Foreshore & Seabed review - repeal recommendation

The much criticised (and how I criticised!) Foreshore and Seabed Act should be - and I'll quote the Ministerial review panel - "repealed". Another step on a course away from state-backed racism in Aotearoa.

The bill was a political calculation that Helen, Michael and Margaret made - that the Nat's could swing enough Pakeha votes their way from fomenting anti-Maori sentiment and win the 2005 election if the Labour government did nothing and let Maori go to court for their rights. They also aligned themselves with aquaculture interests and bureaucratic interests in wanting nothing that would impinge on a commercial carving up of the marine space the way they wanted it. Maori feature little in the equations the troika (plus H2 no doubt) must have debated. The quorum in the Constitution Act for an Executive Council is 3.

And so without Cabinet approval or discussion - where the Maori ministers may have argued the larger group out of imposing a race-based land confiscation - they unilaterally declared that our version of the Australian Mabo decision would be reversed in favour of the Crown and to the detriment of the natives. They threw the dice with Winston's help betting that if they were racist first - with their version of a confiscation Act - they could fend off Don Brash - who had then risen on the back of that bigoted sentiment to being a respected kaumatua of sorts among many Pakeha who think of Maori as a problem. So they passed the bill despite the protests and its been woe and misery for Labour (the price of a ruthless sell-out) who slunk back in in 2005 and who now risk permanently losing all of the Maori seats. They very recently - since the departure of Helen, Michael and Margaret - recanted on their own legislation if we believe recent murmurings from them.

I have not read far into the Ministerial review. I really must mention this, however: the verse after the cover page is something of a conceit by one third of the review panel. They could have quoted the works of the other two thirds who specialise in land law and Maori customary rights. Instead the relatively unqualified, relatively young female poet gets her self-indulgent moment in to set the scene (image - English version) We don't need to know the rest. This detracts from the report - a very substantial report - in volumes - that I must wade through, having just downloaded them.

Tariana Turia quit the Helen's ranks over this and formed a party - or perhaps one formed around her is a better way of putting it - and now they are in the car at least, even if it isn't in the driver's seat. They've been astute enough to have given National directions so that they have driven far enough into their turf it doesn't matter who is driving - they have arrived at the same destination together. Or at least that's the way things look now (see the non-committal official response from the Attorney-General and Pita Sharples below). Turia today:

This is a landmark day for New Zealand. This is a day when the conflicts and divisions of the past five years can be rectified.
This is the day that the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has concluded that that Act is built on such shaky foundations that it must be repealed.
[...]
The report concludes that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 severely discriminated against Maori.
• The Act took away the right to go to Court.
• It drew on legal tests developed in other jurisdictions, foreign to our own context.
• It was simply wrong in principle and approach.
• The timing and the process were also wrong.

The report defines the 2004 Act as causing “much anguish and concern to Maori and many non-Maori as well”.
Those words are the voice of reason that the Maori Party has been waiting to hear, for five years.
“The Act has to be the single biggest land nationalisation statute enacted in New Zealand history”.
[...]
The Ministerial Panel conclude that the Act should be repealed, and that the process of balancing Maori property rights in the foreshore and seabed with public rights and public expectations must be started again.

But in their ministerial capacity as part of the government they issue a cautious joint statement:“The panel has completed the vital first stage of the review process and reported on time” said Mr Finlayson. “The next step is for the Government to consider the recommendations in the report and make decisions on the future of the Act.”
“We will take the time necessary to reach a decision in the best interests of all New Zealanders.”

“The report of the independent ministerial review panel confirms that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the Foreshore and Seabed Act that is not confined to Maori,” said Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples.

“If the Act is repealed, the focus will be on finding the best balance of customary rights and the interests of the wider public.”
“The Government is hoping to make an initial response around late August 2009,” said Mr Finlayson.

When the Act is repealed. They need to take their time on this to fit Maori customary rights neatly with the interests of the competing and overlapping stakeholders to ensure the settlement - and that is what it will be as they are already talking in those terms on the TV news tonight - has the necessary support to endure.

From the overview:It's all very optimistic - it would be against type for the NZ government not to victimise Maori - but what I think it is is an offer to do some more work. And - sans the poetry one - they should be given the task of defining Mana Whenua for the Auckland Council Bill. The very first of their terms of reference for this review was:

What were the nature and extent of the mana whenua and public interests in the coastal marine area prior to Attorney General v Ngāti Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643

What is Mana Whenua in terms of local authorities and can territorial authority of Maori be recognised? These are questions some of the panel could answer in the case of Auckland - but I have to read the report (they may have answered some of these questions).