Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 4, 1 April 1997 — The injustice of H.B. 2207 [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The injustice of H.B. 2207

I am devoting my eolumn to Rep. David Pendleton's (R-Kailua-Kāne'ohe) speech on the floor of the House in opposition to HB2207. Pendleton's speech follows: "Recently the Hawai'i House of Representatives did something of whieh it should be ashamed; it passed H.B. 2207. I was

and am strongly opposed to H.B. 2207 because it does a grave injustice to the Hawahan people and is an affront to all who reside in Hawai'i. House Bill 2207 is first objectionable because it sets out to inventory all lands subject to the public trust in a one-year period. Nearly 1.2 million acres are in the public trust and are currently inventoried using an arcane and useless system. Basically, we all need to know of and agree on all the property and ineome arising from the ceded lands. A single year is hopelessly inadequate for this important and critical inventory. We should not underwrite a hurried job whieh ean only lead to further disputes, laek of trust, and expensive litigation. House Bill 2207 is also objectionable because it will significantly limit the "revenues" from the public trust. The Federal Government transferred ("ceded") lands to the State of Hawai'i with the express provision that the State was to, in part, hold such lands in trust for the betterment of the Hawaiian people. After years of dispute, the Legislature in 1990 (Act 304) decided that OHA should receive 20% of the pubhc trust revenue derived from proprietary government revenue. Unfortunately, litigation had to be pursued to eompel the State of Hawai'i to acknowledge the actions of the Legislature. The litigation was resolved in favor of OHA. Now that Act 304 has been consistently interpreted to really mean what it says, that is, entitling OHA to 20% of the public trust revenues, the Legislature is proposing to take back promises made in 1990. In 1990 the State promised 20% of the qualified pubhc trust revenue, but now that it has been forced to own up to its promises, it wants to lower that 20% and eaneel the existing debt, retroactively denying OHA all that OHA has not received since the promise was made in 1990. Since its inception in 1978, OHA has never received what it has been promised in the Constitution and in successive laws. House Bih 2207 continues this shameful pattern. It limits the size of the entire "pie," by decreasing the definition of public trust land, then limits the definition of "revenues," and then finally caps the contribution to OHA. As important as the internal problems and contradictions in House Bill 2207, including the hurried inventory, are the troubling symbolic ramifications. OHA was established in 1978 and represents the manifestation of a vision to redress a century of neglect. Unfortunately, the State has made a lot of promises to OHA whieh it has not kept, and House Bill 2207 is the latest, and perhaps most drastic, action to go back on the State's promises. The message sent by passing House Bill 2207 could not be more clear: OHA, and the Hawaiian people, will not be treated fairly by the State of Hawai'i. Litigate if you must, protest if you must, but if you accomplish anything, even if you win in a court of law, the State will take it away from you in the end. Is this the message we wish to send to the keiki of Hawai'i? As for me, I will have no part in sending such a message. For the forgoing reasons, I am strongly opposed to this bill and will eonūnue to work in opposition to House Bill 2207. We must never forget our State's motto: Ua mau ke ea o ka 'āina i ka pono." Keale: Representatives Ezra Kanoho and Bertha Kawakami voted "kanalua" (counted as yes). Hermina Morita opposed the bill. 1

Trustee, Kaua'i and NLihau