Wednesday, March 9, 2011

bill deserves contempt and dismissal

Although Hone is being justly lambasted for missing the vote on the 2nd reading of the Bill to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act - he did make a speech and the speech was excellent.

Excerpts from Scoop
...Because Mr Speaker, when the Minister of Treaty Settlements says that “Maori will have to show that they held exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840, without substantial interruption, and that the area in question was held in accordance with tikanga”, then what he is saying is that the National Party / Maori Party government intends to use exactly the same test in 2011 that 50,000 Maori marched against in 2004.
And when Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister says that “customary title is not going to be easier to achieve, but it’s not the government’s job to make the tests easier…” then what he is doing is spitting in the eye of the Maori Party for backing a deal that is likely to break their backs at the next election.
And when Mr Speaker, the Maori Party actually says in their video, and I quote: "if we were negotiating on what is fair, just and moral, then we would have a very different outcome," then Mr Speaker, please let it be known to all who care to notice, that I am glad that I am no longer a member of a caucus that has finally realised that the price of their coalition with National, is their support for a bill that is unfair, unjust and immoral.
And when Mr Speaker, the Maori Party says “that is the choice facing Maori people, and we will be guided by them” then I have to ask, which people is it that they are talking about?
And when Mr Speaker, the leadership of the Maori Party moves to force me out so that they can say that the Maori Party unanimously supports this racist piece of legislation, do they seriously think that the 50,000 who marched against the confiscation of their rights in 2004 are going to accept the ongoing confiscation of those rights in 2011?
Because this I know Mr Speaker …
1. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, did so without going back to ask their constituents what they thought about it;
2. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have publicly expressed grave doubts about the bill itself;
3. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have been told in no uncertain terms by their constituents that they do not support it; and
4. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have been called upon by iwi in their electorates to withdraw their support for it
And Mr Speaker, the analysis of the submissions makes it quite clear why Maori do not support this bill –
1. it fails to properly recognise and provide for the mana of hapū and iwi
2. it continues the original confiscation via vesting in the ‘common space’
3. it sets the use and occupation tests too high
4. it limits the content of a customary marine title
5. it introduces a costly, adversarial and complicated court process;
6. it remains discriminatory to Māori, and
7. it continues to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Tikanga Māori, common law principles, and international human rights standards, including the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Mr Speaker, this bill is deserving of nothing but contempt and dismissal, for it preys on the desperation of the Maori Party to be seen to be doing something about the issue from which it was born, while highlighting the determination of the National Party to ensure that Maori will actually get nothing from the same piece of legislation.

Now that is a speech and an eye-watering contrast to the weak and apologetic speeches from Turia and Sharples. The māori party are dreaming - do they forget that Ngāi Tahu have said we will fight the racist bill for generations, as we fought Te Kerēme.


Anonymous said...

It is interesting to note that Ngai Tahu are not happy with the legislation while Rahui has said this:

"the Crown will still allow mining by the present companies. Once whanau, hapu, iwi have proven their title they will be the landlords and receive the royalties"

as well as saying she has not sought Ngai Tahu input:

"I wish I could have held all the hui in my electorate to discuss the Bill"

I did not think that maori went on Hikoi to be slaves to foreign mining companies, and receive crumbs for complicity in the destruction of Papatuanuku.

I did not know that there is a foreshore (raupatu) and seabed mining bill. It seems that the Maori Party have been in discussions, and not many of them are with maori...

Anonymous said...

I think it is unfortunate that the Maori Party are pushing ahead with this bill while Christchurch is in ruins and Ngai Tahu and other iwi are focussed on more relevant matters for this time. But they should be under no illusions we Mgai Tahu will not forget that while Rahui hands out tea and sympathy at Rehua she is part of this travesty of justice.

But for the earthquake we would be more visible in our opposition - we will remember what has been done - as for the Maori Party claiming 80% of iwi support repeal of the bill - that is a cynical convenient distortion of what was said - it was repeal as if it was never passed that was supported and or repeal and make it substantively better.

The MACA is not better than the 2004 act - it just sounds like it could be.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who gains special rights in tribal areas under the Coastal and Marine Bill should lose what their ancestors gained in return - ownership of and benefits from all the foreshores and seabeds of the whole country as citizens of this country. This is an opportunistic and underhand attack on the public estate.

Marty Mars said...

Anon @ 1.23pm

Thanks for the laughs, we need them in these difficult times.

Anonymous said...

You pretend to laugh because you can't refute the argument.

Marty Mars said...

There is no argument anon - believe what you want - I don't care.

Anonymous said...

The argument is that there was a quid pro quo for losing local ownership in the nineteenth century

Marty Mars said...

Perhaps if you expand it out a bit - i don't really understand the point you are making - there are no special rights for maori with this bill, maori recieve lessor rights than private owners, if they can ever get over the bar of course. This is discrimination against maori - so your argument doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

The point I am making is the customary rights over foreshores and seabeds weren't simply confiscated and given to someone else. Instead, they were nationalised, so that instead of having rights over the small area in front of your village you had shared rights with the whole population of New Zealand over the foreshores and seabeds of the whole country.

Marty Mars said...

So then giving even lessor rights to maori is the answer - because they had the land stolen, then they somehow manage to get granted customary title and that means they can now have lessor rights of participation in this country compared to anyone else.

Doesn't really work for me

Anonymous said...

This happened notionally in 1840 and de facto by 1880. At the first date 98% of the population of the country was Maori, so it was a resharing among Maori. Any Pakehas who had bought land adjacent to the sea lost and gained on the same principle.

You must at least admit there was a gain in getting a share over the whole country - a gain in royalties from commercial use and in access.

Marty Mars said...

Rangatira who signed the treaty were promised full sovereignity over their domains, they didn't sign away anything, let alone their lands and mana. The treaty largely was to sort out unruly settlors and played into maori fears, generated by the missionaries, around the french.

There was no resharing, there was assertion of rangatiratanga which the Crown promised to maintain and support.