West Coasters love wandering along the area's rugged beaches looking for interesting stones - even pieces of prized greenstone. However, a new policy due to come into force yesterday aimed at preventing or limiting fossicking or commercial collection of greenstone has Coasters worried, reports Marjorie Cook.
A draft pounamu (greenstone) collection policy requiring all fossickers to obtain a permit from a Ngai Tahu pounamu protection officer has some West Coast residents concerned that their long-held beach-combing rights are under threat.
A pounamu committee of Te Runanga O Maakawhio, a sub-tribe of Ngai Tahu based in Hokitika, has been working on the draft policy for several years, and earlier indications had been that it would start yesterday.
However, committee member Paul Wilson, of Hunts Beach, confirmed this week the policy was still in draft form and should not yet be in the public arena.
The draft policy was leaked to the Otago Daily Times in November last year, the same week that Haast pilot Morgan Saxton, who was convicted of stealing greenstone, died in a helicopter accident.
The policy was aimed at preventing or limiting fossicking or commercial collection of greenstone, targeted the general public as well as Maakawhio members, and was proposed to come into effect from yesterday.
A moratorium on "stolen pounamu" was also to start yesterday and continue until the rise of the new moon in Matariki (the Maori New Year) on June 24, 2009.
After the end of the moratorium, a reward scheme would be introduced for information leading to a successful prosecution for illegal greenstone extraction and trade.
The policy also talks about limiting amounts to 10kg per person, per week; placing rahui (exclusions) on certain areas; and preventing the transfer of collection rights from Maakawhio members to other people.
Mr Wilson said the policy had been evolving for years.
"There have been at least five or six drafts to date and we might even be up to the eighth draft," he said.
Talking about how the general public would be affected was irrelevant when no-one knew what the final policy would be, he said.
"Wait until the job's done, then pull it apart," he said.
Mr Saxton and his father, Dave, were both convicted for stealing greenstone last year and have appeals before the Court of Appeal.
Maakawhio member Vicki Cain, of Haast, said on Wednesday she was completely opposed to the policy and would not let it stop her fossicking. She did not see how the policy could legally change existing rights for any New Zealander.
Ms Cain confirmed she had signed, but did not write, a letter to the executive of Maakawhio in November, on behalf of her father, Cyril Cain, a Maakawhio kaumatua (elder).
The letter was co-signed by another elder, Bevan Climo.
The writers said the policy was "totally unacceptable to us and our wider whanau" and went against previous consultation within the runanga between 1998 and 2002.
A resulting community values report by Gerard O'Regan was quite clear on its recommendations to the tribe, the writers said.
"There was no way that West Coast Pakeha [locals] would give up their rights to walk unfettered up any river anywhere on the Coast. There was no way a person who has done the same activity year in and year out should have to apply for a permit to do the same thing they have always done," the letter says.
The policy was a "radical departure from the intent and philosophy of the original Maakawhio management model".
Ms Cain agreed the greenstone debate underlined tensions within both Maakawhio and Ngai Tahu.
Members of the Cain family gave evidence in defence of the Saxtons at their trial while Ngai Tahu witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution.
Explanatory notes in the Maakawhio policy say only the collective runanga has authority to decide on the delegation and/or exercise of rights over pounamu.
Any individual member's rights could not be transferred to anyone else.
Haast jade carvers Min Maxwell and Logan de Ridder said this week they were concerned the policy would divide the community, be difficult to enforce and deny non-Maakawhio people their rights.
Although the document had been widely circulated, it had not been debated. That debate was needed, they said.
Other opposers said "it was ridiculous to try and legislate over what a person may do with a piece of stone that, after all, finds them".
