Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Paeroa Declaration On The Foreshore And Seabed

BACKGROUNDING THE PAEROA DECLARATION.


- Moana Jackson.

INTRODUCTION:

This Paper gives some background to the Declaration on the foreshore and seabed that was issued at the Paeroa hui of Iwi and Hapu on Saturday, July 12, 2003.

It also contains explanations of the terminology used in the Declaration and answers some misconceptions already raised in the media and by various politicians.

It is based upon transcripts of the discussions at the hui which led to the Declaration as well as the written submissions received from those Iwi and Hapu that were not able to be present. The Declaration itself is a synthesis of the views of the Hui.

THE DECLARATION:

Resolution One:

The foreshore and seabed belong to the Hapu and Iwi under our tino rangatiratanga.

This resolution simply reaffirms that the foreshore and seabed have always been under the jurisdiction of Iwi and Hapu as part of the authority of tino rangatiratanga.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledged that jurisdiction as part of the “exclusive and undisturbed” possession of lands and taonga etc.


Resolution Two:

We reaffirm our tupuna rights to the foreshore and seabed as whenua rangatira.

This resolution recognises that in Maori law and philosophy the foreshore, the seabed, and the land are all interrelated.

The term “tupuna rights” acknowledges that the rights are derived and take legitimacy from ancestral precedents. It also acknowledges that they have never been relinquished (as the Court of Appeal in fact also decided).

Resolution Three:

We direct all Maori MPs to oppose any legislation which proposes to extinguish or redefine customary title or rights.

This resolution simply urges Maori MPs to support the wishes of Maori people as clearly expressed at the hui. It is directed quite deliberately at all Maori MPs, and not just members of government.

Perhaps more importantly it acknowledges that the government authority to extinguish or redefine Iwi and Hapu rights is itself an assumed one with precedents based solely on the power taken by colonising States to dispossess Indigenous Peoples.

Resolution Four:

We support all Hapu and Iwi who wish to confirm their rights in the Courts.

This resolution is obviously a recognition of the rangatiratanga of each Hapu and Iwi to pursue the issue in the way it thinks best.

However it also acknowledges that the government attempts to pass legislation vesting ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown effectively denies Iwi and Hapu access to the Courts – they deny the due process of its own law.

Resolution Five:

The government must disclose its proposals to whanau, Hapu and Iwi immediately, whose decision to accept or reject will be final.

This resolution arose from concern that not only was the government’s original decision to legislate made without reference to Maori, but all subsequent policy proposals have involved only minimal Maori participation.

It was also a recognition that discussions with government Maori MPs was not a Treaty-based dialogue but simply the Crown talking to itself.

Resolution Six:

The final decision on the foreshore and seabed rests exclusively with whanau, Hapu and Iwi.

This resolution was simply a reaffirmation that decision-making on this issue is properly an exercise of rangatiratanga.

It was also a signal that Crown appointed functionaries did not have the authority to make such decisions and that while other Maori bodies such as the New Zealand Maori Council or Te Ohu Kaimoana might have expertise to offer the final decision had to rest with those to whom the rights belong.

Resolution Seven:

We accept the invitation of Te Tau Ihu to host the next hui.

This resolution acknowledged the need for further work on the issue and also recognised the role that Te Tau Ihu have played as parties in the case heard by the Court of Appeal.

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Is the Declaration a statement denying access of non-Maori to the beaches?

No. It is simply a clear and definitive synthesis of Maori views that the foreshore and seabed have always belonged to Iwi and Hapu.

A declaration of rights in that sense is never a claim to deny access. Indeed even though the claim that Maori would deny access has often been repeated in the last several weeks it is mischievous and dishonest.

What does the term “tupuna rights” mean?

It reflects the fact that the seabed and foreshore are vested in the ancient authority of rangatiratanga. They are part of what may be called a “tupuna title”.

Are they like guardianship rights?

The obligation upon Iwi and hapu to be kaitiaki is part of the tupuna title but kaitiakitanga itself is only a part of the broader authority of rangatiratanga.

Are tupuna rights use rights?

They include the right to use taonga on agreed conditions.

It has been suggested that they are only limited to the use of the resource because Maori had no concept of European-style ownership. However rights never exist in isolation – they must be derived from somewhere and in Maori law they are sourced not in a notion of individual ownership but in the collective authority of rangatiratanga. Without that authority there are no use rights.

Did the Hui have a mandate to make such a Declaration?

In Maori terms it clearly had such a mandate as most Iwi were represented and many of those unable to be present made written submissions.

In spite of the short time available to organise the hui and the limited resources available to do so, the fact that over 1000 people attended is further testament to the validity of the views expressed.

The Acting Prime Minister Jim Anderton has commented that “I don’t take this particular declaration very seriously because I don’t think it has any standing” is simply a gross misrepresentation of Maori realities.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Scoop 3.0: How You Can Help Scoop’s Evolution

Entering into its third decade of operation, the Scoop news ecosystem is set to undergo another phase of transformation and evolution.

We have big plans for 2018 as we look to expand our public interest journalism coverage, upgrade our publishing infrastructure and offer even more valuable business tools to commercial users of Scoop. More>>

 
 

Speaking Of Transport: Public Engagement On Wellington Scenarios

“Our work on possible solutions for Wellington’s transport future is ongoing, but has progressed to the stage where we’re ready to share our ideas with the public and seek their feedback to help guide our next steps...” More>>

ALSO:

Parental Leave: National's Time-Sharing Change Fails

National has proposed a change to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that would allow both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time, if that is what suits them best. More>>

ALSO:

Train Free Thursday: Workers Strike To Defend Terms Of Employment

"They signed up to these conditions a year ago when they got the contract for Wellington's rail services. Now they're trying to increase profits by squeezing frontline workers." More>>

ALSO:

Seclusion: Ombudsman Emphasises Importance Of Monitoring

Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero says that while there have been changes to the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017 to prohibit the use of seclusion, the report is an important reminder of the importance of regular monitoring of schools. More>>

ALSO:

United Future History: "All Good Things Must End"

'We’re extremely proud of what we’ve achieved over the past 15 years, working alongside the government of the day, both National and Labour.' Mr Light told members on Monday. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The TPP Outcome, And The Hobbit Law

Somehow the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal has come lurching back from the dead – and as predicted in this column last week, the member countries gathered in Vietnam have announced a deal in broad principle, shunted aside until a later date the stuff on which they don’t agree, and declared victory. More>>

Agreeing To Differ: Greens Maintain Opposition To TPPA
“The Green Party has long opposed the TPPA. The new proposed deal, which came out of the weekend’s talks, still contains key ISDS concessions to corporations that put our democracy at risk, so our position remains the same,” said Green Party trade spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman. More>>

ALSO:

Monitoring Report: A New Chapter For Children’s Rights In New Zealand?

The Children’s Commissioner is calling on the country to embrace children’s rights to ensure their overall well-being. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election