Imposing the market on Maori land

Neoconservatism is a dirty word. Conservatism isn’t inherently bad, but the addition of neo loans a sinister quality. The same principle applies to neoliberalism: yuck in name and wrong in practice. The sinister impression is well suited. Neoliberalism is more than an economic ideology, it’s a political theory too. Shrinking the state, imposing market imperatives and disciple on intellectualism, and supressing unions and other proletariat movements is as economic as it is political.

In poetic irony at its finest, neoliberalism best demonstrates Marx’ law of increasing poverty (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). A 2006 report found that the neoliberal American economy “consistently affords a lower level of economic mobility than all the continental European countries for which data is available” and a comparative report from Victoria University highlights “persistent and widening inequality and increasing concentration of wealth” in New Zealand. With this and more in mind, Maori must exercise caution when applying neoliberal values to Maori land.*

The Minister of Maori Affairs and the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Chris Finlayson) have released an expert discussion document on Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – the Maori Land Act. There’s a lot to like: proposition 1 will transfer more power to engaged owners and reduce the need for the Maori Land Court and proposition 4 recommends that disputes are referred to mediation (in the first instance) rather than the Court.

However, proposition 2 would allow the appointment of an external manager to “administer and develop” underutilised land where the owners are disengaged or unable to be located. That’s not wrong in itself, but shouldn’t the first priority of an external manager be to attempt to engage or locate the proper owners? Isn’t it wrong in principle to have an external manager “utilise” land that she or he has no cultural right to and might be unsure of its purpose? Land might sit idle for a reason (Wahi Tapu, Rahui etc). It seems wrong, in the first instance at least, to blithely assume that idle land must generate an economic return.

The last proposition suggests that only engaged owners with a minimum threshold interest can make decisions in their land. The rationale is to prevent fragmentation of Maori land and streamline decisions. Well, that might make utilisation easier, but it seems wrong in principle. Owners have a whakapapa right to the land, no matter the size of their shareholding. After all, some owners can possess more shares than others through accidents of history rather than legitimate claim to the land. In an effort to encourage utilisation, the proposal could throw legitimate owners out with the bath water.

On the whole, the report speaks a lot of sense. I’d like to see most of it implemented, but I’m wary of the emphasis placed on increased utilisation without a proper discussion about the reasons for idle land and the consequences of utilising it. There’s a careful line between imposing market imperatives on Maori land and destroying the mauri of the land:

"Neoliberalism encourages the privatisation of Maori communal assets, the commodification of Maori land (and) the extension of market forces into Maori areas previously untouched"

Link
 

*For further reading here is a semi-recent discussion on neoliberalism from Paul Buchanan. Also see the Wikipedia entry for a neutral (albeit undercooked) outline. 

Williams CJ?

Apparently one or two appointments will be made to the Supreme Court within the next year. I have no idea who will be appointed but I would like to see Justice Joe Williams considered. Williams is Maori, but that is not the sole reason why he should be appointed. Appointments should be based on merit and merit alone. However, were a situation to arise where one has two equally qualified candidates, one of whom happens to be Maori, then a compelling case exists to appoint the Maori. As far as I am aware Williams is a well respected legal mind. As former Chief Judge of the Maori Land, former head of the Waitangi Tribunal, the first Maori law lecturer at Victoria and current High Court Justice, Williams is most certainly qualified.

From my quick research into William’s background I think it is fair to say he is undeniably Maori in outlook, yet conscious and accepting of the fact that Maori must operate under a Pakeha framework. He is realistic. I would classify Williams as something of a tino rangatiratanga advocate, however not in an ideological sense. He does not believe in Maori self government and all those other unrealistic expectations and desires. Rather he believes in the pragmatic notion of tino rangatiratanga – enhanced wellbeing as opposed to self rule.

Ultimately, the decision on who to appoint sits with the Attorney-General. I am fairly confident Justice Williams will not be overlooked by either Chris Finlayson or, if Labour is in power, David Parker. It is something of an anomaly that in New Zealand, in 2011 might I add, that Maori are absent in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.