Clarkson rips into Bridges over seabed bill | Bay of Plenty News | Local News in Bay of Plenty

A war of words has erupted between former and current local National Party MPs over a controversial potential new law.

Former MP Bob Clarkson has accused current Tauranga MP Simon Bridges of toeing the party line over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, while Mr Bridges has said Mr Clarkson "doesn't much like dealing with complicated issues like this".

Mr Clarkson also said he tried regaining National's Tauranga candidacy this year partly to stop the controversial foreshore legislation reaching law. The former MP has slated Mr Bridges and his old party over the bill, which he believes is "pandering" to a "distorted view" of the Treaty of Waitangi that would benefit a minority of Maori.

The bill repeals the 2004 Seabed and Foreshore Act and replaces it with legislation that returns to Maori the right to seek customary title to parts of the coastline through the High Court or by negotiation with the Government. Backed by National, the Maori Party and United Future but opposed by all other parties, the bill could be passed within a week.

Mr Clarkson, who has revealed that he put his hand up against Mr Bridges for the National candidacy in this year's election but left his application too late, believed most Tauranga residents would be against the bill - and said "covert meetings" in the city had opposed it.

"There is a revolt brewing up against this bill in New Zealand. I think it's going to be a major issue in the elections.

"The person I'll be backing in the elections will be whoever tries to get a committee of inquiry review of it, and so far the only ones who are doing this is Act," Mr Clarkson said.

"I'm a little stunned that our local MP is not doing what Tauranga people are instructing him to do - and that is to vote against this legislation and review the Treaty of Waitangi saga."

Mr Clarkson claimed three articles in an apparent English version of the treaty known as the Littlewood document, which some say pre-dates the working treaty, proved it had been misinterpreted.

He said the articles stated sovereignty would pass to the Queen, who guaranteed to "the chief and tribes and all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwelling and property - it also says they can sell their land at an agreed price".

"In regard to the treaty, I am stunned where we have ended up. This legislation is not good, and it will create rifts between Maori and Pakeha for years and years."

But he supported land settlement claims where Maori land had been taken illegally.

Mr Clarkson believed Act was "on the right track" in opposing the bill and last October turned heads when he attended an address against the bill by Act MP John Boscawen. At the time Mr Boscawen told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend he feared the legislation opened up the possibility of political deals where titles of customary areas could be exchanged for political support.

Responding to Mr Clarkson's comments, Mr Bridges said: "Bob's Bob. He blows hot and cold.

"I think he'd acknowledge himself that his resignation in 2008 was for good reasons, and that he doesn't much like dealing with complicated issues like this."

Asked whether he felt the issue could harm his re-election chances this year, he said: "I think the people of Tauranga will do what they always do - they will assess the Government across a wide range of issues and this will be one of those issues."

Mr Bridges said the bill returned to Maori the right to access courts and enshrined in law the right of access to beaches and foreshore for all Kiwis.

"The third thing is that there is a very high threshold in the law before Maori get customary title. They have to show exclusive, uninterrupted control of foreshore since 1840. It's exceptionally difficult to do that and that's why so many are protesting."

"There is no prospect at all of iwi claiming customary title in regard to any Tauranga beaches. I believe that when people have a chance to have the bill properly explained and put into context, they do accept it as necessary for all New Zealanders.

"There has been a lot of misinformation about the bill, but actually, when people know the full story, they understand what we are doing is necessary and putting the past behind us,' Mr Bridges said.

The difference

THE 2004 FORESHORE AND SEABED ACT:

Stopped Maori from accessing courts to prove foreshore claims. Foreshore defined as wet sand out to 12 nautical mile limit. Crown owns foreshore and seabed.

THE MARINE AND COASTAL BILL:

Replaces 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. Creates "common marine and coastal area" where no group owns the wet sand, unless Maori apply for customary title. Tests to qualify for customary title. Maori must prove exclusive use and occupation since 1840, with no substantial interruption. Area is held in accordance with tikanga. Customary title cannot be sold. Public access is guaranteed.