KEY POINTS:
Land occupations, in particular those in populated areas, have often generated hostilities. The 1995 and 2002 occupations by Wanganui iwi of Moutoa Gardens, which local Maori call Pakaitore, are cases in point. But when members of the Hauraki iwi moved on to the 1100ha Whenuakite Station, between Whitianga and Cooks Beach this week, there was little public outcry.
That is a measure, perhaps, of how far we have come, particularly in the decade since 1995. The debate stirred by the foreshore and seabed legislation has resulted in a more sophisticated public discussion about Treaty settlements. Many who felt that customary Maori use of the seabed and foreshore should not be allowed to morph into some sort of legal title remained uneasy that the law, which extinguished rights that had not even been claimed, much less tested, was a pre-emptive abuse of power.
And if there is one thing that unites New Zealanders, it is the concept of a fair go. The Whenuakite occupation - like another at Rangiputa on the Karikari Peninsula east of Kaitaia - was intended to highlight the fact that Landcorp, a Crown entity, was about to sell by tender a block of land subject to a Treaty claim. It requires neither legal training nor a heavy bias in favour of Maori land claims to conclude that this was far from being a fair go.
Sensibly, and not a moment too soon, the Government has put the sales on hold for a month while it reviews Landcorp's processes. It will also look at whether Landcorp should sell land that is subject to Treaty claims and how to protect sensitive sites - coastal land, for example, or land of heritage significance.
That's a big brief and it's going to take a lot more than the proposed month to even embark on answering the questions it raises. It is self-evident that land subject to claim should not be sold. It is idle to say that the sale can be made subject to a caveat that it can be repurchased compulsorily to settle a treaty claim: such a reacquisition would simply inflict a new injustice in the cause of redressing an old one.
But the Government's concern about public land passing into foreign hands needs to be widened. It is the sale of public land to private interests that is the matter of concern. The genealogy of the new owner is of less importance than his intentions; foreign owenership is not, by its nature, a bad thing. American Paul Kelly's Karikari Estate Vineyard and Winery and Carrington Farms is a multi-million-dollar project that has, by general consensus, improved barren land and created jobs.
That said, a piece of land like Whenuakite Station, even were it not subject to a land claim, is a jewel in public ownership. A decision on disposing of it must not be made with only commercial considerations in mind.
So it is timely to ask whether the Crown, through a Landcorp subsidiary, should be, in effect, a property developer. Some may say that the role of Government is to ensure that public interests are protected from the depredations of development. It is hard to see how it can be poacher and gamekeeper at the same time.
If sober consideration is given to these and related matters, we will all, in the end, have the protesters at Whenuakite and Rangiputa to thank. State-owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard acknowledged - none too graciously - that they had "brought to the Government's attention an issue". But Prime Minister Helen Clark was wrong to chastise Maori Party MPs for encouraging the occupation. The role of political opposition is to call the Government to account. That's what happened here. The Government's job now is to answer the call.
