In 2004 the Maori Party was formed in protest at Prime Minister, Helen Clark's high handed power grab. The Court of Appeal had ruled that Maori had a right to prove in court that they had "customary title" to the foreshore and seabed. The burden of proof was perpetual exclusive access and customary use. Helen Clark panicked and overrode the Court with pre-emptive legislation protecting access to the foreshore for all New Zealanders.
At the time Maori protested long and hard that they had been denied access to the courts and therefore they had been treated unjustly. By cutting off access to the courts to prove customary title, Maori had been deprived of basic civil rights; government had arrogated to itself unwarranted power; and the formation of the Maori political party was a declaration that the future of Maori lay not with the Labour Party with which it had been politically aligned for seventy years.
The National led government has repealed the hated Foreshore and Seabed Act and effectively proposed a return to testing customary rights via the courts. Support for the Bill amongst Maori is eroding, according to the NZ Herald. Now Maori elites are arguing it is better to keep the hated 2004 law than return to the pre-law position.
Why? The answer to that question (and the attendant rationale) provides penetrating insight into the dominant ideology of the Maori elites. Now they are claiming that the test for customary rights (as ruled by the Court of Appeal) is too hard and high. So much for having a day in court. Now the tactic is changing. Keep the current law, and we will work to get new legislation introduced and passed--which, of course, will allow much greater Maori control over the beaches.
Ngai Tahu representatives spoke before the Maori Affairs select committee in Christchurch yesterday, saying that while the Marine and Coastal Area bill was an improvement on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, it would leave most iwi and hapu no better off because the tests required to have customary title and rights recognised were unfair and too high.But it is not just Ngai Tahu.
The submission rejected the argument of the Maori Party co-leaders that while the bill was not perfect, it was all the current political climate allowed and it should be for future generations to try to improve upon it.
Ngai Tahu's submission quotes the iwi's kaiwhakahaere, Mark Solomon, as saying it would be better to leave it to future generations to take up the battle of fixing the injustices caused by the 2004 Act "rather than shouldering the burden of a history that alleges Maori support for a 2011 Act that is equally as unjust".
Two South Island iwi who were in the iwi grouping which triggered the 2004 Act have also rejected the bill. Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa were among the Te Tau Ihu iwi which applied to the Maori Land Court seeking title of the foreshore and seabed in 1997 - a move which led to the Court of Appeal's Ngati Apa decision that iwi could test their title in court, and, as a result, the 2004 Act vesting the foreshore in Crown ownership which iwi were so opposed to.
Yesterday, Te Atiawa rejected the bill that was supposed to rectify that, saying the tests were "unreasonably high" and if they were not changed, it should not go ahead. Both iwi submissions acknowledged the National Government and Maori Party for recognising the injustices of the 2004 Act and moving to repeal it and restore access to the courts for iwi claims.
However, Te Atiawa said "with frustration and disappointment" it was forced to conclude that, although different in important ways, it would make little difference to Te Atiawa.
Translation: regardless of law, we have claims which are inviolate and which must be acceded to. And if not, we will push, militate, and agitate until we get what we want. Co-sovereignty over New Zealand is the goal. "Frog in the pot" gradualism is less and less appealing. We want it here and we want it now. We will see how that plays out.
Maori elites are resembling Oliver Twist more and more by the day. "Please, sir, can I have some more."
No comments:
Post a Comment