Tuesday, 22 August 2023

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today: More at Stake Than Sun and Sand.

In The Public Domain: The territory of New Zealand is the collective possession of all the people who inhabit it, and the question of how best to dispose of its resources the responsibility of their democratically elected representatives – or so argued Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government back in 2003.

“AN UNHAPPY SUMMER” is the prediction of at least one of the Maori leaders laying claim to the foreshore and seabed in response to the Government’s declaration that New Zealand’s beaches and coastal waters lie in the “public domain” - i.e. belong to all of us.

Maori nationalists have raised the prospect of fencing off public beaches and requiring non-Maori to apply for “visas” before being granted access. Titewhai Harawira has gone even further, denouncing the Government’s proposals as another “confiscation” of Maori property rights, and threatening to organise a nationwide march on Parliament in protest.

Cooler Maori heads have expressed their misgivings in less inflammatory language, but with an equal degree of concern at what they regard as the Government’s lack of respect for due process.

The Government’s parliamentary opponents are no less vociferous in their condemnation of its proposed resolution to the foreshore and seabed problem. The National Party, in particular, is highly critical of what it sees as the legally imprecise notion of a “public domain” and is urging the Government to legislate the foreshore and seabed back under Crown ownership immediately – and unequivocally.

“Crown ownership” is, however, a highly problematic expression in the context of Maori/Pakeha relations. Hard though it may be to believe, a great many Maori still construe “Crown ownership” to mean ownership by Queen Elizabeth II (who is deemed to have inherited the title to New Zealand from her Great-Great-Grandmother, Queen Victoria).

A recent example of this constitutional wrong-headedness occurred last month when a gathering of Taranaki Hapu calling themselves Te Puraranga met at Parihaka on 26 July to discuss the foreshore and seabed issue. The hui ended with a ringing declaration of “Maori sovereignty over land and sea”. Having effectively decided to tear up the Treaty of Waitangi, the group then thought it best to send a copy of their declaration to the Queen (along with other “state leaders” in the Pacific region) presumably to let her know that the Windsors’ antipodean real estate had come under new management.

It is precisely to reduce this sort of political naiveté that the Government has introduced the concept of “public domain”. Hopefully, by dispensing with the perennially misunderstood concept of Crown ownership, and replacing it with the new vocabulary of collective ownership, groups like Te Puraranga can be released from their peculiar constitutional delusions.

The territory of New Zealand is the collective possession of all the people who inhabit it, and the question of how best to dispose of its resources the responsibility of their democratically elected representatives.

In other words, sovereignty resides in the people – all the people – and is indivisible. It cannot be reposed anywhere other than in the House of Representatives - which is constructed out of the people’s electoral choices. Nor does it subsist in any ethnic group – no matter how elaborate its genealogy. And sovereignty certainly does not lie in the courts. The New Zealand judiciary exists to enforce the will of the people – as expressed in parliamentary legislation – and has absolutely no mandate to supplant it.

Those who reject these propositions must also repudiate the entire legacy of human civilisation since the Enlightenment. To invest the monarch with anything other than purely ceremonial significance; to elevate the Judiciary above the Legislature; to deny the Executive the right to govern in the people’s name; is to embrace a species of politics engendered by superstition, fed by prejudice, and disfigured by the vagaries of arbitrary power.

Regrettably, such people do exist. In a paper entitled “Some Core Values for Resolving the Foreshore and Seabed Issue” prepared by Te Hau Tikanga - the Maori Law Commission (some of whose members advise the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs, Tariana Turia) one may read the following: “The nature and extent of Iwi and Hapu title and rights to the foreshore are aspects of te tino rangatiratanga which only Iwi and Hapu have the right to define.”

In other words, 15 per cent of New Zealanders, by virtue of their bloodlines, arrogate unto themselves, exclusively, the power to define the “nature and extent’ of their legal rights vis-à-vis the remaining 85 per cent of the population. There is a name for this form of government; it is called Aristocracy: – rule according to genealogical or ethnic descent.

If that is the sort of society New Zealanders wish to live in, all they need to do is keep their heads down and their mouths shut. As an egalitarian democrat, however, I’m hoping that every Kiwi decides to spend this summer at the beach.


This essay was originally published in The Dominion Post of 22 August 2003.

