Will Maori Party stand firm on foreshore & seabed?

Written By: - Date published: 9:12 am, April 6th, 2010 - 12 comments
Categories: foreshore and seabed, maori party - Tags: , ,

As I said last post, National’s foreshore and seabed offer cannot be acceptable to the Maori Party.

The Maori Party was established to win the right for iwi to have what they believe are their rights to use the economic potential of the foreshore and seabed. In particular, iwi want aquaculture and mining rights. They don’t want to have to get licences for those activities on what they see as their land as if it was public land.

National’s offer does not meet those requirements. It explicitly says iwi will be able to have customary rights in government delineated areas, like traditional seafood collection, recognised (as they can now) and will be able to veto coastal consents for things like mining and aquaculture (you don’t have to be a fortune-teller to see that’s going to lead to some racial disharmony when Pakeha companies get vetoed by iwi who go ahead and do the activity the Pakeha company wanted to do) but Maori won’t be able to do mining or aquaculture themselves on the foreshore and seabed as of right – they’ll have to get permission from government, which is the problem right now.

The Maori Party is clearly unhappy, particularly Hone Harawira who called the offer “dumb” but will they fold?

The Maori Party’s last minute decision to side with democracy and vote against the Government’s dictatorship in Canterbury only hours after the foreshore and seabed proposal came out looked like a flash of real anger.

But then there was Rahui Katene’s bizarre patsy question to the government on the foreshore and seabed the next day. That looks like a sign the leadership will fold.

If they do, they’ll be abrogating their party’s entire raison d’etre. It’s not enough to get consultation or the ability to go to court to win government-limited rights. Being told no respectfully isn’t any different in substance from what they got in 2004. Contrary to what some on the Right seem to think, Maori are not mystical savages who just want a insubstantial spiritual connection to the foreshore and seabed acknowledged within Pakeha law. They want to be able to be awarded real economic rights.

If the leadership folds on this one they’ll surely break the party between the captured leaders in their Crown limos who are happy to take trinkets as long as they can keep their jobs and the bulk of the party, which wants real control of land they say belongs to them and the economic potential it represents.

12 comments on “Will Maori Party stand firm on foreshore & seabed?”

  1. Lanthanide 1

    There was a snippet of Key that I heard on national radio at some point over the weekend, unfortunately I don’t remember what day or time, but it was talking about the foreshore and seabed. Key basically said that they’ve put up this proposal document, which has fulfilled their part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party; if no agreement can be made on the future of the legislation, the existing act will *not* be repealed, and they will still be meeting their side of the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party because all they guaranteed was to re-visit the situation, not to repeal the existing act.

    Could the Maori Party really be so silly as to agree to a confidence and supply agreement with National that gave them an easy out for not having to do anything?

  2. Bill 2

    It would appear to me that the whole question of coastal development has now led to a situation that is ripe for all types of corruption.

    According to the posts here, Iwi have the power of veto.

    But what about when in time honoured fashion, the corporations or companies winkle out a few well placed and influential individuals…or when some clique forms and hoodwinks the majority. I can’t think of any instances where traditional community structures for decision making ( and by extension the whole community) have not been in some way subverted and trashed by market actors where profitable exploitation of resources has been at stake.

    So, if the question of veto is correct, then the near term future will see an assault being launched on the integrity of Maoridom.

    • Bright Red 2.1

      the power of veto over projects that need a coastal consent is one of the customary rights that the govt says Maori will be able to have recognised:

      Right to permit activities
      The coastal hapū/iwi would have the right to decide whether an activity requiring a coastal permit
      could be progressed by the consent authority (eg, the regional council). They would:
      be required to give, or decline to » give, their permission in writing within a set time period;

      Note that the activity still has to be signed off by the consenting authority if the iwi backs it but the iwi can veto any proposal on whatever grounds.

      Potentially, it’s a power to veto all their commercial rivals for coastal activities like aquaculture and mining.

      • Bill 2.1.1

        And my question is; To what lengths will those seeking iwi consent go?

        Where people, cultures or communities obstruct the market, the market tends to ‘bulldoze’ said people, cultures or communities out of the way. Looking around the world and through history it seems they have developed an array of successful tactics…

  3. Cnr Joe 3

    captcha: inevitably

  4. tc 4

    The MP’s true colours are about to be shown and guess what kids…..it’s Blue.

    Basing a party around the narrow minded and vindictive Turia with baggage carrying Sharples alongside made them easy fodder for the smooth crosby textor authored nat tactics….again and agian they’ve been duped and had to put a brave face on it when in public.

    Credit where it’s due…..IMHO the nat’s strategy is to have them implode….one less party and a strong candidate in epsom….bye bye ACT thanks for supershity we’ll take it from here as that FPP system looks alot closer now.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5

    They want to be able to be awarded real economic rights.

    Rights that they have no claim to.

  6. Craig Glen Eden 6

    They will fold and pretend they achieved their aim the repeal of the Act. The fact that it has delivered nothing for Maori means nothing to Turia. The anger about the sea bed and foreshore was all an act to further her own little revenge act, she does not care about jobs for her people or anything else she only cares about her own position and money. Her actions all ready prove that, what a disgrace!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 day ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    2 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    2 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    1 week ago