Claim on water case of deja vu

TRACY WATKINS
Last updated 07:04 10/07/2012

Relevant offers

Opinion

Outlawing seclusion rooms looks like a simplistic solution to complex issues Andrew Gunn: Prime Minister's inspirational speech on the death of Fidel Castro Duncan Garner: After nearly 3000 days in opposition Little's Labour has lost the 'everyman' The power of three - could Andrew Little's bad week get worse? McCoskrie: Euthanasia - we don't need it William Hoverd: International navy visits - pragmatic benefits and political challenges Jackson: Good to see Maori join struggle at Standing Rock Chris Trotter: Working class vote for their chains The good, the bad and the ugly: the political issues that shaped our MPs performances Editorial: The first "three-strikes" case shows what a poor law this is

Is history repeating itself? John Key's emphatic rejection yesterday of any Maori claim over water rights has faint echoes of the row over the foreshore and seabed nearly a decade ago.

OPINION: In 2003, when the Appeal Court ruled that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction over whether any part of the foreshore and seabed was still Maori customary land, Labour panicked and passed legislation a year later overriding the court. It was spooked by a potential Pakeha backlash at the prospect of Maori claiming ownership over parts of the coastline.

But Prime Minister Helen Clark's response, the infamous Foreshore and Seabed Act, was seen by Maori as an act of bad faith.

The act ultimately led to the birth of the Maori Party and a protest by tens of thousands of Maori on the steps of Parliament.

What started out as an obscure court ruling affecting only a handful of iwi turned instead into a row over wholesale confiscation.

Mr Key's refusal yesterday to countenance any notion that Maori might own our water plays to the same galleries.

And by putting his stake in the ground so early, it also risks courting the same response from Maori, who will cry foul about riding roughshod over due process.

There are also important differences with 2003 - any government is free to ignore the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendations, which are not binding; the Maori Council does not enjoy the wholehearted backing of iwi leaders, many of whom the Government remains in direct negotiation with; and the ramifications of any court finding in favour of Maori claims to owning the water are more far reaching than the ruling over the foreshore and seabed.

But the tribunal hearing and the Government's asset sales have only thrust into prominence an issue which has been bubbling away beneath the surface - the debate over water rights and water use.

Which means Mr Key could have a tiger by the tail, all the same.

Ad Feedback

- Stuff

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content