ISLAND VOICES
Reject the fear of the Akaka bill critics
By Haunani Apoliona
Thurston Twigg-Smith, Earl Arakaki, Sandra Puanani Burgess and their attorney, William Burgess, are doing their best to instill fear in our state ("Passage of Akaka bill would create havoc," April 4).
They are the litigants who, since 2000, individually and collectively have been trying to kill programs that help Hawaiians and force the expenditure of precious Native Hawaiian resources in order to do legal battle in the courts.
They want you, the reader, to be frantically fearful of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (Senate Bill 147), which would extend federal recognition to Native Hawaiians.
Federal recognition is a controversial measure with some in our community. There are those, including Hawaiians, who are unsettled over this important issue. Detractors and opponents use the buzz words "race-based" and "racial discrimination," which is ironic as S. 147 calls for Native Hawaiians to be recognized, similar to American Indians and Alaska natives, as a political entity (an indigenous class of people), not a race. The outcome of this policy would clarify the legal and political relationship the United States has with Native Hawaiians — nothing more, nothing less.
Just like American Indians and Alaska natives, Native Hawaiians lived on our lands and had our own government, long before Western contact. Yet Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous group within the 50 states lacking federal recognition.
Without federal recognition, the efforts in court by these litigants to strip Native Hawaiians of their education, health, housing and small-business development programs will be a step closer to reality. For Native Hawaiians, these social and economic needs will continue, but due to these litigants, all state taxpayers would ultimately be hurt by and bear the burden of the loss of these federally approved and funded programs and services.
It's time for our community to look at the facts about S. 147. The first step is to read it. You can access it on various Web sites, including www.OHA.org.
Nowhere in the bill will you read the dire scenarios painted in Monday's commentary, such as "other unforeseen but drastic changes can be expected."
Nowhere in the bill will you find provisions that dictate there will be tax-free, regulation-free "tribal" businesses that Twigg-Smith, his attorney and fellow plaintiffs claim would cripple local business.
Nowhere in the bill does it say citizens of the new Native Hawaiian governing entity would use state and county infrastructure without paying their full share of taxes, or control water and air quality.
Nowhere in the bill does it say the new governing entity would be immune from lawsuits in state and civil court. The bill makes it clear the new governing entity would follow federal law just like every other resident of the state of Hawai'i. The Native Hawaiian governing entity referred to in the bill is one that would be recognized within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.
The bill specifically does not authorize gambling, but the authors of Monday's commentary find a way to say casinos would be a natural byproduct of the bill.
The argument that all this would happen when the new governing entity is formed is simply not true. The bill would authorize a process for organizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. That task would be a product of Native Hawaiians, delegates and those on the rolls — designing a model for governance to enable social and economic self-sufficiency for Native Hawaiians to become a reality. The positive outcome would be to strengthen all of Hawai'i.
These opponents are promoting fear based on their own personal insecurities and distrust of Native Hawaiians.
Fear, after all, is a powerful force. We saw it before statehood in 1959, and again before the 1978 Constitutional Convention when Con Con delegate H. William Burgess and his fellow delegates voted to propose amendments to the Hawai'i State Constitution that established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We witnessed the courage and conviction to do the right thing by the electorate of Hawai'i, who ratified the amendments. We will witness that support again by the majority in Hawai'i.
During a March 31 briefing at the State Capitol, U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye made the point that the new Native Hawaiian government would be co-equal with other governments, local, state and federal, and would likely focus on duties now performed by current agencies such as OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. In other words, OHA and DHHL would logically transition the mission and responsibility of management of the assets to the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
The senior senator acknowledged the possibility that there are many issues the new governing entity would have to decide, such as judicial jurisdiction. Lost in this debate are the many positive aspects of assigning some of those duties to the new entity. For example, current laws complicate the long-standing hanai tradition in the adoption of Hawaiian children, and a cultural approach to settle this question may come from that Native Hawaiian government.
The sovereignty issue has been drifting far too long. The people of Hawai'i should reject the politics of fear and embrace the opportunities that this bill provides.
Haunani Apoliona is the chairwoman of the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
