Editorials 11 May 2010
May 11th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald looks at the Tuhoe negotiations:
At the best of times, reaching a comprehensive settlement over Waitangi claims is a delicate and tricky matter. But for a number of reasons the Tuhoe negotiations are proving especially difficult, and not just because some people in the National Government are becoming increasingly worried that their party is earning a reputation among voters for conceding too much to the Maori Party. …
But what makes the Tuhoe claim especially difficult is that the tribe is seeking a major concession that departs radically from precedents set in other Waitangi settlements. After two years of negotiations, Tuhoe remains adamant that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of its agenda.
If the Government were to concede, the resulting settlement would go far beyond any similar previous arrangements in which iwi have obtained significant areas of Department of Conservation land only to return them immediately as part of the deal. For instance, Ngai Tahu gave Aoraki/Mt Cook back to the nation after its settlement.
At a practical level, the Tuhoe claim seems to envisage something similar inasmuch as it promises that public access to some of the country’s most beautiful land would not be compromised in any way. But, importantly, it goes much further in aiming to take over the ownership and financial management of the land from the department after a 10-year transition period.
Given the justice of its claim, there is no question that Tuhoe is in line for major concessions and a payment that will be close to the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements of $170 million each. All the most recent historical research suggests the Tuhoe people were treated exceptionally harshly and that they are owed a full apology and generous compensation.
Tuhoe was always going to be the most challenging negotiation.
The Dom Post says Jim Anderton must choose between Mayor and MP:
Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton is a man untrammelled by self-doubt.
In a political career that stretches back 45 years to his days on Manukau City Council, he has been a member of four political parties and fallen out with virtually every high-profile figure he has worked with. Never does it appear to have occurred to him that he could be in the wrong.
So true.
Hence it comes as no surprise that Mr Anderton believes he can perform the roles of MP for Wigram and Christchurch mayor at the same time. He is mistaken.
They are both fulltime positions. One is based in Christchurch; the other is split between Christchurch and Wellington. Both carry fulltime salaries.
Anderton will earn a total of just over $400,000 (including super and allowance) or over $7,500 a week doing both jobs.
Christchurch ratepayers are paying good money to be represented by a mayor who devotes his energies to advancing the city’s interests. He cannot perform that role if he is spending several days a week in Wellington.
Taxpayers are paying good money to Mr Anderton to represent the interests of his electorate in Parliament. He cannot perform that role from the mayoral chambers.
One could clone Saint Jim.
However, it is not Parliament’s role to serve as a safety net for politicians who would like new jobs but are not sure whether they are going to get them.
If Mr Anderton wins the Christchurch mayoralty in the October local body elections, he should resign from Parliament. In fact, he should give thought to resigning ahead of those elections, or at least take unpaid leave for the duration of the campaign, as many other candidates for public office are obliged to do.
Just as he will not be able to represent Wigram’s interests in Parliament if he becomes mayor, so he will not be able to do so on the campaign trail.
Saint Jim has a private members bill that requires an MP to resign from Parliament if they contest a by-election. Yet he thinks he should be able to contest a Mayoral election as an MP.
The Press looks at the UK:
For the Lib Dems, electoral reform is at the top of their wishlist in any deal, whether it be a formal coalition or the sort of support arrangements common in New Zealand, with either Cameron’s party or Labour’s Gordon Brown.
This stance is not surprising given last week’s disproportionate election result. While the Lib Dems got 23 per cent of the votes cast, which was a disappointment following polls showing them at abound 30 per cent at one point, they won about 200 fewer seats than Labour, which gained 29 per cent of the vote. At the other end of the scale, the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote, but won about 47 per cent of the seats.
These sorts of outcomes are as palpably unfair and undemocratic as was the unreformed voting system in New Zealand, and Nick Clegg should hold firm to his party’s proportional representation policy as he talks to Cameron and Brown.
And the ODT:
The election result has presented Mr Clegg with choices: going into government with the old Conservative foe, risking alienating many in his own party ranks; or throwing in his lot with Mr Brown and a governing coalition otherwise comprising a number of smaller independents, the chief danger of this being the perception of Labour, a distant second in the poll, as tarnished.
This could work against any subsequent referendum on electoral reform, thus defeating the chief purpose of such an alliance.
The markets, already spooked by Greece, have shown their impatience.
Mr Clegg’s role as “king-maker” – one he might have formerly anticipated with some eagerness – has been served up by the voting public along with a generously sized poisoned chalice.
We await the outcome with fascination.
