have been strongly committed for many years to preserving the rights of public access to not only the foreshore and seabed, but also to rivers, inland waterways, the high country and the conservation estate in general. I would not be supporting the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill if I felt that it in any way was contrary to that commitment.

 

Peter Dunne