On The Nation: Marama Fox and Dion Tuuta

Youtube clips from the show are available here.

Headlines:

Te Ohu Kai Moana chief executive Dion Tuuta says the Government has never offered compensation for property rights that would be lost by the formation of the Kermadecs Ocean Sanctuary, and he ruled out accepting any compensation

Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox says her party was ready to abandon its agreement with the National Government, if the Government refused to move on plans to form the sanctuary

Tuuta says the Kermadecs issue is more serious than the Foreshore and Seabed dispute, because it involves taking existing property rights

Lisa Owen: Well, when John Key announced plans for a huge ocean sanctuary surrounding the Kermadec Islands, a measure to protect a rich marine environment, he probably didn’t expect to be locked in a legal battle with the Maori fisheries trust Te Ohu Kaimoana, or to be staring down the barrel of a Maori Party defection. But the dispute surrounding the sanctuary is now being likened to the foreshore and seabed issue that led to the formation of the Maori Party. So where to next? I’m joined by the Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox and the chief executive of Te Ohu Kaimoana, Dion Tuuta. Good morning to you both.
Marama Fox: Morning.
Dion Tuuta: Kia ora.
If I can start with you, Mr Tuuta. How has it got to this?
Tuuta: It’s got to this because the Crown basically refused to talk to its treaty partner. Somebody came up with an idea to do something which affected Maori rights and went off and decided to do it without considering that that might actually have a material impact on Maori. And we’ve objected to that.
So how would you say that Environment Minister Nick Smith has handled this?
Tuuta: I’d say he’s handled it poorly, yeah. He had an opportunity to come and talk to us before proceeding down this path. He didn’t do that. The discussions that we’ve had since that have not resulted in an outcome that we’d have liked, so—
So what? Are they bullying you, steamrolling you? How would you characterise it?
Tuuta: That’s a good question. I would… Minister Smith wants what he wants, and that will come at the expense of Maori rights. We’re not prepared to put up with that.
Mrs Fox, do you think that’s fair criticism of a government that you’re supporting?
Fox: Yeah, absolutely. If you look back at the history of Nick Smith in working with Maori rights, we’ve had to bring this back to his attention on a number of occasions. Started off with the Special Housing Areas in Auckland, where we were just going to ride over the top of Maori interests in the area. They then got together because of our prodding. Here again we’ve got Te Ohu Kaimoana riding over the interests of Maori, riding right over the top of treaty rights, taking no consideration of consultation. We brought it back again to the attention of the government when they first announced it. Hence we’ve got these guys, the ability to try and get round the table.
So is this on Nick Smith? Is this breakdown on Nick Smith?
Fox: I think it shows the— You have to ask yourself, ‘Is there a trend there of moving without consultation, of thinking you’re doing the right thing, so therefore carrying on without any consideration for other pieces of law that are in there?’ Look, we voted the first reading with the sanctuary bill on the proviso that they get round the table with Te Ohu Kaimoana. And because Te Aupouri and Ngati Kuri, who are the closest mana whenua groups to the islands, had got a couple of seats on there. But, you know, as these negotiations have unfolded, we’ve just seen a stubbornness by the minister that is not going to bring about a good resolution.
Because the thing is the minister says that you’re overstating the consequences of this sanctuary to Maori.
Tuuta: Yeah, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? I mean, people who take other people’s rights away will always say that this doesn’t affect them, this is not a—
But he says you haven’t taken any fish from there, so what’s the problem?
Tuuta: Well, that’s irrelevant. He’s right; we haven’t fished there. But our treaty rights also include the right to develop into the future, so the decision about whether we fish there today, tomorrow or a hundred years from now. That’s our decision, not to be tampered with by Nick Smith’s or any government without our approval.
Fox: Yeah, and we support Dion and Te Ohu Kaimoana over this, because this is about basic treaty rights. That treaty settlement of the fisheries, that Sealord deal, was hard fought and hard pressed; the first of its kind.
So you don’t think they’re being melodramatic about the consequences?
Fox: Absolutely not. If you can do this to a fisheries settlement or to a treaty settlement at this time, you could do it to any treaty settlement, and every Maori leader in the country who is currently negotiating or has negotiated treaty settlement is very concerned about this, and it is serious.
Tuuta: And we should make it clear that Te Ohu Kaimoana represents all iwi throughout the country who have fisheries interests, and we have the support of all iwi, unanimous support.
So how bad is this compared to the foreshore and seabed? Because that’s the comparison. So how bad is it compared to that?
