Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson has spent the last 12/18 months cruising New Zealand talking selectively and secretly to Iwi about the National Party's proposal on the Foreshore and Seabed legislation'. (Marine and Coastal Area bill)
Prior to his position in this government, Chris Finlayson was involved legally with Ngai Tahu, very successful claimants through the ToW Claims procedure in the South Island. The Treaty Minister's present activities remind me of a past National Government Treaty Minister, Doug Graham who was also a lawyer. Doug Graham birthed and steered the Treaty of Waitangi Claim procedures into the billion dollar legal gravy train it has become over time.
There has been no consultation with 73% of New Zealanders on this proposal and no political mandate for the Prime Minister, John Key to rearrange or change the legislation of 2004 which left the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership. The benefits of Crown ownership is that everybody gets the opportunity to walk on it, play on it, swim, boat and fish in it. Should there be any future mineral or national wealth to be gained from it then it will belong to ALL New Zealanders not just a selected few.
At this time, we have areas in NZ that tangata whenua control and charge for the ‘right to access'. An example is: when Mount Tarawera was returned to tangata whenua, the very first thing they did was erect a gate on the track and charge for entry onto the mountain. If the right of Maori to charge was challenged, the behaviour that followed could become very threatening.
The government's proposal for the Marine and Coastal Area bill allows Iwi, the perfect opportunity to make application to the Treaty Minister or the court for ownership and rights that will be ‘special' to Maori. The test will be ‘long term tenure' of the land bordering the foreshore. The perfect legal outcome of that question is that: ‘had Maori not been alienated from that land by colonization they would have retained secure, long term tenure of it.' How easy is that?
The health, wealth and happiness of the largest percentage of New Zealand citizens will be gone, signed away with stealth and a stroke of the pen. Would it be presumptuous of me to question whether a conflict of interest arises when as the Treaty Minister, Chris Finlayson who has done the legwork selling the proposal to Maori then gets to approve the settlements as the Attorney General for New Zealand?
Is this political expediency or the kamikaze dive of John Key, Simon Bridges, Chris Finlayson and National party ministers who support this irrational proposal?
It appears the only avenue of protest is for Mr, Mrs and Ms New Zealand to withdraw their personal and party vote from the National Party at the next election.
Maureen J Anderson, Pyes Pa.