The Government has recently completed its policy proposals for resolving the foreshore and seabed issue.

The issue originally arose when the government announced in June that it would effectively overrule a Court of Appeal decision allowing Maori to make claims in the Maori land Court to customary rights in the foreshore and seabed.

The Crown announcement was later outlined in a 'consultation document' which was greeted with anger and dismay by Maori. Equal dismay was expressed by Maori over the political expediency of most of the other major political parties which fomented public unrest with misleading and deliberately provocative statements about the Maori concern and an unfounded fear that 'ordinary New Zealanders' would no longer be able to go to the beach.

In spite of the political misinformation Maori unanimously rejected the proposals in the document and the four principles upon which it was based at a series of hastily organised consultation hui. Iwi and Hapu saw the document as an effective extinguishment of Maori rights and a denial of due process.

At the Ngati Kahungunu hui held at Omahu marae the above statement by Te Ataria was quoted to express the very real concern that history would repeat itself and the foreshore and seabed would be taken just as the land had been confiscated.

Sadly the comments have come to pass as the final Crown proposals do amount to an effective extinguishment. They are in fact worse than the suggestions made in the original proposals and make a mockery of the consultation process and of Crown claims that it operates within a good faith Treaty partnership.

They ignore all of the reasoned opposition of Maori plus the many constructive suggestions made by Iwi and Hapu for a just solution that would overcome the apparent concerns about access and the prevention of sale.

This brief Paper outlines the main points in the government proposals.

The Crown retains the original four principles of access, protection, certainty, and regulation without any real change, in spite of their rejection by Maori.

It invents a new type of title and vests the foreshore and seabed in all New Zealanders under a 'people of New Zealand title' which extinguishes without due process the Maori rights long recognised in the common law as well as tikanga.

It acknowledges a parallel set of Maori interests but restricts them both in their meaning and application.

It closes off Maori access to the Courts to have those interests and rights defined except in certain limited cases where cases may be heard in a new division of the Maori Land Court.

The jurisdiction of the new division of the Maori Land Court will be defined in legislation which proposes a restrictive definition of customary interests including such things as the protection of wahi tapu.

The legislation will exclude a right of development which is recognised in both the common law and international law as a fundamental part of the doctrine of customary rights.

The Maori Land Court will in effect be restricted to being a conclave of anthropologists and historians considering traditional matters of use. It will not be a true judicial process enabling the consideration and evolution of effective Maori rights.

The rights will be also be restricted to an indefinite but definitely subordinate process of joint management with local bodies such as District and Regional Councils. The extent of co-management will be determined by statute. The concept of joint management is a fundamental diminution of tino rangatiratanga.

The Crown acknowledges it is extinguishing Maori rights but characterises its actions as only a 'theoretical extinguishment' because it is creating the new division of the Maori Land Court. However because the Court is restricted in its jurisdiction and the fundamental Maori title is replaced it is a very real as well as a 'theoretical' extinguishment.

The proposals are a fundamental breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and a betrayal of Maori concerns.