Did the government try and nationalise the foreshore and seabed while I wasn't looking?

Bryce from Liberation* has written an article on Maori Nationalism and Maori liberation. I disagree with most of it (which is hardly surprising), but he does have some good points. In particular, I agree that it's important to look at the historical context of Treaty of Waitangi, and remember that it was a document of colonisation. But this statement just confused me:

. Peace groups, far-left organisations, and parties like the Greens have come out against government moves to bring about public ownership of the foreshore and seabed and thus guarantee public access.

Huh? I guess that statement is technically true. But only in the sense that the Australian government is current taking steps to nationialise Australia and ensure access for everyone.

Although I think it would be hard to sustain an argument that he government was trying to bring about public ownership to the foreshore and seabed to guarantee public access (particularly not as he's got a good analysis of the Labour government. The government has done nothing to ensure public access to the areas of the foreshore and seabed that is currently used by ports, or aquaculture.

Quite a lot of colonial land confiscation is also nationalisation. But selective confiscation isn't necessarily a step on the way to nationalisation. Racist selective confiscation certainly isn't. The Foreshore and Seabed legislation only targeted Maori ownership. That's the fundamental fact Bryce didn't mention.

* Definitely the best blog name ever - I wish I'd thought of it. I was too focused on having a blog name high up the alphabet and getting a Buffy quote in there. So I missed the bleeding obvious.