12 comments:

  1. Whether by the bayonet, treaty, deceit and subterfuge, the conquered are, well,conquered. Not sure why these familiar concepts are misunderstood. To the victor the spoils, woe to the vanquished. It is has it always has been.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In such cases violence would be assured.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The boil has been festering for quite a while now. Slow and steady wins the race which is being run by Kingitanga Maori. Especially when there is traitorous help from sneaky, secretive, surreptitious, dishonest politicians. I still cannot fathom how they can actually buy into the deal. What's in it for them when we all have so much to lose? Maori would not be able to sustain this country with tribal rule. The Golden Goose can lay only so many eggs and there would be economic collapse (from socialism).
    Let the lancing begin as soon as possible. After the election.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imagine if no one said the unpopular.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "many Maori still construe “Crown ownership” to mean ownership by Queen Elizabeth II "

    Whatever certain people might say about Maori, I think they probably caught up with King Charles by now.

    "15 per cent of New Zealanders, by virtue of their bloodlines, arrogate unto themselves, exclusively, the power to define the “nature and extent’ of their legal rights vis-à-vis the remaining 85 per cent of the population. "

    15% of New Zealanders – probably a bit more in those days perhaps – were promised their taonga would be inviolate. That promise has been broken time and time again. Can you blame them for pushing back?

    Mind you Chris I can't help thinking you're perhaps doing a little nut picking here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is always interesting when there are those that call foul when interpretation and implementation doesn't fit their purpose. The reality is that when the Crown entered into the Treaty of Waitangi it did so as a contractional arrangement that enshrined certain indigenous rights, which also fitted into Anglo-Saxon customary rights law. This is the legal framework under which the Crown, NZ Government and the NZ jurisprudence evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'by virtue of their bloodlines' perhaps should be - by virtue of a minority of their bloodlines.

    ReplyDelete
  8. IMO Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed would be more credible and accepted more generally, if their claims to oversee these areas in a fair and equitable way could be believed. With power and control comes a certain capitalistic greed and privilege that seems entwined in the push for sovereignty and the ideology behind it. I have an uneducated opinion on these issues but bet I'm not alone in my thinking. The easiest example of what I say was the boating ramps at lake Taupo, where the public had paid for some of these, only for them to be taken over by local Maori along with the fees to use them. We have also seen restrictions to certain beaches and the boat access to them. Some Maori would argue that if its good enough for Pakeha to make a buck out of these assets why shouldn't Maori, and one can't disagree except that Many Maori believe they protect these areas better because of their inherent closeness to the sea, rivers and land. I'm yet to be convinced that they are any different to pakeha in this endeavour, except they are just as smart at turning a profit from it. I don't include the general Maori population in these comments, as they just want to go to the beaches ,lakes and rivers like everyone else to have fun and enjoy the kai. The so called elite who seem to benefit the most from the push to sovereignty under the guise of improving the lives of all Maori, are the ones who benefit the most.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 15% of New Zealanders – probably a bit more in those days perhaps – were promised their taonga would be inviolate. That promise has been broken time and time again. Can you blame them for pushing back?



    That's 15% with a collective Maori and Pakeha ancestry.
    Calling this part of the Earth "taonga" is disingenuous. It reminds me of Catherine Delahunty's : "yes i enjoy the beach but i don't have the site specific connection that Betty has with generations of kaitiaki responsibilities". It is taonga to everyone.

    Those people who go on about giving Maori their land back (including Meng Foon - presumably echoing his staff). These are likely the same people who accuse David Seymour of inciting genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is interesting to see what you wrote 20 years ago, Chris. The article has aged well.
    One of the major issues that is becoming more evident is who speaks for "Maori"? A lot of people claim they do, but what is the legitimacy? And how do they prove it? Even within hapu, often inflated to iwi status when they aren't, there are power struggles - the two bald men fighting over a comb image springs to mind. One only has to hear some of the petty disputes being fought out in the Maori Land Court to take pity on the judges who have to listen to these childish squabbles.
    That fractious behaviour is at the root of many of the current troubles. There is no uniting leadership- even the much-promoted Maori Party got a very small (but vocal) supporter base. With about half of those who could be on the Maori roll opting for the general roll, that tells one where many see their loyalties are - as the people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your commenters don't seem to know how a community works. Conquest doesn't bring people around.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "That's 15% with a collective Maori and Pakeha ancestry."
    So? That's just the usual blood quantum bullshit that the right come up with all the time. It's meaningless.

    ReplyDelete