May 11th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Afraid to disappoint – Tuhoe won’t be the most challenging Treaty negotiation – Ngapuhi and the far north will be.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Tuhoe have always regarded themselves as aloof from the Crown (if not entirely separate) as I understand it. Didn’t sign the Treaty and undefeated at the end of the NZ Wars? Perhaps someone with a bit better history of the NI could assist.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I’ve had enough already… Maori grievances will be never ending… Now its became tribe against tribe.
Vote:Anderton piss off you old fool… have some dignity.
It looks like we had MMP under FPP all the time… we just needed a hung parliament like they have in Birtain to see it work.
May 11th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
GPT1 you are right re Tuhoe, but check out what Ngapuhi’s ‘bottom lines’ are. Will be a challenge for the Crown and of course the Harawira’s are involved… need I say more?
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
An interesting op ed article in the NZ Herald today desribing the implications of the comanagement (Tainui and the Govt.) of the Waikato River. Not mentioned in the article is the ONE MILLION dollars per year (for 30 years) that Tainui will receive for their co-operation (to keep TUKU in underpants). This is just more ‘Danegeld’, or ‘tribute’. A tax being paid to a group as the price of peace.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
So now that ’smile and wave’ has pulled Te Urewera of the negotiating table, theres not a fuck of a lot left to give Tuhoe back for the theft of their lands and coast. Money is piss poor compensation, but what else is there ?
sad fucken state of affairs !!!
authorities falsely accused Tūhoe of involvement in the killing of missionary Karl Volkner in the Volkner Incident and confiscated the iwi’s fertile lands. Tūhoe lost 5700ha of land on its northern border from a total of 181,000ha of land confiscated by the Grey government from Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa. The Crown took Tūhoe’s only substantial flat, fertile land and their only access to the coast. The Tūhoe people retained only harsh, more difficult land, setting the scene for later famines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C4%81i_T%C5%ABhoe
Surely they’re gonna have to buyback freehold title on confiscated fertile land and give it back, cos the last thing you want is to rile Tuhoe up. Those fuckers are crazy staunch.
oh and who’s pickin Tame Iti, the most visible of Tuhoe activists will walk on the charges of terrorism. I’m picking, given his history of challenging performance art, his defense will be “research and development for another performance”
I remember going to one of his art installations in Taneatua in 98. There was a heap of ‘burning’ cars on both sides of the road upended and half buried in the ground scrawled with graffitti and the welcoming sign said ” trespassers will be eaten” it was awe inspiring !!!
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
The big chunk of change Tuhoe got from a share of the Treelords settlement (worth at least $500 million) has no bearing on more claims.
Vote:Let’s face it, there will be no end to these , mostly, bullshit claims. Bring back Don.
May 11th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
If it were up to me, all treaty settlements would cease forthwith, the Waitangi tribunal and every government department dependent on it would be disestablished, and all incidences of the word “Maori” would be deleted from the NZ statute.
Bill.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
The UN declaration says………
It really said national are a bunch of idiots who think that they know what they’re doing but don’t
if the tainui can have the waikato river why can’t tuhoe have a forest.
they are playing to different groups and will anger all
fairness is the only way to keep people happy long term
this is the hypocrisy that starts wars.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Hmmm. I remember not long ago (couple of year?) amateur video on TV of people being turned back on public roads by highly aggressive enforcers of the Tuhoe Nation, and the Police declining to intervene. The reality of this aside, the perception was pretty, eh, memorable.
I suspect the PM’s got his high-quality middle-NZ political radar on and has no intention of handing a national park or any other lump of NZ over to people that are perceived as wanting non-Tuhoe out of their land.
Not saying it’s fair or anything else, but the reality is that it’s back in Tuhoe hands to convince the rest of us that their ownership of the Ureware would not translate to their control of our access to the Urewera.
Vote:May 11th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Check this out re UK elections.
http://www.dracos.co.uk/scribblings/sun-2010-05-11/
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Yes V, the British – or rather the English – may be about to discover what we kiwi’s have known for a decade: That factions rule coalition governments, where said factions have influence in policy making that is disproportionate to their level of voter support
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 7:43 am
Tarian Turia : Tribes Treaty Claims 1.5% of what was taken. Settlements can’t be full and final.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/2008/09/05/waatea_news
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Pollywog Says:
“Those fuckers are crazy staunch.”
Vote:….
ah but also given to “exaggerated rhetoric” and Keith Locke knew the arrestees in the Urewera raids and said he would be happier in their company than many of the MP’s in parliament, so you’re worrying for nothing.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:36 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675265.stm
OMG! phil is going to have an anuerism!
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 8:57 am
“I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa.’
Vote:http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/more-sophisticated-era-under-te-tiriti-o-waitangi