Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 15, Number 2, 1 Pepeluali 1998 — KILL REP. ED CASE'S "AUTONOMY" BILL [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

KILL REP. ED CASE'S "AUTONOMY" BILL

[?]

by Mahealani Kamauu Executive Director, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation

These are but some of the goals of Rep. Eel Case's Native Hawaiian Autonomy Bill. The bill is the latest in what has been a devastating series of anti-Hawaiian actions at the Iegislature. Last year, forexample, the legislature passed Act 329, giving itself pennission to stall and avoid paying OHA wliai it owed. Legislators are still awaiting the results of a costly (and thus far, losing) court battle whieh it hopes will permanently cut funding to OHA. (OHA is paid less than a tenth of one percent of the state's $6 billion annual budget — less than four inches of a lengtli of yam whieh encircled the Capitol Auditorium more than twice, as demonstrated at a recent OHA meeting there). After years of legal hoop-jumping, Hawaiian Homes beneficiaries were still denied payment for their proven claims. Instead of paying these people. the legislature decided to change the criteria of what kinds of claims were valid and how people should be compensated. Trouble is, only state officiais who opposed the beneficiaries in the earlier process are put in charge with drafting the new criteria, lTiis session the legislature will eonhnue its efforts to regulate cultural practices associated with access and gathering rights. In his latest proposal, Rep. Case * i again takes deadly aim, at point blank range, against Hawaiians. He seeks onee and for all to rid the state of all its trust obligations to Hawaiians. Because these tmst obligations are so inextricably tied to Congressional enactments (1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act; 1959 State Admissions Act,Ij among others), the bill threatens Native Hawaiians' legal status with the federal goveniment as well. The bill would repeal the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, eliminating the Hawaiian Homes program. It would also repeal amendments to tlie State Constitution, eliminating OHA It would get rid of any and all obligations owed by the state to Hawaiians, shifting responsibility to a non-profit corporation run by eiected individuals. But this non-profit would suffer an indignity not usually associated with non-prof-

its elsewhere. It's decisions and every exercise of authorit\' would be subject to legislative approval. The state would also retain control of lands transferred to tlie non-profit. In facL there would be a great diminishment of Hawaiian autonomy, for as things presently stand, OHA is already a semi-autonomous fourtli branch of govemment. It is already vested witli autlioritv to hold and control its own lands. No reasonable person could conclude from reading this bill that Hawaiian autonomy eoukl possiblv be in any way enhanced by its passage. It clearly has a contrary intent. The bill is patronizing and mean in the extreme. Rep.Case has taken it upon himself to solve what he characteiizes as the Hawaiian "problem" by approaching it rather like the way an abusive parent approaches his child. He kicks tlie kid out of the house without support. His excuse is tliat the kid has been a "problem" and wants out anyway. Under the mbric of e u lifting Hawaiians out of their wardship status and helping them get out from under the state (who asked him for help anyway?), Rep. Case puts Hawaiians out witli only the clothes on their backs. His bill offers no guarantees onee Hawaiians are cut loose — only a possibility that the state will allow the non-profit to borrow money ("special purpose revenue bonds") collateralized by the non-profit's own assets. The bill is bmising and unfair in its public policy declaration that the majority of Hawaiians do not I want sovereignty. Where is his factual basis? At this stage, Rep. Case's further avemient as to the majority sentiments of non-Hawaiians— -that they don't want sovereignty eitlier — is not appreciated, ill- j 1 timed and inappropriate. The bill is particularly despicable in its attempts to undennine and eliminale any possibility of achieving reconciliation of historic claims, a declaration of support for whieh is found in Public Law 103-150, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. As every Hawaiian knows, the thmst of claims for whieh reconciliation is sought derives from the 1893 V.

tlieft of Hawaiian land and polilieal sovereignty. At hundreds of gatherings over many decades, Hawaiians liave met to determine for themselves their own path to autonomy, an integral part of whieh requires reconciliation of historic claims. These claims include: • Recognition of a Native Hawaiian govemment with sovereign authority over its land base and surroundingwaters; • A substantiai land and natural resource base eomprised of a refonned Hawaiian Homes program, a fair share of the ceded lands tmst, submerged lands and offshore waters, Kaho'olawe, and other appropriate lands; • Guarantees of water; substantial beach and trails access; fishing, hunting and gathering rights; protection for Native Hawaiian spiritual and cultural practices; protection of cultural and burial sites, a!ongwith associated patrimony; • Appropriate compensation for use of ceded lands and for lands not retumed to Hawaiians. Besides attempting to extinguish Hawaiian claims forever, ffie bill contains other provisions relating to blood quantum and sale of trust lands whieh €ase has nobusinesstoyingwith. For Hawaiians who already have a deep mistrust of the state, Case has now eamed the singular appellation of quintessential state bogeyman. Our office has received a rash of calls and reauests

for close Iegal analysis of the bill. While some may feel it appropriate to do so, I am of the opinion, along with many others whom I respect, that the bill is such an affront to Hawaiians, we should not waste our time. We just need to kill Rep. €ase's abomination. : I'' i

P A I P ADVERTISEMENT