Essay: Land dispute over Marlborough Sounds

Land disputes are one of the most prominent sources of conflict in man’s history. He has warred over them since the beginning of his existence, clashing violently with his own kind in order to maintain the possession of what he has claimed as his. Our distant past shows us thousands of examples of this, and in the same manner, our modern day displays a disaccord of the same issues. Thirteen years ago in New Zealand, it was the Marlborough Sounds, a “collection of ancient sunken river valleys filled with the waters of the Pacific Ocean”, that was the object of such a disagreement. The Māori, who were the indigenous peoples of New Zealand before the country was occupied by the British, made the assertion that they had a rightful claim to the title of the strip and the land thus belonged to them. Nonetheless, the New Zealand government had dissimilar ideas as to who the land should be affiliated with. For the following eight years, the instituted government of New Zealand and the native Maori would dispute the true ownership of the valley in a string of political jabs and parries that would leave one party the victor and the other defeated.
June 19th, 2003 was the beginning of this decade long squabble. It was on this day that the New Zealand’s Court of Appeal ruled on Ngati Apa v Attorney General, a case centered around an earlier application that had been made out to the Māori Land Court entreating that “the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds, extending the limits of New Zealand’s territorial sea” be labeled as Māori customary land in accordance with the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act of 1993. While the Māori Land Court sought to deliberate on concern that had been brought before them, they were overruled by New Zealand’s High Court which carried it to the bed of the Court of Appeal. It was here that several rulings were made in correspondence to the Maori’s inquiry and such can be placed in the subsequent list:
1. “The definition of ‘land’ in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 did not necessarily exclude foreshore and seabed”;
2. “The title vested in the Crown was radical title which was not inconsistent with native title”;
3. Various Acts had influence over but did not extinguish property rights;
4. The Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine “an investigation of the title to the land … under s 132 and an order determining the relative interests of the owners of the land”
This ruling only allowed the Māori the right to seek an establishment of greater significance in the disagreement. While it seemed extremely unlikely that any further inquiry into the matter would actually result in ‘full, exclusive ownership’ for the Māori people, the last two rulings gave the tribes hope that the opportunity was available for them to claim entitlement to the entire coastline of the Marlborough Sounds through the means of the Māori court. This hopeful prospect did not go unnoticed, however. The possibility that the Māori’s claim might be successful created a certain hostile resentment in many branches of New Zealand’s society, as the country had a powerful tie with the public entry to all beaches and watercourses. Suddenly, this tradition was under attack.  Just as the Māori struck in order to reclaim what they saw as their property, the government of New Zealand struck back. The Prime Minister, in order to quell the people’s anxieties, later declared that the government would “legislate to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed.”
In addition to the fears of the people, the New Zealand government was also condemned by its opposition: Don Brash and the National Party. In a stark juxtapose to Te Ope Mana a Tai, the National Party maintained that the government’s (Labour Party’s) proposals were unproportioned in their bias in the favor of the Māori peoples, for while the government’s plan did indeed “vest ownership in the state, they also incorporated provision for Māori to be consulted over matters relating to the foreshore and seabed.” The National Party dissented that Māori were to be given too much control of what was fundamental to the very cornerstone of the country: the waterways. The reality that the government was giving such monumental rights to the Māori tribes over and above those originally held by New Zealanders themselves caused a tremulous stir in both the country’s society and politics.
Not only was the National Party dissatisfied with this outcome, but as was the Māori population. Once the Government’s policy model was released, the Waitangi Tribunal went into an urgent review of the policy, soon calling for a hearing of the act. This hearing then occurred over a period of a week in late January of 2004, and a report was broadcasted almost a month later. The tribunal’s criticism was sharp, issuing a complete condemnation of the Crown’s approach. However, the government’s retort was just as stinging as they charged the tribunal with “implicitly” rejecting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Although pressed on all sides from both the National Party and the Māori, the New Zealand government continued to move forward with its legislation, proclaiming that its “middle way” was the only way to resolve the land dispute with the satisfaction of everyone ensured. Yet, no one was in fact satisfied and criticism of the government intensified to the point where the Labour Party began to lose ground in the people’s opinion polls. During this time, Tariana Turia, a junior minister for the Labour Party, left her post and took up the torch for the Māori in opposition to her own party’s legislation. It was then On 5 May 2004, a hikoi composed of more than 15,000 New Zealanders arrived on the doorsteps of Wellington in support of Turia’s decision to contest the government’s regulation.
After being witness to the amassing of people in support of Turia’s decision, she and her allies, believing that it was opportune for an independent Māori political channel to emerge, established the new Māori Party. Yet, even in spite of this, on 18 November, 2004, the New Zealand government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which affirmed that Marlborough Sands belonged to the Crown (Māori could, however, request for “guardianship” of certain expanses of the coast).
For an entire year, the Foreshore and Seabed Act remained legal in its entirety, but Turia and the supporters of the Māori would not bow to the legislation. After assistance was requested by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to survey the Act, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial released a statement on March 12th, 2005 asserting that the Foreshore and Seabed Act discriminated against the Māori people by snuffing out even the chance of instituting a Māori customary title over Marlborough Sands. Tariana Turia and her party made this out to be a significant win for their side, although the statement did not prompt any real change in the government policy.
The opposition did not end there. Continued calls for repeals rang out from the Māori Party until 2010, almost eight years later, the new Prime Minister, John Key, announced that he would be proposing the repeal of the Act and a replacement of it with the Marine and Coastal Area Act in 2011. Not only did this new Act still guarantee free public access of the coast, but it also addressed to fundamental rights violated by the former legislation: the right to access justice through the courts and the property rights of the stretches of land along the ocean. The Māori people could finally claim possession of lands that had belonged to their tribes for hundreds of years.
Although this new Act seemed to satiate both sides of the dispute for the coastal land, no one was truly happy with the outcome. The Māori argued that the legislation was a scam as essentially no Maori groups would meet the requirements for the right to coastal title (occupation of the land since 1840). Others, such as the Coastal Coalition, still believed that the Act endangered New Zealanders’ free access to their coveted coasts.
When all things are finally considered, though the land dispute over Marlborough Sands ended with a definitive passage of legislation despite two warring sides, no side really considered themselves a victor. However, the cries of the Māori for the possession of their native land was heard in a way that shook the very government of New Zealand.