Tuuta: I think on a matter of principle, this is worse. The foreshore and seabed was about the right to go to court to test your rights as to whether you had ownership interests. This is actually taking away a property right that actually exists. So this is actually a confiscation in my opinion of an existing right. It is a property right that Maori have which is actually being taken away.
Mrs Fox, they think it’s worse. They think it’s worse than the foreshore and seabed. Maori MPs walked over that and formed the party that you are now part of.
Fox: That’s right.
So if people think it’s worse, are you prepared to walk over this? Seriously.
Fox: Here’s the thing that you need to be aware of. In order to vote against the foreshore and seabed, Tariana had to cross the floor. We could vote against this bill tomorrow and not have to do anything to do that. We have the independent right to do that. But this is more serious than that. We could vote against. They’d carry on, and they’d ride over the top of the treaty settlement. So saying that we would seriously consider walking away from a relationship agreement with the government is a serious consequence if we can’t get back to the table. But we’re not jumping straight to that. We want to take the opportunity to go through the steps and see if we can’t get into the breach that has been caused, the chasm between Te Ohu Kaimoana and the minister and see if we can’t bring them back to the table.
They can pass this without you, but they still need you, so arguably, you are at your most influential now. You are at peak influence, so in order for you have any leverage, presumably, you need to walk away now.
Fox: In order for us to have any leverage, we need to get to the table. If we walk away now, there is no leverage. We’re just gone. And then the government will carry on without us, and it will be a tenuous situation until they get to the next election.
It’s a matter of principle, though, isn’t it, as well?
Fox: That’s right, but we’re not going to throw ourselves under the bus at the very first hurdle. We need to go to the table and see if we can’t come up with a deal. Now, here’s the prime minister himself.
Just hang on a minute. I want to know if you’re happy with that stance. Do you think that’s good enough?
Tuuta: I want the Maori Party to support its iwi constituents, and that’s something that is always done, all right? In this instance, Te Ohu Kaimoana, on behalf of iwi, is saying we want our rights protected. The Maori Party is saying that they’re working as hard as they can to help us get those rights protected, right?
Fox: Yeah, walking out of the relationship agreement with the government will not protect the rights. They’ll go ahead and do it without us.
So how close this week were you to walking away? Because it’s been reported that you were off to consult with your party members until John Key called you, and then things cooled. Is that right?
Fox: We were definitely ready to walk from the relationship agreement if we couldn’t get some sort of confirmation from the government that there is room to move here.
Hang on. I want to be clear on this. Because the government has put the legislation on hold.
Fox: That’s right.
So is that the consequence of you saying unless you put it on hold, we’re going to walk?
Fox: Absolutely.
So you laid that down?
Fox: No, no, no. It was a quick moving feast of a day. So we didn’t go to the government and try and blackmail them over this; we said in a phone call let’s just step back. We’ll hold things off - that was their offer – and let’s get round the table and see what we can do. We’re willing to do that. We need to make sure that we can get the rights protected. Walking away from the table won’t protect those rights. But let’s be clear – we absolutely are not against a sanctuary. We absolutely protect the right for kaitiakitanga and conservation. This is not about not having a sanctuary. This is absolutely, for us, about riding over the top of Treaty rights already guaranteed in the settlement.
Okay. So then the question becomes how you move forward from here. Now, you offered the government, in essence, a moratorium on fishing in that sanctuary for ten years, and it wasn’t good enough for them, right?
Tuuta: Correct. To be clear, what we offered was the ability to go back to iwi and consult with them, because they are their property rights, around a voluntary shelving of the right to go fishing, effectively, call it a moratorium, you’re right. And that was rejected. What Minister Smith wanted is he wanted us to legislate that away, the inability for us to do it. We’re not giving up our rights. It’s our choice to voluntarily shelve them.
So did the government offer to pay you compensation at that point?
Tuuta: We never sought compensation, right?
No, but did they offer it to you?
Tuuta: They’ve never offered compensation, but we’ve never asked for it. We didn’t negotiate this settlement in 1992 just to sell our rights away 25 years later. So no, they’ve never offered us any of that sort of compensation, but we’ve never sought it.
So you say that you’re not prepared to sell your rights away. Would any level of compensation be enough, or do you absolutely rule out selling back that right to the government?
Tuuta: That idea has never been put to us in the past. It’s certainly not a position that we’ve taken in negotiations to date.
