Key has claimed the foreshore and seabed issue is not about compensation.
This has never been about money says Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia
“I am astounded and disappointed that some critics of and commentators on the report of the ministerial review panel have chosen to highlight the possibility that compensation may become liable under some circumstances.”
“From its very beginnings the foreshore and seabed debate has been about rights. Customary rights and legal rights – and the review report points that out,” says Mrs Turia. “It has never been about money and compensation.”
“The report points out how prejudicial the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been towards Maori, how it amounted to the biggest legalised ‘land grab’ the country has ever known. It talks about the need to recognise the customary rights of hapu and iwi in the coastal marine area, which amount to a property right. It also talks about the ‘interests of the general public’ in the coastal marine area and the need to respect that.”
“And yes it does talk about the potential for compensation. But let me ask the people who are criticising the report because of that aspect. Do they expect that the people who will lose their homes in the path of the new motorway in Auckland will be entitled to compensation?”
“So if Maori hapu and iwi lose their property to the government, should they not also be entitled to compensation?”
“But as I said at the beginning of this statement, this issue has never been about money and compensation. The forty thousand people who marched on Parliament weren’t looking for money or compensation. They were marching for their rights and that is why we in the Maori Party and they, will welcome the repeal of that awful law and we look forward to participating in the discussion to find a fair, logical and lasting way ahead.”
I don’t like the idea of anyone but the public owning the F&S but if Maori have been dispossessed of it they should be compensated.
My problem is I can’t tell if the Maori Party agrees with this or not. I may be missing some clever postmodern synthesis of paradox here but it seems that in Tariana’s view the matter both is and is not about compensation. Simultaneously. Can someone please clarify this for me?