Maori split rough justice
I agree with Lindsay Gordon Paku (HB Today 15/8/11) that the struggle many Maori and Pakeha families are currently having, to make ends meet, is more important to Maori than seabed and foreshore ownership. But I disagree with his view of recent history.
His claim the courts found "Maori owned the foreshore and seabed" is a total fabrication. It is of course what Tariana Turia and Peter Sharples were saying, when they jetted around the motu stirring up the people to vote against Labour and form a new "Maori" party. But they renounced this fabrication as soon as they had the chance, in favour of a cosy deal to support the National Party, in return for which most Maori will receive precisely nothing.
What the Court of Appeal actually found is that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to consider ownership claims. They did not make a finding on ownership. Instead they made it clear that, in their opinion, any Maori claims would be very difficult to establish, and could only apply to defined areas of coastline. And of course, any court findings could still be appealed by the Crown, right up to the Supreme Court, if they so decided.
Mr Paku asks why there hasn't been any changes since the most recent legislation was passed. The answer is, the process is now a political one, and the Attorney-General has no intention of doing anything more to stir people up on this issue, before the election.
The problem that Turia and Sharples currently face is their previous statements about Maori ownership are now being used against them, by Hone Harawira and his supporters, who are accusing the Maori Party of selling out in the same way they previously accused Labour's Maori MPs of selling out. It has split the Maori Party down the middle. I find this richly amusing and one could even say it amounts to rough justice.