Would you consider it, though? Or would you rule it out totally?
Tuuta: At the moment, what we want is we want the right to develop our fisheries in the future if we so decide. At the moment, I would rule that out.
Okay. And what about gifting your rights back to the government in some kind of arrangement?
Tuuta: That was something that Minister Smith proposed to us, that we gift our rights back. Again, we actually want our rights. We want the right to be able to use those things into the future if we so decide, right?
So what is the way forward? Sounds like there’s no way forward.
Tuuta: At the moment, there is no negotiations. So as of Wednesday, negotiations have come to an end. The Prime Minister has made statements about opportunities to move forward. Now the Maori Party is going to broker that for us, and perhaps when the Prime Minister gets back, there’ll be an opportunity to meet.
Marama, is that good enough, just for the handbrake to go on? Is that good enough?
Fox: I think the handbrake indicates a backdown by the government. I think the handbrake absolutely indicates that they believe that this is too important of an issue to just plough on.
Or they’re just waiting for the next election, hoping for a simple majority, they don’t need you, and they go ahead with it.
Fox: Look, we’re not that naïve, Lisa. We would go into this with our eyes wide open to try and broker a deal. Now, here’s what we need to also remember, that these treaty settlements that have been fought, are long, hard-fought for, proven in a tribunal and had legislation over, are the greatest gift to New Zealand of any iwi ever. Because if they are less than 1% of what was taken from Maori at the beginning through colonisation and all the effects of governments, less than 1% of what they should get, everybody who thinks that Maori are getting rich off Treaty settlements has no idea how hard they have fought to do that, and actually, this is the greatest gift and koha to the nation. And then to have to, after all of that, go and then give it back again without any consultation, the government simply have not learned, have not learned from the bad example of the Labour Government, and we need to make sure that we bring this back to the table and help them understand.
Tuuta: To do that would have been basically just an endorsement of the bad behaviour. I mean, poor process, and then to turn around and for Minister Smith to offer us the opportunity to gift it back to fix up his error? We cannot give away our children’s rights on it.
Should the minister lose his job over this?
Fox: I think that’s a question for the government.
What’s your view, though?
Fox: No, I think the government, that’s their business and their question. I have no view either way on that, because for other things, we work very well with the minister on. But this riding over the top of things, to me, it looks like a trend. It looks like they’ve done it in the housing issue last week, taking away property rights; when we had the marathon 18-hour debate earlier, over the special housing areas; here again in the Kermadecs. I think if they continue to do this, then definitely, we will continue to fight harder and harder.
Mrs Fox, potentially, you could lose your job over this, because the Labour Party blew apart over the Foreshore and Seabed.
Fox: Absolutely. We’re always staring down the barrel.
If you don’t get this right.
Fox: Exactly.
If you don’t get this right, potentially, is this not the biggest challenge you may have faced?
Fox: Actually, I think the challenge of housing, of homelessness, of poverty and all of those things are greater challenges.
As Mr Tuuta points out, they are speaking for a lot of Maori here. And if they don’t like how you deal with this…
Fox: Listen, my Facebook page is flooded with people saying, ‘Go after them, Marama. Actually, lots of people go, ‘Walk now, walk now. Don’t even go back to the table.’
But what if you don’t get a result?
Fox: Oh, well, then we will consider the options at that time. Our jobs are always at risk. We work in three-year cycles.
How important is this for the Maori Party to get this right?
Tuuta: To be fair to Marama, the getting the result is getting the Prime Minister back to the table to meet with Te Ohu Kaimoana, right? There’s only so far that the Maori Party can do this.
But there’s nothing the Maori Party can put to them, it seems.
Tuuta: Well, that’s why we’re waiting to see if the Prime Minister actually has anything. As you’ve highlighted, this is just simply a stalling tactic to make things go away. We’re not going away.
But aren’t they the only ones who win in the end out of the stalling?
Fox: Not at all. You know, what does this look like for the government, who have ploughed on a process that has been poorly conceived for what some people have described as a vanity opportunity on the world stage, without going through due process, without going to consultation. Everybody wants a sanctuary, but we could have done this so much better, so much easier if they’d considered the rights of Kiwis, of New Zealanders and of Maori in this process along the way.
All right. We’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining me this morning. We’ll keep watching with interest. A lot to talk about later with our panel.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media