Korero - what Maori and Pakeha are saying

By SIMON COLLINS, JULIET ROWAN and AINSLEY THOMSON

This week's hikoi has shifted the foundations of Maori politics, but left Pakeha New Zealanders largely unmoved.

From the Far North to isolated Westland, a Weekend Herald sampling has found Maori bursting with pride after the 20,000-strong hikoi that marched on Parliament on Wednesday.

But the huge protest has not persuaded Pakeha voters on its core argument - that ownership of beaches below high water should be determined by the courts, rather than held by the Crown.

Asked if she supported the march, Margaret Manuel of Greymouth replied simply: "Of course, because I'm Maori."

Rolene Werahiko of Putaruru in Waikato said: "Just watching it on TV gave me a fuzzy feeling."

But Albany builder Andy Douglas, a 49-year-old Pakeha, said: "I thought it [the hikoi] was a joke."

Mike Condor, 29, a sales rep from Mairangi Bay who drove past the hikoi at Huntly and in Hamilton, said it did not affect him. "Nothing really interests me, mate - even though I'm paying for them to protest because they don't have jobs."

Three months ago, when the Herald polled Maori and Pakeha after a speech by National Party leader Don Brash, Maori felt hurt by his call to abolish all "race-based" funding and political representation.

But Dr Brash's themes appealed then to Pakeha in the North Shore suburb of Glenfield and in Putaruru.

"We are all New Zealanders; we should all be treated the same," they told us.

This week, we returned to interview 99 people in the streets of Glenfield, Henderson and Queen St in Auckland, and in Putaruru.

In February, 52 per cent of Maori backed Labour and 32 per cent supported the idea of a Maori party.

This week, we found that still only seven of the 45 Maori we spoke to would definitely vote for the Maori party which former Labour minister Tariana Turia hopes to form.

But a wider group, adding up with the committed supporters to almost half our sample, is now sympathetic to the idea.

Fane Feleti Tangiria, a 26-year-old Ngapuhi mother from Massey with baby Karma in a pushchair, said the hikoi's climax in Wellington left her "totally amazed".

"I wasn't really interested. I thought they need to just leave things," she said.

"But when I saw it, I'm just so for everything that they stand for. I'm proud, very proud. They stand for Maoridom and our beliefs ... I won't be going for Labour again."

Annie Mokaraka, a 19-year-old student at Unitec, thought both the hikoi and Mrs Turia's planned party were "cool" because they were uniting Maori people.

Maxine Edmonds, a New Lynn grandmother and former Labour supporter, felt sorry for her people when Prime Minister Helen Clark found time for Shrek the sheep on Monday but refused to meet 20,000 Maori two days later.

Among Maori and some Pakeha, Helen Clark is paying the price for the sale by previous Governments of state forests and other assets.

Vicky Reti, a 39-year-old Northcote mother, says putting the foreshore into "Crown ownership", as proposed in a bill introduced to Parliament on Thursday, would allow ministers to sell it.

A small minority of Pakeha surveyed supported the hikoi.

North Shore teenagers Debbie Hilbron and Rebekah Shaw walked with it over the Auckland Harbour Bridge because they thought Maori foreshore rights would stop sales to immigrants.

"It's better than the Asians having the seabed," Ms Shaw said.

Other Pakeha were worried that the hikoi and Mrs Turia's proposed party were signs of worsening race relations.

"We are heading down a path of apartheid if we are not careful," warned Christine Fitzpatrick, 38, a credit manager from Mission Bay.

But the dominant view, expressed by Whangaparaoa electrician Richard Gore who drove past the hikoi on the harbour bridge, was that the march was "blown out of proportion" by the media.

Said Henderson mother Arlene Tracey, 48: "I'm not really interested in it. It's just pathetic."

Almost half of the 54 non-Maori in our sample supported the compromise position in the bill which declares that the foreshore and seabed are owned by the Crown, but that Maori groups can get recognition from the courts of their customary rights to use certain foreshore areas for activities such as collecting shellfish.

"Fair enough. Maori shouldn't miss out," said Kay Collins, 52, a delivery worker in Putaruru.

A sizeable minority of Pakeha felt Maori should not have any special rights to any parts of the foreshore.

"Sure, the Crown has it, but why should they have to consult with others?" said Whenuapai rest-home owner Don Watkins, 59.

"Everybody in New Zealand has equal rights to utilise the assets of the country."

Loren Patolo, a 34-year-old Henderson chef, was disturbed that a group of Maori had ordered him off a beach near Ninety Mile Beach three weeks ago because they said they owned it.

"No one should own it outright. You can't go round claiming the sea."

And no one in our sample, Maori or Pakeha, said that anyone should be able to exclude people from a beach.

"I grew up by a beach. I never thought it belonged to anyone," said Papamoa-born Nikki Wineera, 28.

The Government's stand against the hikoi reassured many Pakeha that it has found, as former cook Trish McNab put it on Queen St, "a good compromise".

Our sampling did not find a lot of fear or anger.

Labour may have lost Maori support. But it knows that on election night it will need more Pakeha votes to win again.

Foreshore issues explained

What is meant by the foreshore and seabed?

The dispute concerns the "wet" area between the high and low tide marks and the permanently covered seabed.

Is coastal land affected?

No. Existing title to private land adjoining the foreshore will be protected. About 10 per cent of coastal land is owned by Maori.

What does the legislation do?

It asserts Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed - guaranteeing public access - and prevents the Maori Land Court granting freehold title to iwi claiming customary ownership.

What is the Government promising in return?

Maori who can establish customary use rights, such as shellfish gathering exclusive to an iwi, will be able to take part in coastal management decision-making. Maori can also seek customary rights orders to protect traditional activities.

Why was the legislation introduced?

The Court of Appeal last June ruled that eight iwi could ask the Maori Land Court to grant freehold title to the foreshore and seabed in the Marlborough Sounds. The ruling threatened the assumption that only the Crown ultimately owns the foreshore and seabed.

Why is there so much opposition to the bill?

Maori lose the ability to gain freehold title to foreshore land where they have proven customary title. Some opponents say it amounts to land confiscation, that Maori never ceded ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Opposition MPs say it gives Maori more rights than non-Maori.