Ngati Porou in the House, Cullen's Key's house.

The big media can spit out their reactionary lies, the only difference is now the Nactional bloggers have fuck all to say because their government are the ones signing off on it. One of the articles was so wrong - not just the ridiculous spectre of a race bar on public beaches, but even wrong on the area:

The agreement covers the East Cape from Opotiki to Gisborne - a stretch of coastline...

Opotiki! (see map below) - way off. Typical Pakeha Maori beat-up. Journalism of the Brash era. It's all very much less than the monocular Pakeha media would have the Pakeha public believe. The premise of their stories seem to underscore the simple racism at the core of the confiscation act: the "white man's touch". Maori are the enemy - Pakeha and public is the same thing etc., etc. A white man respects another white man's property, but the natives? Oh no, they don't have any property and they only have the rights that the white man's government gives them.

In October Cullen pushed this through to save Parekura's bacon - blatant pork-barreling that saw Horomia back in the trough, but left John Key to sign the cheque. And before anyone says anything - yes, it is ironic that the the Maori party and National are progressing something they were both against.


Last February:

Public access to all foreshore and seabed regardless of what property status it has is what is important to the public. Confiscating every square millimetre off Maori whilst protecting Pakeha rights in the same category so that Pakeha can get 80% of aquaculture areas and can build marinas etc. which over-rides Maori property, customary and other rights will never be accepted because it is unconstitutional, unjust and racist.

They have to pretend to accept it because that is the only way to get it back; or get it partially back... in some form. When they confiscated land in the 1860s the government would give those that signed that they had surrendered to the Crown a tiny plot inside the confiscation zone - a minute fraction of the land that was once their own. The ones that did not surrender (and were not killed or executed) often got nothing. Invasions and military occupation were used by the government to affect the first stage of the confiscation. That is still how it is now in large part - at least the brutal paperwork of it. And before anyone says anything - yes, it ironic that NZ has the same sort of colonial template as Israel.

The Heads of agreement I blogged on last year is the confiscation Act in practice. It is from the Crown's perspective of giving a native group a limited set of Crown-determined rights over the Crown's "public" foreshore and seabed, rather than from a Maori perspective of having the Crown recognise that their Mana Whenua/Tai Moana does not affect the public's general rights of access and navigation inside their rohe.

A more reasoned article in today's NZ Herald:

Dr Mahuika said the deal on the proposed Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill would allow the runanga some abilities to make and enforce closures but these were for specific purposes to protect wahi tapu or enforce rahui (temporary ban of activities).

He said a reference to beachgoers being fined up to $5000 was "also a point of contention". This was for a specific context in terms of the Resource Management Act.

"If people continue to flout what has been agreed to by us and the council then, like any other law, people will have to face the consequences of their actions," he said.

"The key tool to our agreement is we will consult and educate people as to what these issues are. We are talking to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Fisheries and we will be talking with the Gisborne District Council as we work through the issues."

Te Runanga o Ngati Porou negotiator Matanuku Mahuika said the restrictions were "not arbitrary".

"There's nothing to suggest we are going to be indulging in mass closures. We have the ability under the deed to close Mt Hikurangi for up to 50 days a year - at the most it is closed for one or two."

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson yesterday said the National Government had no intention of backing out of clauses protecting sacred sites, and said it was irresponsible to suggest beaches would be closed to the public.

He said the protection of wahi tapu was a standard part of redress in the Treaty of Waitangi and now the seabed and foreshore agreements.

"Its one of the most important things to address." It commonly involved distinct sites, such as burial sites, rather than wide tracts of land.

National and the Maori Party intend to review the act, but Prime Minister John Key has already said the review will not affect iwi with whom the Crown has committed to agreements, such as Ngati Porou.

Mr Finlayson said it was likely those iwi in the early stages of negotiations would be put on hold while the review took place.

The Crown is in negotiations with four other iwi for similar settlements.

And before anyone says anything - yes, it is ironic that our ex-blogger is now Finlayson's press secretary.