Friday, October 29, 2010

telling it like it is

In an excellent article by Kim Triegaardt within Te Karaka (Spring), Mark Solomon Kaiwhakahaere and Anake Goodall CEO, of Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu speak candidly about the replacement bill for the Foreshore and Seabed Act and what it means for them and Ngāi Tahu. These quotes are small snippets, go here so you can read the whole article and get the full context of the answers.
What do you find most disappointing about the bill?
Anake - ... "The double jeopardy idea is really offensive. At Otākou those settlers would have starved if our people hadn't fed them...for that expression of mana and manakai they will be excluded."...
If you could create the ideal Act what would it look like?
Mark - ... "... we've had a settlement on the land. I do not believe that Ngāi Tahu has to prove who we are or where our area is - it's in three Acts of parliment. We know who we are and I don't accept that we've ever surrendered our rights to the foreshore and seabed."...
How do you respond to John Key's comment that "I'm not sure everyone will be happy with it - (the legislation) - well, that's just the way it is".
Mark - "See you - see you over the generations."
Anake - "You can pass this legislation tomorrow and we won't lose any sleep over it because it won't endure."
How do you respond to the Māori party welcoming the legislation as a victory?
Mark - " The Māori party can say what they like but the reality is that if the iwi and hapu of the country do not accept the deal then they can pass whatever they like. All it will mean is that we will start with a new claim process and like our land claims that took six generations, if this takes six generations then so be it."...
I think you are getting the idea - there is no acceptance of this bogus bill - these leaders see the truth about the inequality and blatant discrimination against maori within this bill. Step up Māori party or be brushed aside.


robertguyton said...

"Bogus bill."
That's it.

Anonymous said...

Excellent clear summary by Mark and Anake- they are a good team. I gather through the grapevine that the only iwi supporting the Bill are Ngati Porou and Whanau Apanui. Unfortunately the Bill may not be dead in water- pun not intended- because the Maori Party may vote for the Bill. This will just start series of further grievances.

This raises a few important issues that have not been aired, as far as I know:
a. Who does the Maori Party really represent? The simple answer is those who voted for the party in the elections. These voters do not represent iwi, they are just a collection of individuals who like the sound of Maori Party policies.
b. Where do iwi and their leaders get the mandate to negotiate through the Maori Party, this Bill, on behalf of their shareholders? The answer is the authority of iwi leadership is derived through a robust democratic vote by their shareholders. My recent experince and evidence of Ngai Tahu elections (for example) was that they were neither democratic nor robust and therefore do not have much formal authority to represent their shareholders; talking with people in other iwi confirms a similar position of valid representation.
You cannot blame the Maori Party talking with iwi leaders or as Tina Nixon refers to them "The Brown Table" because that is who they see as represenative of iwi but in my view it is not.
Fortunately, by good thinking, rather than authority from iwi shareholders, most are rejecting this Bill.

P.S. I remember prior to the first MMP elections in 1996 Steve O'Regan and Charlie Crofts trying to convince the the Tront table to support NZ First and Tu Wylie. I proposed that Ngai Tahu should always be apolitical because Tront could never hope to represent NT shareholders- this was adopted by the table. But it did not stop O'Regan promoting Tu privately, who then won the seat for one term.
Richard Parata

Sibel said...

I do not have an insight on this act but I love your passion on the subject. I wish more people would be as involve with your government and not just take what they say as the best for the people. Mostly in this very difficult time were the real issues get lost in the vile and childish negative rhetoric. Spending million on negative ads rather then the issue doesn't give me much confidence on the election and the candidates.
I am following you and invite you to my blog. If you like it follow me back.