John Tamihere: Maori must to do more than confirm problems

COMMENT

No, no. What part of no don't you understand? We absolutely reject the Government's proposal. How many times do we have to tell you no?

Over the past few weeks, I have heard the word no and variations on that theme, in a repetitive pattern interrupted only by the occasional melee and colourful insult, as Government representatives have attended a series of hui to hear the Maori response to the foreshore and seabed proposal.

I get the message loud and clear. Maori said no. I don't have a problem with people saying no (or even personal insults), but if you say no, you then have a responsibility to state an alternative to the proposal you are rejecting.

It is easy to say no. It's easy in the same way that it is easy for a redneck to scrawl a badly spelled kneejerk response on the back of an emotive, simplistic postcard mailed to them by an opposition party, no stamp required.

Saying no takes less than a second, though some people in the past few weeks have managed to spin it out somewhat longer. It doesn't require much thinking; it doesn't demand you spend a lot of time and effort sitting down, talking, consulting, negotiating and coming up with something you do want, and which will work for all other parties concerned, too.

The Government plan does propose a way of defining, recognising and protecting Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.

It does so under one of four fundamental principles, the principle of protection. Under this principle, Maori can seek to have their customary rights determined in the Maori Land Court.

From the 1865 Maori Land Act onward, land title investigations granted mana to certain Maori, who obtained freehold title. The Crown then bought land under these titles for settlement.

Customary rights lay with thousands of relatively small groups of Maori: whanau and whanui (wider family) but certainly not to groupings any larger than hapu. It is not a right to be claimed by any particular iwi as a whole, not by trust boards, and it is most definitely not a pan-Maori right over all foreshore all around the country.

Customary rights flow from customary use that has been handed down from generation to generation. It is not a commercial right to be bought or sold. And it is not a right to be defined by freehold title, which, by definition, is a saleable title. Freehold title is not a Maori custom.

This principle of protection, flows from a second principle: the principle of regulation. The Government must be able to regulate to ensure the Maori Land Court can carry out its role.

The third principle of certainty ensures that Maori may be certain about the extent of their rights, just as non-Maori want to be certain about their rights.

Finally, the principle of access will ensure that where there was access before the Appeal Court decision, there will continue to be access.

Annette Sykes can point out that the four principles together spell out "crap", and that's a good catchphrase and headline-grabber. But can she explain why Maori should not want access to, and protection, regulation and certainty over their customary rights?

And it seems that once the public and vociferous chorus of no is over at each hui, the discussions that follow over a cup of tea and a sandwich in the whare kai have been much more reasonable and constructive.

Maori say, quite rightly, that they have staunchly upheld their responsibilities under the concept of kaitiakitanga to protect and nurture the foreshore and seabed in their areas for many generations.

They are genuinely hurt by accusations that Maori will block access to beaches, and say they have never done so, and do not intend to do so now. Many Maori have been outraged by environmental destruction and pollution, desecration of burial sites by others, and access blocked by private land owners.

Talk - outside the brouhaha and occurring largely below the media radar - of concepts such as tupuna title, and co-management, guided by principles of kaitiakitanga, seems to me to be heading in a much more constructive direction.

This week will be the final week of consultation hui, with the final three hui to be held in New Plymouth, Wellington and Auckland.

I challenge Maori leadership to come up with some constructive solutions, instead of just telling us what is wrong with our solution.

They can say no, by all means, but no and then what? It is the right of Maori to say no, but it is their responsibility and obligation to produce solutions, not just confirm problems.

* John Tamihere is the Associate Maori Affairs Minister.