Fran O'Sullivan: Time for a new role model

If Prime Minister Helen Clark had stuck to her guns on the foreshore issue instead of caving in to "brownmail", her Government would have been in a good position to forge an across-party consensus on legislation to define all New Zealanders' rights to the foreshore.

At the weekend National Party leader Bill English said if the Government did not introduce legislation to protect public ownership, "National would do it for them".

A future National Government would establish one standard of citizenship, put a time limit on claims against the Treaty of Waitangi, scrap Maori seats and stop the path to separatism.

It is a significant ground shift led by the National leader - which, combined with upcoming policy shifts on foreign policy and defence, will provide a clear point of differentiation at the next election.

But the significance goes further.

Clark's intuitive reaction to the controversial Court of Appeal ruling on the South Island iwi case for rights to the Marlborough Sounds foreshore was similar to that of English.

Should a "customary right" - that is a traditional right by Maori to have access to the foreshore and seabed to gather basic food - be converted into outright ownership title and with it the right for commercial exploitation?

No, said both leaders clearly. Title resides with the Crown.

The Government initially said it would legislate to retain public ownership, but Clark's own courageous position was quickly modified once the Maori MPs in her caucus rebelled.

The Government is now faced with doing a quick dirty deal to keep a vital voting bloc in place or making a principled decision on behalf of all New Zealanders that will have widespread support.

It's not an easy choice.

The Court of Appeal - headed by Chief Justice Sian Elias - delivered New Zealand its own version of Australia's Mabo judgment when it overturned legal precedent so South Island iwi could proceed with their claim to establish customary rights to the Marlborough Sounds foreshore and seabed.

The court said the Maori Land Court should be allowed to decide whether South Island iwi did indeed have customary rights to the area.

In the resultant furore two assumptions have been made: that the Land Court would find in the iwis' favour; and that customary rights if proven would equate to ownership title.

This is not necessarily so, as the court indicated in the first assumption, and, in the second assumption, the court's ruling is appealable to the Privy Council if the Government chooses.

But because the Government has its back to the wall, these assumptions have quickly gained primacy and all roads are leading to a compromise position which may not have been upheld if the law had been allowed to take its course.

That option is now probably foreclosed, after Maori signalled at their weekend hui that they might withdraw their political support for Labour if the Government did not play ball.

English has pledged in any event to introduce a private member's bill, which will open up debate and could prove embarrassing to the Government if National is able to make the case that other established ownership rights - those of marine farmers in Marlborough and elsewhere - are jeopardised by an inside deal.

Like Mabo, the issue is a flashpoint.

There are some other issues in this case which cause disquiet.

Why was it necessary, for instance, for Chief Justice Sian Elias to preside over the Court of Appeal hearing where the South Island iwi challenged an earlier decision by the High Court?

Obviously the case must have been seen as a potentially ground-breaking issue with the rights of the Government on one hand lined up against that of iwi.

I am not alleging a bias here, but given Elias' strongly identifiable role as a barrister for Maori plaintiffs before her accession to the bench, it may have been prudent to ensure that the court's president - Justice John Gault - presided in this case.

Particularly given the fact that the court overturned precedent in its ruling.

Already the court is under attack by some MPs, particularly Act's Stephen Franks, for an "activist' approach.

There does not need to be any suggestion of an activist Chief Justice as well.

In the midst of this disquiet, Labour's Associate Maori Affairs Minister, John Tamihere, has been a lone voice arguing for an inclusive approach to resolving the issue which also takes account of the Crown's position.

But the situation is highly political.

If Maori want to whip up political opposition to the Government they will not need to look too far for fertile ground.

A report issued last week by Otago University boosts to new heights the claim that Maori are an oppressed people.

Decades of Disparity reports a growing difference in life expectancy between Maori and Pacific Island people and those of European descent.

The research, which was released jointly by the university and Ministry of Health, shows European New Zealanders now live 10 years longer on average than Maori.

Study co-author Tony Blakely says Pacific people now live on average six or seven years less than Europeans.

Blakely says mortality rates for European men have reduced 30 per cent over the past 20 years (26 per cent for women). Maori and Pacific mortality rates have decreased only modestly, if at all.

Blakely went on to say that Maori enjoyed large increases in life expectancy during the 1950s to 1970s but discrepancies between Maori, Pacific and European life expectancy emerged in the 1980s.

He described these patterns as "clear and disturbing".

Co-author Bridget Robson of the Eru Pomare Maori Health Research Centre noted the divergence coincided with social and economic changes starting in the early 1980s, a substantially flattened tax system, fully targeted income support, GST, market rated housing, user charges for health and education and a restructured labour market.

But the truth is somewhat more prosaic.

Nowhere in the official press release is there any mention that huge differences existed in the times of the command and control economy.

For instance in 1981, the life expectancy for Maori women was 69.4 years whereas that of Pakeha women was 77.2 years. Two decades on Maori women have increased their life expectancy to 71 years and Pakeha women to 80.8 years.

The divergence in life expectancy between Maori men and Pakeha men has grown even wider, and, in the case of Pacific Island males while they have increased their life expectancy, Pacific Island women have reduced rates.

But the gap in life expectancy that the report trumpets has not simply emerged since 1984 when the previous Labour Government embarked on its reforms.

Digging into the body of the report there are other factors that come into play - what you might call the "McDonald's factor" - the impact of a bad diet of fatty foods which, combined with cigarette smoking, has spurred increased mortality from cancer, particularly lung and colon, and diabetes.

Maori and Pacific Islanders have been slower than other New Zealanders to heed the warning calls.

As long as Maori have as their role model an overweight, chronically unhealthy Cabinet minister the mindset of a beleaguered people will continue.

Young Maori people are more likely to take note of someone who is not afraid to grasp the blunt realities - over their health or over their responsibility to lift their own sights and take a bigger role in society.

The sooner Clark puts the slim and trim Tamihere in the main role the better.