KEY POINTS:
The Maori Party is turning itself into knots over the Foreshore and Seabed territorial deals the Labour Government is negotiating with a handful of iwi. That much was obvious from the interview co-leader Pita Sharples had in English on Marae yesterday (One, 11am) with Shane Taurima and then the interview MP Te Ururoa Flavell had on Maori Television's news show Te Kaea last night (7.30pm in Maori and 11 pm with English subtitles).
Sharples revealed for the first time that the Maori Party would vote for the legislation on the deals that are underway with the eastern tribes of Ngati Porou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui - but said the party would repeal them along with the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Sharples:'Maori people put us into Parliament to find this thing tino rangatiratanga and that is what we are pursuing and that is what we are going to do. Now if tribes say 'this is the tino rangatiratanga level we want,' fine. We'll support them. It won't stop us looking for the big picture thing...'
Taurima: What will happen to those deals?
Sharples: Those deals will - well whatever happens when an act is repealed.
But Flavell, when asked on Te Kaea if the party would repeal the law said; " That's a good question. I believe we will leave that for the time being because we don't know yet what will happen. Both agreements are in the early stages. It's only a backbone. The main question is 'what are the underlying intentions. This is why we will sit back and wait.'
These are the top-shelf territorial deals that will give a few select iwi [those with continuous ownership of land next to the foreshore] veto rights over developments on the coast, the right to change place names, erect signs, the right to make fisheries regulations, greater influence over district council processes and rights of consultation with certain ministers.
They are deals that were celebrated by the iwi leaders concerned but were roundly dismissed by co-leader Tariana Turia on Waitangi day as a 'charade' and 'paternalistic.'
Perhaps I should give Hone Harawira a call today to see if I can get a fourth position on the agreements.
I don't under-estimate the dilemma that the Maori Party faces. It is very similar to that which faced National last week over stricter foreign ownership controls on Auckland International Airport.
Their gut instinct is to oppose it; to be consistent they should oppose it; but it is an issue of such sensitivity that opposing means alienating supporters in election year.
That boils down to being very careful about what one says.
Turia was condemned for rushing to judgment and firing off an ill-considered and damning response.
National leader John Key was condemned for not having an instant and damning response.
Labour may be having a better year than appears.
The biggest problem with these territorial deals is the expectation it builds among iwi that they are or could be the norm.
Labour has been fostering this by misrepresenting the figures. Prime Minister Helen Clark suggested on Marae last week there could be as many as nine iwi lining up for similar deals - in fact there is only one other- Ngati Porou Ki Hauraki.
She is confusing these deals with applications for customary rights orders (like the right to remove hangi stones) under the Foreshore and Seabed Act to the Maori Land Court - of which there have been pitifully few in three years, only eight or nine.
The territorial deals should not be confused with these customary rights orders applications to the Maori Land Court. It is like the difference between a Rolls Royce and a Toyota Corolla. But it serves Labour's purposes to blend them, pump up the figures and make it sound as though every iwi could get a Rolls Royce.
Pita Sharples perpetuated the confusion by suggesting that if the deals were repealed, along with the F and S Act, the iwi could go the Maori Land Court and get even more - and 'possibly contest ownership.'
It is important to remember what the Foreshore and Seabed Act actually did apart from vest ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.
It did two things. One was necessary, in my view, and one was not.
The Court of Appeal allowed for the possibility of the Maori Land Court issuing freehold title in the foreshore and seabed. ie legal ownership, by dint, among other things, of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. No Government had ever intended this to be a possibility and Turia herself went to great lengths to say Maori did not want freehold title.
This avenue was rightly shut down. It is hard to believe that National would agree to this being re-opened.
(Unfortunately many Maori believed the Court of Appeal confirmed Maori ownership over the foreshore and seabed when it patently didn't. The perception persisted and Sharples fosters the misconception.)
The real extinguishment of rights for Maori - and the greater cause for outrage - was in curbing the right to use the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to test claims for customary title (not freehold title). That did not have to happen.
In the bill, the Government renamed that concept 'territorial customary rights' and basically said any iwi that could have proved its case before the High Court, could negotiate with the Government, which is what the two East Coast deals are about.And as a sop to the High Court, the deals will have to have the court's okay.
It is possible that this part of the bill could be reversed.
I have often wondered what would have happened if Labour had left that avenue open - no tribe in New Zealand tested customary so no one knows where it would have ended up. The Government felt it would have created too much uncertainty.
It is highly probable, however, that if Ngati Porou had taken a claim to the High Court, its customary title would have been confirmed (it owns the land to the shore) and the Government would then have entered into negotiations, and most likely ended up with something very similar to what has just been arrived at in the 'territorial' deal but probably over a much longer period of time.
I'm not sure if that is a stronger reason to ditch that part of the Foreshore and Seabed - or keep it.
